Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.6 Triad GP Amend (2) _V 2 D-COD AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: July 11, 1983 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Triad General Plan Amendment, Livermore EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1 . June 3 , 1983 transmittal letter 2 . June 24 , 1983 , EIR addendum 3 . Summary and Project Description excerpts from Draft EIR RECOMMENDATION: 1'T Determine if comments are appropriate FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The Livermore Planning Department has forwarded the Draft EIR for Triad General Plan Amendment for review and comment . The proposed project includes prezoning the area and annexation to the City of Livermore . The project site is within the Dublin Planning Area for the General Plan and within the proposed Dublin Sphere of Influence . The project is scheduled for review by the Livermore Planning Commission on July 26 , 1983 , and the Livermore City Council in August, 1983 . At its July 5 , 1983 , meeting, the Planning Commission considered this matter and made no recommendation on it . The full Draft EIR is available for review in the Dublin Planning Department office . ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. 9:C COPIES TO: CA ME40RANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 3, 1983 SUBJECT: D raft E.I.R. for Triad General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Unit De it Prezonin Development Perm Adoption,. g 0, Annexation, Planned and Subdivision for 400± acres north of 1-580 between Doolan Canyon and Collier Canyon Roads The City Planning Department is forwarding the subject document for review and comment. The Draft E.I.R. has been scheduled for Planning Commission consideration at their meeting on July 26, 1983, and for the Cit y Council for a meeting a in August 1983.0 Comments on this document should be submitted in writing to this office prior to July 18, 1983. Failure to do so will not preclude your right to testify at the hearing. Written comments and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing will be incorporated into the E.I.R. This Draft E.I.R. will also act as part of the Final E.I.R. unless subs tantive changes are made. Comments on the Draft and replies will be sent to those who comment; therefore, it is requested that you keep this document. The Draft E.I.R. , plus an addendum consisting of comments and responses and any additional information, will constitute the Final E.I.R. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this Draft E.I.R. Respectfully, Howard 14. Nies Planning Director 1'7'TN/wU J' ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 (415)4-19•1000 June 24, 1983 E.I.R. Addendum Triad General Plan Amendment The attached alternate proposal for the text amendment of the Livermore General Plan has been submitted by Triad Systems Corporation. This proposal has been reviewed and it has been established that no additional environmental impacts will be created if the proposal is adopted. This .alternate proposal is hereby incorporated into the Triad General Plan Amendment as Appendix G. Any comments on this addendum should be made before the Planning Commission hearing on July 26, 1983. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this addendum. Howard W. Nies Planning Director MN/wu Attachment R EIVED jtV;,i 2 r i9,g3 CT'f o r= TRIAD Systems Corporation 1252 Orleans Drive Sunnyvale. California 94086 (408) 734-9720 June 21, 1983 - Mr. Howard Nies - Director of Planning City of Livermore 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 Dear Howard: Enclosed you will find recommendations of General Plan changes effecting land in the 10 11'0 slope area. These recommendations were prepared as a result of a joint conference of Triad representatives and advisors and a committee of the Save Our Hills group. Having had the opportunity to review the recommendations, we asked our architects, Werner and Sullivan, to analyze the impact. Their analysis has suggested that these recommendations are in harmony with the Master Plan we have developed for our project. It is therefore Triad's recommendation that these proposed General Plan Amendments be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and potential approval. Although some of the new recommendations need some refinement, the proposal and changes are as acceptable to Triad Systems as our orlcinal recommendations. We therefore urge the Commission to review these matters for the appropriate approval. Looking forward to your response. Sincerely, Thomas J. O'Malley Director of Administration cc: B. West L. Young G. Hansen J. °ozsnyai Werner & Sullivan 110q Ct-�-�. CI q -�D 1 May 24, 1 983 Thomas J. O'Malley Director of Administration TRIAD Systems Corp. , 1252 Orleans pr. Sunnyvale, ca. 94086 Dear Thomas O'Malley, Please find enclosed our clarification of some of the language in the "Scenic Route Element"_,of".the 'General' Plan. Fiore specifically, that part which relates to slope areas. We hope that this new language clarifies the issue for yourself and your architects and site planners. If there are any questions or problems as you apply these guidelines, please do not hesitate to call upon us, again. Sincerely, Jean Rozsnyai, Chairperson Save Our Hills Enclosures Revised (5/20/83 ) corznents and Recommendations regarding Triad's Proposed General Plan Amend._n*_s and Scenic Route Element Amend- eats cc: Livermore City Council Livermore City Staff Gary Hansen --' F -mod 5/20/83 I. Triad's Proposed General Plan Amendments, pp. 93-95: Comments and Recor=nendations No change recorznended on p. 90, (4 ) , b; We cannot support any construction on soils with "severe" and "very severe" erosion hazards in light of during rainy seasons. Delete statement (4 ), f; in its place add the followina: The city shall encourage the retention of as much land as possible for agriculture and viticulture and ranceland and grassland as open space. Comment on P. 93, (7) , b: We feel that allowing only industrial construction on hillsides is not legally supportable without amending many other sections of our General Plan and ordinances. Livermore construction standards have always favored residential construction over industrial. Amends "The city shall maintain. in open space that portion of the hills as seen from the freeway, I-580, (Scenic Corridor) as defined in Scenic Element." Delete remainder. Support p. 93, (7), f. Comment on p. 94, (7), j, k, m: Inserting "the" in front of the words scenic corridor has the effect of negating the entire Scenic Element of the General Plan since tere are manv scenic routes within the planning area. Amend p. 94, (7) , k: Leave text as it is, but add. . . (see Scenic Element). Amend p. 94, (7), m: The limits of the various scenic corridors in the planning^ area shall be determined according to the Scenic Element which is appended to the General Plan. _ Support p. 94, (7), n. Amend p. 95, (7), v: Existing or necessary. II . Scenic Route Element Am end.ments p. 5s Add 3. Scenic corI:j�o - la^ri use �r�n=ids. Retain 3. A. , 3. -A. (1) and 3. A. (2) except delete last sentence. Add new 3. B. as follows : B. Scenic corridor desior. standards. The folio•wi nc criteria shal-1 L-�- applied in the review of building and grading in develo-able areas : (1. ) (Sa.:e as existing 3.A. (2a). ) (2. ) (Same as existin; 3.A. (2b), ) 1. a 1 II. SUMMARY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is a 393-acre L-shaped parcel consisting primarily of grass-covered slopes used : for grazing. The proposal is to annex the property to the City of Livermore and develop the property as a Research and Development Industrial Park. The project would require City amendment of the Community General Plan, prezonina of the site to a Planned Development District, approval of a Specific Pion, approval of a Pienned Unit Development and approval to subdivide the site into 26 lots. B. GEOLOGY, SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY AND SEISMICITY I. Settinq The site is well drained with no occurrence of high water tcble. Some steep slopes are unstable and contain landslips; erosion hazard is high in these areas. On the eently sloping southern portion of the site erosion hazard is slight to modercte. In 1931 a minor bedrock fault was encountered during trenching but no evidence of active faulting on the site was f ound. 2. Impacts The proposed project would develop about 30'o of the site's hillsides above 10 slope; this Would not comply with existing Ce.^eral O'cn celicies. Sloee fcilure Cue to 'cndslidine er erosion could cause property damcge and siltation of streams. Changes in scii volume due to seasonal saturation and drying could ciso cause some property dcmege. The project would result in the loss of soils that have marginal agricult,;ral potential but Good rcnee quality. Groundshaking from the areas's five major fault zones and local earthquake faults could cause ground failures and structural damage. II. .Summery 3. Mitigation The project sponsor should adhere to recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared for the development of each lot on the site, particularly the steeply sloping areas. Recommendations should include site-specific information for repairing potentially un- stable slopes in or near developed areas. An agricultural management program could be incorporated in the development plan to help offset the loss of soil productivity from the project. Conservative grading practices would minimize the potential for seismically induced landsliding in cut or fill slopes. The City could consider other plans that would allow similar development that does not use as much of the site's hillsides above 10% slope. C. HYDROLOGY I. Settina The site drains to Coolan Creek on the west, Collier Canyon Creek on the east and Arroyo Las Positas on the south. A narrow portion of the site's southeast corner is subject to flooding by Collier Canyon Creek, as are downstream (offsite) drainageways. Rainfall is about 14 inches per year and average runoff for the entire site is about 15% to 30%. 2. Imoccts The portion of the site subject to flooding is largely proposed for open space uses, which would be unaffected. The project would increase on-site impervious surface to approxi- mately 45% of the developable area (200 acres). This would increase stormwater runoff and peak flood flows downstream. The development would at least double present site runoff. Existing storm drainage facilities on 1-580 may not be adequate to handle the increase. There is high potential for erosion during and shortly after each phase of grading. This could contribute sediment to downstream drainage facilities resulting in local flooding, water quality degradation end increased maintenance costs. i 3. ��� ication The developer's engineers should verify that grading and drainage at full buildout will be adequate to avoid potential adverse impacts on storm drainage facilities on 1-580. To mitigate erosion and sedimentation potential the sponsor should prepare a comprehensive, staged erosion and sedimentation control plan subject to approval by the Alameda County II. Summary Flood Control District. The plan should include both construction and permanent control measures. Regular cleaning of streets and parkinq areas and a system of filtering contaminants in the runoff system would minimize water quality degradation but would impose higher costs on the development. D. LAND USE I. Settina The site occupies unincorporated land in Alameda County, contains no structures and is currently used for agriculture and grazing. The site is bordered by 1-580 to the south; immediately south-of the freeway lies industrial land, a golf course, and the Livermore ,Municipal Airport, all within the City of Livermore. The campus of Chabot College is currently the only urban development north of 1-580 in the vicinity of the project, but two major developments are proposed for nearby sites. Alameda County has zoned the site PD (Planned Development). The Association of Say Area Governments has adopted policies specific to the Livermore-Amador Volley. 2. Imoccts The proposed General Plan Amendment and annexation to the City of Livermore would increase the amount of land available in the City for industrial development but construction of the project would preclude current agricultural uses and residential use of the site as allowed in the Alameda County General Plan. Acreages for the various proposed land uses are: 110.9 acres for Triad's facilities, 112.7 acres for other light industrial/office users, 19 acres for supoort services, 17 acres for roads and 133 acres to f remain in open spcce. Approving the project, or one of the other proposals in the some area, would set a precedent for development and encourage additional urban growth on agricultural lands in the project vicinity. The project sponsor has requested that the City ` zone the site as a PD District. Although the project is consistent with policies to increase employment opportunities in Livermore, it is inconsistent with policies to consolidate development or to control development in hillside crees, especially those along scenic corridors. Annexction of the site to the City would be subject to approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Es x i. 7 y,+ z r, 4 t. II. Summary 3. Mitiaation To minimize impacts of the project the City should impose conditions of approval on site plans as they are developed for the site. These conditions should address issues such as landscaping, building design and grading requirements. E. HOUSING I. Settinq In 1976 the City's General Plan established policies limiting growth of the housing stock to 2% annually, due to the need to provide services and meet air and water quality standards. Livermore has experienced a very low vacancy rate with a 20010 increase in housing prices between 1974 and 1981; this has made it difficult for families to locate affordable housing. The General Plan includes policies which address this issue. 2. Imoocts The pro iect would not displace any residential units but it would increase demand for housing in the area due to employment generated on the site (estimated at 5,500 to 6,000 jobs). The development could generate a demand for 3,500 to 4,000 housing units. Of these, Livermore would experience a demand for between 2,3=0 and 2,550 units. The project contributes cumulative!y to a trend toward employment-cene,rated development in Livermore and to the demand for housing. 3. Mitication r The City could mitigate the tight housing market resulting from cumulative employment- generating development in Livermore by revising its General P!an and by providing multi- family and less expensive single-family housing. F. TRANSPORTATION I. Settina The site is directly accessible via Collier Canyon Road cnd Doolan Canyon Road. Regional access is available at the 1-580/Airway Boulevard combination cloverleaf- diamond design interchange. Both Collier Canyon Road and Deelen Canyon Road carry low traffic volumes. Current volumes on 1-580 indicate very s;cble traffic flows. During a.m• and p.m. peak hours the off-romps excerience backups and delays in attempting to access onto Airway Boulevard, but traffic signals are not warranted. .r S II. Summary 2. Impacts The project would generate about 205,600 daily trips with about 3,300 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 3,700 trips during the p.m. peak hour. about one-half the trios to/from the proposed service uses would remain internal to the project. If local housing growth does not keep pace with employment, a greater percentage of the project's commute travel would be to/from housing west of Livermore. Traffic volumes on local streets would increase but relatively stable traffic flows would be maintained. There would, however, ' be some peak-hour congestion on Collier Canyon Rccd east of Airway Boulevard. 1-550 would continue to operate at stable conditions. Protected volumes would be within the capacity of existing interchange ramps but congestion would worsen and signals would be warranted. Impacts from proposed cumulative development are also considered in the traffic section. 3. MitiQation Collier Canyon Road should be widened between the intersection with Airway and the site's east boundary. The number of driveways to the site should be minimized and their locations should be coordinated. The romps at the 1-550 interchange should be signalized. Mitications related to cumulative deve!opment are also suggested. G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES I. Setting No public agencies currently supply water or provide wastewater treatment for the site, but water and sewer lines are located adjacent to the site. Police and fire service is currently provided by the County but, if annexed, the site would be served by the City. 2. I Tpaat5 The City anticipates that water supply facilities would be sufficient to serve the project. Ability to provide wastewater treatment service would depend on when specific projects are proposed and how much treatment capacity they require. The existing water main adjacent to the site, however, may not have sufficient fire flow capacity to serve the site and Chabot Collece simultaneously. Electric and cgs lines could also be provided by PG&E without difficulty. The proposed project clone would not have adverse impacts on police and fire service or schools. II. .Summory 3. tilitication The project sponsor is encouraged to use reclaimed water from the treatment plant for landscaping. If the cumulative demand for wastewcter treatment by industrial projects approaches or exceeds existing capacity, the City could consider expanding the treatment plant's capacity or limiting total wastewater generation from individual projects on the project site. Utilities extended to the site should be installed underground in accordance with the General Plan. The project sponsor should include fire protection systems, access roads and weed abatement plans in project designs. Project designs should be submitted to the police department to recommend security measures. H. AIR QUALITY I. Setting The 1967 Clean Air Act, as amended, contains air quality standards designed to protect the public's health and welfare. Existing data indicate that air quality in Livermore is in compliance with standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur i dioxide (502), while ozone concentrations and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) exceeded the state standards in recent years. 2. Impacts Construction activities would create a temporary increase in dust-Fall near the site which might temporarily violate the TSP standard. It is not expected that the regional air quality impcct of the proposed project would be of measurable mcenitude. The project is consistent with the Livermore General Plan as well as with scecific transportation measures in the 1979 Boy Area Air Quality Plan. 3. Miticotion No air quality mitigation measures are required by low but several measures suggested for inclusion as part of the proposed project include wetting disturbed soil surfaces to control dust grid incorporation of traffic mitigation measures which reduce traffic volumes or congestion. j I I I I II. Summary 1. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE I. Settina The site is primarily grassland with a cluster of introduced trees near the 1-580 interchange and two rows of eucalyptus trees originally planted as windbreaks. Wildlife is limited and no rare or endangered species were found during the site survey. Existing intermittent waterways do not support riparian vegetation. 2. lmoacts The proposed project represents cn incremental loss of grassland habitat in the Amador- Livermore Valley area. The project would result in the loss of habitat for nesting birds which the few mature trees on the site support. The project would also alter the hydrologic regime of Collier Canyon Creek, which could degrade riparian and aquatic habits on-site and downstream. 3. Mitigation Landscaping plans should include native trees. The channelization of Collier Creek should be conducted in accordance with California Fish and Game guidelines and alternative channel designs should be examined. J. VIEWS AND AESTHF—TICS I. Settinq The site is characterized by open grasslands used primarily for grazing. Existing development adjacent to the site is rural, consisting of several older ranch houses. The low buildings and parking lots of Chabot College to the east are partially screened from view by campus Icndscooing. The site is highly visible from surrounding land uses. Policies contained in the Livermcre General Plan and Scenic Route Element would regulate development on the site. 2. Imcccts The project would alter the site's character from a rural to an urban setting. Visual impacts would result from the layout, sjze and density of buildings, proposed landscaping, grading and access. The development would be visible from a scenic corridor and two scenic routes and would contrast sharply with surrounding rural development. 2 i i I I II. Summary I 3. +MitiQafion I t Site development would be subject to General Pion policies with respect to visual I resources. Conditions of approval of site plans should include grading and landscaping requirements as well as specific guidelines for the placement, height and materials of buildings within the scenic corridor. - I I i K. NOISE i i I. Setting i Traffic on 1-580 is the main source of noise in the project area. A secondary noise source j is air traffic from the Livermore Municipal Airport. CNEL levels were calculated to be l 84 dBA at the highway edge, 71 dBA 100 feet from the highway and 068 dBA 200 feet from the highway. Policies in the City of Livermore General Plan establish limits for outdoor noise levels in light industrial and business park areas. i i 2. Impacts I Construction noise which would occur during development of the project could disturb residents along Collier Canyon Road and students at Chabot College. Improvements to I surrounding roads and the interchange, if required, would also generate on off-site noise source. Traffic related noise levels along Collier Canyon Road would increase from 050 LDN to 63 LDN at 50 feet from the roadside. In combination with other proposed developments in the area, residences along Collier Canyon Road would experience noise 1 levels in excess of compatible use levels in the General Plan. j . 1 3. Mitication a I Installation of a sound barrier along the southern site boundary should be required to reduce noise impacts from 1-580. Construction noise impacts can be reduced by proper ' scheduling of construction activity, muffling machinery and minimizing the amount of grading required. i v Il. Summary L. ENERGY I. Settina Energy consumption on the site is minimcl because of its agricultural character. 2. Impacts Energy would be consumed by the project for construction, on-site operations, project generated travel and municipal services. Rough estimates of operating energy require- ments may be made based upon data for similar projects and compliance with Title 24. Results of these calculations indicate that the project would consume 177 billion BTU per year or the equivalent of 32,000 barrels of oil. 3. Mitigation The project sponsor should consider the use of active and passive solar technology for both water and space heating as well as energy conservation. Other energy conservation features which should be considered include automated energy management, individual switches on lights and space conditioning equipment where possible, chilled water storage and heat recovery. M. ARCHAEOLOGY I. Settina The property was surveyed in 1980 in conjunction with a previous residential proposal for the site and no archaeological resources were recorded on the property. These findings were verified during a more recent field survey on the site. 2. lrrpccts Development plans would have no adverse impacts on known archaeological resources. This does not, however, preclude th,e oossioility that archaeological remains could be y encountered during construction ectitivites. 3. Aitiaction If archaeological deposits are encountered during construction, work in the area should be halted and a qualified archaeologist consulted. If such deposits are encountered, z personnel should be instructed not to further disturb the finds. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SITE LOCATION AND SETTING The site is located in the north-central portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley, about three miles northwest of downtown Livermore, in unincorporated territory adjacent to the Livermore City limits on the east and south (see Figures I and 2). The Livermore-Amador Valley is a large intermontane valley separated from the Bay Plain and the Central Valley by highlands and terraces of the Diablo Range. The Valley drains westward to the Bay Plain through Niles Canyon; watercourses are all tributary to Alameda Creek. Pooulation in the Livermore-Amador Vclley grew rapidly during the late 1950s and 19605 with a slower growth through the late 1970s due to constrcints of poor air quality and limited sewage treatment capacity. In 1980, Valley population was 104,406 and the population of Livermore was 48,450 (U.S. Bureau of the Census). The majority of recent growth has taken place within the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. The other major population center in the Valley is Dublin, a community which recently became incorporated. The Valley is largely residential and commuting to employment outside the Valley is common. Recently, long-vecant industrial and commercial land has been developing rapidly, with concomitant increases in employment. The 393-acre L-shaped site is bordered by 1-580 to the south, Doolan Canyon Road to the west, Collier Canyon Road to the east, and open ranchlands to the north. Immediately south of the freeway lie industrial land, a golf course, and the Livermore Municipal Air- port, all within the City of Livermore. The airport runway is about 2,500 feet south of the site. East of the site, across Collier Canyon Road, is the Valley Campus of Chabot College, also within the City of Livermore. Open agricultural ranchland lies to the west : i i and north. The site is flanked by Cottonwood Creek to the west and Collier Creek to the east; both drain to Arroyo Las Pcsitas, about 1 ,000 to 2,000 feet south of the site. The JJ site slopes gradually (5o - 10 0) from e!evation + 400 feet at the south border to about I 11 J ® FAIRFIELD AN RAFAEL B r K EL F _Y . AN L D ROJ E C SITE E LIVERMORE PA t -O L � . SAN J O c . SCaIE 6 1 M M ES 0 O 6 12 24 qq- ■p P i ii. : N. NN 1 _ _p EC'T SITE'; , , ^ _ � I ; r _T t ; .:....... Ali �5 _, �_ ; :�� �-�f—..�-�'.•���.t`\ ,sue..=�/'y_..i-.�,:� ' _ • �S __ I j `df\�`...•.t`'�^_ ::( ';��'i �'— i-^•� --_ __.__—___ a__—=—=_sue•_—�_-_ __s=_ : 3CAL°- � �cc /` ,ji� O LOGO 2000 4000 SOURCE: EIP SBTE L®CH 1 10111mu t91�Y� J 111. Project Description 500 feet near the middle, and then much more steeply, (up to 401o) northerly to a maximum of about 800 feet. The site was the subject of a previous environmental review by the Alameda County Planning Department in 1981. At that time the Broadmoor Development Company requested rezoning of the site from Agricultural (A) to permit a Planned Development (PD) with 1,750 single cnd multi-femily dwelling units. The Broadmoor proposal also contained commercial, recreational and open space use and on elementary school. The County approved the project and rezoned the site to a PD zoning district, but the proposal was later dropped by Broodmoor. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Triad Systems Corporation, the project sponsor, proposes to annex the 393-acre site to the City of Livermore and deve!op the property as a Fesearch and Development (P.; D) Industrial Park. Triad Systerns Corporation develops, manufactures, markets and services computer systems. if the proposed project is approved, Triad plans to relocate its corporate business operations from the present Sunnyvale location to the proposed project site. The project is currently at the conceptual planning stcce; building designs and detailed site plans have not been proposed. Components of the project that the City of Livermore is requested to take action en, and that form the basis of analysis in this report, include the following: annexing the site to the City of Livermore; amending the text and map of J� the Livermore Community Cenerci Plan; prezoning the site to a PD (Planned Deve!op-- i merit) District; approving a , cnned Unit Development; subdividing the site into 26 lots; and approving a Specific Plan for the site, which would involve defining the limits of the Scenic Corridor and soec.flc policies for this site that would guide development in the corridor. Subdivision of the site is procosed 'a allow flexibility for development by Tricd cnd other potential industrial users. A!thouch development would occur on slopes of more then a ten percent grade, approximately 133 acres on the site's steep northern portion would remain in open space. F-uil buildout is expected to be phased over a 10-yecr period for Triad's facilities and over a 20-yecr period for the remainder of the site. Triad facilities would occupy approximcteiy 110 acres of the site, 1 7 acres would be required for roads, III. Project Description another 20 acres would be occupied by support services such as a motel, restaurant and other activities primarily serving the site's employees. The remaining 113 developable acres would be subdivided into large lots for use by one or more major R&D occupants. The proposed site plan features a linear arrangement of lots along either side of two proposed access roads, Chabot Parkway and "A" Street (see Figure 3). The major road, Chabot Parkway, would roughly bisect the developed portion of the site and would separate Triad facilities and the commercial area from other R&D uses on the property. Chabot Parkway would provide access from Collier Canyon Road south and east of the site while "A" Street would provide access from Doolan Canyon Road on the west. In order to enhance subdivision and development of the site's southeastern position it is proposed that the Collier Creek channel be modified and moved slightly east of its present course. .Triad's facilities on the site would accommodate administrative and support functions in addition to product design, development, assembly and distribution (see Table 1). One purpose of the Triad development would be to achieve a campus-type setting. Triad proposes to include a Training/Conference Center in the site's eastern portion. It is expected that this center would include recreational and temporary lodging facilities to house personnel required to be in the local area for a week or more for conferences or training sessions. I - = _- - ... .__..........__ _.. .._ i 0 � CHASOT COLLEGE .. . . . .. ...... �� :•:.•.:•- :. .. O Z O d oo \ Z a v O v Ic c . 1- 530 i 0 ASSEMBLY SUF?CRT SERVICES SCALE FEET �\ I O 225 45 900 OFFICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 0 TRAINING OPEN SPACE SOURCE: EIP. CORP TABLE I PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGES AND PHASING OF TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION FACILITIES Total Area Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Office 7201000 180,000 901000 180,000 90,000 180,000 Training/ Residential 310,000 155,000 -0- 771500 -0- 77,500 Production/ Storage 2501000 -0- 125,000 -0- 125,000 -0- Food Service/ RecrenIior) 70,000 -0- 35,000 -0- 35,000 -0- Conference Center 257000 -0- -0- 25,000 -0- -0- 1 ,375,000 335,000 250,000 282,500 2501000 257,500 1-11-11-ioyees 3,0551 755 1160 702 1160 678 Ilncludes 2,S00 permanent employees and 550 temporary employees. Source: Werner and Sullivan, Archilects.