No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 05/06/2013 Ae'vLda'Itww#6'.A ccAttr • 40114 I85B DATE: May06, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Scott Duiven,.Senior"Planner l/2 SUBJECT: Petaluma SMART Station Areas: TOD Master Plan and Amended SmartCode RECOMMENDATION It is reconimended that the.City^Council adopt the attached: 1) Resolution Adopting;a Mitigated:Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Statement of Overriding Considerationsjfor the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master.Plan and Amended SmartCode. 2) Resolution Adopting the•Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan 3) Ordinance of the City:Council of the City of Petaluma Adopting an Amended SmartCode andRepealingOrdinance No. 2152 N.C.S. BACKGROUND The Station Area Planning Program is,an initiative of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governmentsi(ABAG). MTC reserved $2.5 million in planning grant funds for the Sonoma-Maiin,Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor to fund station area plans along the;rail corridor in the event the sales tax measure passed. With the passage of Measure!) in November 2008, passenger rail service in Sonoma and Marin Counties will become a r_eality. Rail service is scheduled to-begin in late 2015 or early 2016. The Station Area Planning Program funds planning efforts that seek to increase transit ridership by maximizing the potential for transit-oriented development around current or future transit stations or_corridors:.Petaluma submitted an application to the Station Area Planning Program in August for both the,Downtown,Petaluma,and Corona Road station areas and,received notification of award December,2009. This planning process:supports the City Council's stated goal to "Implement the Central Petaluma Specific Plan —maximize development potential around transit-oriented development." The funding from MTC ($240,000) and SMART ($10,000), combined with programmed agency funding ($50,000) and staff involvement, has ensured a holistic, multidisciplinary planning approach. This process has also ensured that the plan reflects "best practices" of other communities in planning transit-oriented-development that effectively capitalize on existing Agenda Review City Attorney Finance Di ctor`�4 • Managers T • employnieht:centers, commercial activities, and the complementary development of housing and ;additional job generating usesthat would serverto support commuter rail.. The;Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plant(Master Plan, Attachment 5) and proposed SmartCode Amendments (Attachment 6) were prepared by Opticos Design, Inc. with support_from NelsonN,ygaard Consulting Associates.(circulation and parking), Carlisle Macy (infrastructure), Urban.Advisors,(marketdemand), and Lisa.Wise Consulting(housing, historic ,preservation,"and code amendments). In addition to the;.consultant-team the project included a Technical Advisory Committee representing City departments and:other agency staff members and a 17-member Citizens Advisory Committee-representing,:divverse interests within the community. The compositions.of the Committees are as follows: Technical Advisory Committee The TAC technical assistance and.input to the:consultant°team throughout the project. The TAC included representatives from the following agencies: • 'Sonoma-Marin Area,Rail'Transit.(SMART) • Metropolitan Transpottation'Commission (MTC) • Association of Bay Area Gbvernments (ABAG) • City ofPetaluma o Advanced Planning o Economic Development o Housing o Public Works Sc.Utilities,Department o Petaluma Transit o Planning Division Citizens Advisory Corinnitlee, In December 2010 the City Council;appointed a 17-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to be composed of interests from both geographic areas and be of sufficient size to include diverse interests. The composition of the CAC was:as'follows: • 1 City Council member(serving as Chair) • 1 Planning.Commission/l-listoric and Cultural Preservation Committee member • 1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee member • 1'Transit Advisory Committee member • 1 Youth Conunissionmember • Central Petaluma Specific Plan Citizen Advisory Committee representative(s). • Members ofthe�community representing one or more of the-following local interests: o Property+Owner(s) within the planning areas o Business O- wner(s) within the planning areas o Community/Neighborhood Group(s) o Chanibetof Corn erce • o Citizen(s) at-large 1 2 The planning process kicked off in March 2011 and included numerous meetings of the CAC and TACas well as two community-wide workshops, including a'3-day workshop in May 2011. During this multi-day workshop, the consultant team established a`working studio to engage the community to.participate in the planning and design process various formats including a formal presentation,:an.informal process presentation (pin-up), and casual'-one-on-one meetings with team members, property owners, developers; and other interest:groups during the open studio hours. CAC follow-up meetings were conducted to address specific topics and to refine the design concepts and content,Of the Master Plan and Amended SmartCode. All of the CAC meetings were open to the public for-'input. The Citizens Advisory Committee, at its final meeting on February 21, 2013 recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Master Plan, and Amended SmartCode. Planning Commission Hearing—March 26, 2013 The Planning.Commissionheld a public hearing to provide comments andreceive public testimony on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Draft'Station Area Master Plan, and Draft Amended SmartCode at its..meeting on March 26, 2013. Comments were received from,fourmembers of the public, and from,SMART, and were primarily focused on concerns related to specific properties.A more detailed discussion of parcel specific input is,included later in this report. The Planning Commission COtiiiiiiS-sioir did not recommend any changes to the draft documents. After receiving public comments and,conducting its own discussion of the documents, the_Planning Commission'unanimously adopted:a resolution recommending to.the City Council approval of;the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan, recommending,.adoption of the updated SmartCode;tand recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project(Attachment 8). DISCUSSION Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan The Master Plan, which includes the AmendediSmartCodein,Appendix A, is funded through a grant received by the City of Petaluma from the MetropolitanTransportation'Commission (MTC) and the Association Of Bay'Area,Governments (ABAG)°Station Area Planning Program with m atching;funds provided;by SMART and the City of Petaluma. The funding:program seeks to maximize the potential for transit=oriented development(TOD) and has driven the project to be a holistic,,multidisciplinary planning effort that ensures that the Master Plan'reflects "best practices"in planning transit-oriented development. The Master'Plan evaluatesthepotential for transit-oriented development within the two planned Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas. The Downtown Petaluma Station Area includes the historic=rail depot adjacent'to Lakeville Street and bounded by East-Washington Street and East D Street; the.Corona,RoadStation Area'is proposed in,the vicinity of the intersection of Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard. Each Station Area is comprised of the area within a 1/4- mile radius of the respective planned SMART Rail Station. 3 The-Master.Plan inco ` rof p rates an analysis oP. market demand, housing; access, connectivity, parking,.infrastructure, and historic preservation. The Master Plan also includes a framework for public spaces, frontage types, building types, and phasing. Amendments to the text and figures for the SmartCode are included as-part-of the project-to facilitate plan implementation and correct several outdated sections of the SmartCode. The Master Plan has six primary objectives as.follo,ws: • Provide a framework'that vvilLguide future developnient.and.redevelopment within the Station Areas toward uses that wilPsupport transit ridership: • Improve motorized, non-motorized, and transit connectivity between the station sites and existing,adjacent commercial,'employment, and rresidential,areas. • Develop and itnplemennurban design standards:that promote walkable and livable environments within'the Station Area. • Identify infrastructure needs=and-a financing plan with an emphasis on funding opportunities.toincentivize future development/redeyeleprnent. • Inform the public and stakeholders about the Master process, transit-oriented design concepts, and future opportunities within the two Station Areas. • Create an integrated development plan that capitalizes-on the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) systeiii. The planned Downtown Petaluma Station will be located at the-renovated historic rail depot adjacent to Lakeville Street and bounded by East Washington Street,and East D Street. The Downtown Petaluma Station will provide easy access to the Downtown, the Turning Basin area and the Copeland Street Transit,Mall. Reflective of the:greater amount opportunity sites for transit-oriented development, the,Downtown Petaluma,Station area received the greater amount of focus in this planning effort. The Corona Road Station-will be located in northwestern Petalumain the vicinity of the intersection of Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard. This-site will likely include a significant park-and-ride component while also benefiting from improved access to employment, housing, health services such as the Petaluma Health Center, and student,services like Santa Rosa Junior College. The-Corona Road.Station will be built'as part of the second phase of SMART. The deferral of the;Corona Road Station and the lack-of transit-oriented development opportunity sites led to a greater focus on how toprovid'e better connectivity of existing uses to the planned Corona RoadStation. The,Master Plan;is organized as follows: Chapter b: tntrod'uction-=Chapter 1 provides%an overview of the report, a summary of the project.objectives, the"regional context, the location of the two planning areas, previous planning,efforts,:community participation process and guiding principles. Chapter 2: Vision —Chapter 2 documents the vision for the StationAreas created through'the community participation process. It includes a summary of land use, opportunity sites;a preferred plan and alternatedrameworks studied, key design elements 4 • used to promote.walkability and livability, aThasing strategy and program for the Station Areas. Chapter 3 Market Demand — Chapter 3 provides an overview of the market and economic characteristics-that will have!aneffect on the ability of the City of Petaluma to plan successful transit-oriented:development at the.Downtown and Corona Road sites. It discusses regional and local trends and projections in demographics, income, employment and retail sales and spending. Chapter 4: Housing—Chapter addresses housing within:the:Station Areas. It includes background information regarding station area housing goals; a brief summary of housing needs in Petaluma, findings regarding housing development potential within the station areas, recommendations to encourage and facilitate residential development, an analysis of residential development potential, and potential sources to finance and provide affordable and workforce residential development. Chapter 5: Access, Connectivity,.and;Parking—Chapter 5 addresses pedestrian, transit, auto and bicycle access to the Station Areas and addresses innovative parking management policies and strategies. Chapter 6: Infrastructure— Chapter 6 identifies the key infrastructure needs and financing strategies to=accommodate the future development anticipated in this plan. Chapter 7: Historic:Preservation — Chapter Taddresses historic preservation within the Master Plan area It,includes a brief background on the City's development patterns and historic and cultural resources, recommendations:for additional historic preservation efforts, and potential funding sources to implement recommendations. Chapter 8: lmplenientation —Chapter 8 provides implementation measures for the Station Area Master Plan It includes recommended updates for the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Central Petaluma Specific P lan's SmartCode; development incentives, and an Implementation and Phasing Plan. Appendix A: SmartCode Aniethlments — Appendix A presents an amended SmartCode for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,Area. the SmartCode serves as the zoning ordinance for properties`located within the CPSP area. Amended:Smar•tCode Through the adoption;of the Central.Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP)`in 2003, the City of Petaluma became tlefirst City to adopt the SmartCode as a-mandatory overlay. The SmartCode is a unified land development ordinance template for planning and urban design. It provides detailed regulations for,development.and new land uses within thespecifc plan area, and describes how these:regulations Will be used as°part of the City's,development review process. It is the zoning:ordinance for properties located within the CPSP area. 5 Adopted 10 years ago,,the:original SmartCode was essentially in its `beta'"version..Since then, the SmartCode template has been continually updated and refined with input from practitioners from numerous disciplines. As Of 2012, the SmartCode was on version 9.2. The following proposed amendments to the SmartCode are intended to ensure that the development within the Downtown Station,area inconsistent with the community's vision and the Master Plan document. These amendments include: • Refinements,to address procedural issues in thoexisting document raised by staff, developers, and'community members. • Refinements to development standards that have been found to be impediments to development.. • Expanded regulations to provide more certainty for the community and clarity for developers on the type and form of newdevelopment. • Refinements consistent with the updating of the SmartCode template from the version that was adopted to the current version (v.9.2). Appendix A: Smart Code Amendments will replace the cuirent SmartCode adopted with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan in 2003. Changed content is highlighted within the appendix in red text and strikethrough in an effoll to show the changes between,both documents. The proposed changes between the existing SmartCode and the Amended SmartCode are summarized in Table 1 below: may, Table 1.Smart Code Amendp,ti ages a;e a ", , lntroduction Provide an expanded Intent that combines the purpose included in the INTENT existing SmartCode and the intent in Version 9:2 of the SmartCode.The expanded Intent will provide-criteria used to,rule on requests for Warrants, Section'2-.Zoning Map _ Table2.1 Version.9 2"of the SmartCode includes a'table that provides descriptions of TransecPZone the character of each zone (Table 1) A version of this table that has been Descriptions[new] calibrated for Petaluma has beenadded to the SmartCode. 2.10 Provide a refined zoning map that shows a reduced+amount of T6 required in the station area.After analyzing market demand data see Chapter 3 Zoning Map (Market'Demand), itwasdetermined that the,ground floor retail and density required by T6 was more,than the:market could support..The updated zoning should focus T6 into areas that are most appropriate for ground floor retoil'and'higherdensities. Section 3:—Building,FunctioniStandards 3.10.030'. Introduce a;Minor Use Permit(MUP) The minor use;permit enables • administrative review of uses that are generally compatible with the allowed Permit. uses in that zone,.but may'have minor components of that use that require Requirements for an administrative review and/or conditions of approval,to ensure:thereare Aljowable:Uses no conflicts-.with surrounding uses.The,Minor Use Permit provides an (new]. intermediate,-administrative level of review that ensures consistency with the community;svision without adding'.the'.time and cost associated with a full Use Permit to uses that are generally compatible. Table 3:1 Allowed Functions' I and I Update table to include Minor Use Permits. Permit • • 6 Table;kt8martbode Amendments. , >_ Requirements Tablei3.1 Allowed Functions and Update table tolinclude,TB-Open ao allow for ground floor office and service Permit uses. Requirements Table:4.1 Urban Standards Update the'Urban Standards,Table consistent withthe vision for the Table :Downtown Station Area: • Eliminate Density'Maximums 7 Rely on.Form-Based Standards to regulate developmentnDensity requirements could discourage smaller units near transit. •Add Thoroughfares/Public Frontage Types to the table(consistent with SrhartCode v.9!2). • Refine List of Civic Space Types tote consistent with revised Civic Space Standards. • Eliminate Lot Area and LotCoverage Requirements for T5 and T6. Lot Area and Lot Coverage for T5 and T6 should be more precisely regulated by buildingtype. •Add Build-to Line standards for T6,to ensure that all buildings are placed at back of sidewalk andltherelis:.a:consistent facade plane. •Revise Setbacks, create separate regulations for Principal Building and Outbuilding, rear setbacks along alleys to 0'. •Add allowed`BuildingTypes. ••Add Private;Frontages. •:Revise height limits. Allow 6 stories max. in T6; allow T5 to have height bonus to:.6 stories. '•Add regulations for Ground Floor Height, Ground Floor Depth, and Distance Between Entries.. • Revise andupdate parking standards and replace the current sunset provision.with,new parking standards and updated sunset provision. 1 space per market rateunit;;.5space per affordable unit; 1 space per room for lodging uses;2.0 spaces pen1000 sq. ft for all other uses. 4.20.010 Bldg Height Bonus. .:Change exception to apply to T5. 4.30 Building Placement Update the Building Placementlable with the Building Disposition Table (Table 9),from'theSmartCode?v;9 2 that has been calibrated for Petaluma. 4.30 Frontage Types Provide.expanded Private`Frontage-Standards that includes regulations for eachifrontage type. Figure 4.4 Frontage Type . • Regulating Plan, Add frontage type Regulating Plan indicatingwhere specific frontage types are required or allowed. [new] 4?5 Civic:Spaces Provide,expanded Private Civic Space Standards that include additional' regulations as'well as smaller spades appropriate'for urban location. Figure 4:5 Civic Space Add Civic'Space Regulating Plan that provides additional dimensional Regulating Plan requirements. [new] 4.70.020 Live/VVerk,Units Revise,standards to reflect intended'liye/work types and ensure easy approval. 4.70.030 Mixed-Use Revise standards to"reflect intended mixed-use types and address community concerns:about industrial uses and noise. 4:80 Building Type Introduce Building Type Standards to provide additional guidance for the Standards [new] development of specific Building Types. 4.90 Commercial Signage Introduce Commercial Signage Standards to provide'additional guidance for Standards[new] ithe development of SpecificBuilding Types. 7 ] Table 1.Smart Code 5.10:030 Thoroughfare Provide(additional standardsrelated'to thoroughfare design. Design [new] _. 5.10:040, Movement Type and Design Speed [new] Provide descriptions of the Movement Type and Design Speed. 5:10.050 Intersections[new] Add regulations to address intersections. 5.10.060 Public Frontages Add regulations to address public frontages. [new] 5.10.070 Thoroughfare Add the additional thoroughfare•Assemblies.to the catalogue of existing Assemblies [new] thoroughfare;assemblies. 5.10 Thoroughfare Standards Key Map Update the thoroughfare standards key map for the Station Area. Public Continents A Notice of the Public Hearing for the May 6, 2013 City Council Meeting was published in the Argus Courier on.April 25„2013'. The Notice was also posted on the City's website, at City Hall, and distributed through the Station Area Planning Listserver: As noted earlier in this Report„there has been significant input over the course of the past two years in developing the Final Draft Station Area Master Plan and Amended'SmartCode. In addition to the community workshops, Citizens Advisory Committee meetings, and Technical Advisory Committee Meetingsstaffalso met twice with-the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. A.Listserver of approximately 100 individuals received notifications of all meetings and availability of nevv documents for reviewand comment. The attached Final Draft Station Area Master Plan and Amended SmartCode reflects;and incorporates the public comments received from numerous stakeholders over the:course of the last two years. The City Council packet also includes an addendum (Attachment7) that includes edits and corrections made since publication ofthe Final Draft documents based on additional staff review and comments received at the'last-CAC meeting held on February 21, 2013. The edits to the documents include the following: Addendum Station Area Master Plan • Page ii — Add-Amy.Jiirito the list of the Citizens,Advisory Committee, Ms. Jin represented the Youth Commission which provided an alternated to serve along with Brittany Burnett. • Page ii Add,required language from funding source: • Pages,4-12, 4-13, &6-21 — Removed references to the City's redevelopment agency to reflect its dissolution,`on`February I,2012 following the enactment of ABx 1 26 and 27. a Page;:5-21 Corrected'the dimensions for the travel lanes on East Washington Street. • Page 5 22 Corrected the dimensions for travel lanes on East,D Street to reflect input from.the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer to make the traflic•lanes 11' and the bicycle lanes 5'tn width. • Attachment 7 also inclldes_an'updated`,pro forma analysis from Urban Advisors to understand the effect of changed development impact fees and changes in the market since the analysis summarized in Chapter 3 of the Master Plan was prepared. 8 Appendix A: SmartCode Amendments • Page 19 Refine the "Industry, Manufacturing;& Processing, Wholesaling" uses allowed in the T5,T6, and T6-O districts. The following categories are,proposed to be removed from the T6 & T6-O districts in the proposed Smart Code Amendments (see Figure 2.1- CPSP Zoning Map): o Agricultural product manufacturing o Clothing and-fabric product manufacturing o Electronics, equipment, and appliance manufacturig o Food and beverage]product manufacturing o Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop o Lumber and wood product manufacturing o Machinery manufacturing o Metal products fabrication, machine or welding shop o Photo/film precessing lab o Textile arid leather product manufacturing o Wholesaling,and distribution The following categories are proposed to be added to the T5 district: o Agricultural product processing o Lumber and wood product manufacturing o Machinery manufacturing o Metal products fabrication, machine or welding shop o Photo/film processing,lab o Textile and leather product manufacturing o Wholesaling,and distribution • Page 51 —Add orange arrows depicting "Access Points to Water" at the termination of the new transverse street between Weller Street and the Petaluma River in-order to maintain a direct visual and physical connection froni.the,historic rail depot to the Petaluma River. • Page 94 — Correct typo 4.60.0g0, should be 4.90;080. • Page 96 — Correct typo 6'8' min should be 6'8" min. • Page 127—Correct the dimensions for travel lanes on-East D,,Street•to reflect input from the City Engineer and:frallic'Engineer to makethetraffic lanes-11' and the bicycle, lanes 5' in width. • Page 157 Eliminate;theparkingin-lieu fee (Sections 6.10:030.A,1 and 6.1.0.030.F.4b.(3)): This fee has not been collected since,the adoption of the CPSP and lacks the legal support necessary for its,iniplementation.Flh addition the parking management strategy:contained in the Master Plan and the revised parking standards included in thetupdated SmartCode no longer rely on a central parking structure to meet parking demand, • Page 157 Eliminate the waiver/reduction of parking:for projects that provide a permeable surface for parking areas (Section,6.10:030.E). This waiver was originally intended to offset the costs of providing alternative surfaces::The SmartCode already includes-lower-parking requirements in comparison to the rest of the City. Coupled with 9 new water quality'requirements'and zero net runoff, incent vizing permeable surfaces through reduced parking requirements is no longer necessary: In,addition_to:tile above edits,reviewed by the Planning Commission,-staff is recommending a few minor edits to help clarifysome of the frontage regulations as part of this:final addendum: • Page 21 (Urban Standards Table) change the required Ground Floor Space Depth to 30'. • Page 21 (Urban Standards Table) add a:footnote on the.parking lot "See 4.40.150 (Frontage Type Regulating Plan Downtown.StatidhArea Detail) for locations where a temporary.parking lot may occupy a frontage line.. • Pages 26, 33, 34, 35, 36,& 37—.Eliminated the R.O.W. lines=where the relationship of the frontage type to the ROW line varies and is not regulated. • Page 137 (ThoroughfareRegulating Plan Downtown Station Area Detail) add note that all-frontages-alongthestreets,shown on(this regulating-plan shall be principal frontages. Properly Owner Requests . Staff would like to draw your to the letter submitted_by Satpal Singh (included in Attachment 9) who owns and operates the gas station at 421 Petaluma Boulevard South. Mr. Singh would like to make improvements to the gas station and replace the car wash with a market. Under the current SimartCode, gas stations are hot permitted in the T5 district and as the definition of a gas station incl"udes,a store, restaurant or=other-facilities•Mr. Singh is not able to expand the use due to its nonconforming status: Mr. Singh requested,that the Planning Commission consider changing,gasrstations from not allowed"in the '15 district to allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit.•Arthe March 26, 2013 Planning Commission hearing Mr. Singh and Mr. Gannon both submitted;public comments on the issue and-Staff also presented the issue in response to Planning.Commission questions'. Mr„Singh also submitted a petition with approximately 300 signatures (included in Attachment:9). The requestto change gas stations from Not Allowed to being subject to Conditional Use Permit isia policy,decision-as it will apply to all parcels within that zoning district. The Planning Commission however did not make a recommendation for or against then request. This does not prevent the.City Council from addressing their request during-the City Council hearing. . Also received at the final CAC`meeting was public input from George Weiner. Mr. Weiner owns property at 133 Copeland"Street which,currentl'y includes industrial/manufacturing uses. Mr. Weiner pointed out concerns thatthe,change firom.T6 to T5 for his property would further limit the potential-uses of his property, and others, which had previously been designated T6. Staff in consultation,with the consultant has revisited.the "Iidustry, Manufacturing & Processing, Wholesali ng" section of Table 3.1 found on page 19 of the Snart lCode Amendments. As many of the industrial/maiiufaeturing.uses currently allowed in the T6 district,are not appropriate to the now limited number ofT6 and T6-0 districts (see Figure 2.1-CPSP'Zoning Map), we are recommending removing several of the Jieavier industrial uses from the T6 and T6-0 districts and adding a few to the T5 district as outlined in the corresponding page of Attachment 7 and described above. Mr. Weiner,submitted a letter prior to the Planning Commission--hearing (included in Attachment9) and reiterated his comments at the Planning Commission hearing. No further changes were recorrtmended,at the hearing:beyond those"already presented to the Planning Commission in theaddendum. 10 SMARTDstaff participated,and submitted comments overthe course of the planning process.All of the input received was discussed among staff and at:theCAC and TAC•meetings. The majority of that-.input is'reflected in°the'attached'Final Draft documents. However, a few issues were not<addressed to SMART's satisfaction. Staff also met:with, and subsequently received correspondence dated March 1`5;;2013 from SMART (included in.Attachment 9): The letter pointsrout sections of the Public Utilities Code and Government Code:related to SMART's statutory zoning immunity with respect to constructing transit serving+facilities while also recognizing that a transit-oriented development project must comply with the City's zoning regulations. SMART has requested language recognizing SMAR'f's,immunity from the City's zoning requirements rot-transit facilities be included iii the Master Plan. Staff recommended'that such exemption language is'`not necessary to the'Edocument and that the City address the statutes requiring the application of local law or immunity from local law at the time that a proposal is made;:by SMART,just:as we don't point out exemptions for other special districts such as school districts in the plan. SMART's letter also articulates concerns regarding the width of the-transverse street', in particular the design which iiicl'urles'a 36' wide linear open space. As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing this design was identified being important'to the community in providing both mobility for all users between Downtown, the transit mall, and,the,SMART rail station and for lessening the impact of bus:and vehicular trafficon°units that will'face onto this new street. It was also pointed out thatthrough the review of:any project proposal, flexibility in design can be achieved through the warrant process outlined in.Section 8.101020.H of the Amended SmartCode. The content of thisletter was,discussed at the Planning'Commision Hearing and no changes to the Master Plan were recommended'by the Commission..SMART continues to have concerns regarding the plan requirenients for the transverse street. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Petaluma SMART Rail'Station:Areas: TOD Master Plan ("Master Plan") is:a master plan for development of two areas within the City of Petaluma.thatarewithin the:scope of the development evaluated in the Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("General Plan"), and its EIR which was certified on April 7, 2008. ''The General Plan and itts.ElR are available for review at the City of Petaluma, 1 English Street, in the Community Development Department, and are also available online at blip://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/index.html. The Initial Study (Attachment 4) incorporates the analysis of the General Plan HR and adds information regarding any eriVirrinmentaf effects that are different in,kind or degree from those studied in the General Plan DR. The Initial;Study's conclusion is that the Master Plan and SmartCode-amendments do not create any new or.more severe significant-impacts than those disclosed'in-the General Plan HR. Because CEQA;discourages,`repetitive discussions of the.same issues''' (CEQA Guidelines section°15152(b));and allows limiting discussion of a later project which is consistent with a prior plan;to impacts which were not examinedas-significant effects in;aprior EIR or significant effects which-could be reduced by revisions in the later project. (CEQA,Guidelines section 15152(d).)No additional benefitto.the environment would':he gained and no public purpose would be^served by pieparing,aii EIR for the Master Plan Merely to restate the analysis of the same pfojected future develepine t and conditions analyzed.in"the General Plan EIR. Therefore, 11 a mitigated negative declaration•Was prepared for'this,pibject;:iti teliance on the General Plan EIR, All General Plan policies adoptedas mitigation apply to the Master Plan. The General Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts arerecognized in the Initial Study, as°are any Master Plan policies and SmartCode amendments that affect or reduce those impacts. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six intersections covered in-the Master Plan: o McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road o Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane o Lakeville Street/East D Street o Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street o Sonoma Mt. Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street o McDowell Boulevard'North/Rainier Avenue • Traffic related noise at General Plan b• ildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noiselevels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from'proposed resumption of freight;and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intt•a-city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts when combined with traffic noise. • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout_population that could conflict with the Bay Arem2005 Ozone Strategy. (This-regional air quality plan has.since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, discussed in the Initial Study Air Qualityevaluation, Section 3.) • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant;impact of;global climate change. Staff recommends that these•significant and unavoidable-impacts'be accepted by the Council through adoption of a statement of overriding•considerations;just'as they werefor the. General Plan adoption: In this case, the overriding benefit would be based upon the benefits to the Cityof the Master Plan, FINANCIAL IMPACTS The total project.cost is$300,000. Metropolitan Transportation Commission is providing $240,000;and requiring a $60;000 localmatch. The•Sononia-Maria Area Rail Transit(SMAR•f) ' district!has committed to providing $10,000 of the local match,-.thereby reducingPetaluma''s commitment to $50,000. The Council budgeted $50,000 of PCDC funds forthis project ($25,000 in 2010/11 and $25;000 in 201 l/12). Since the'dissolution of the PCDC, funding of this project 12 • was transferred to+the,Petaluma Community Development Successor-Agency as a recognized obligation and listed oh the Recognized,Obligation Payment Schedule. ATTACHMENTS • I. Resolution Adopting a•MitigatedNegative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan and'SmartCode Amendments. 2. Resolution Adopting;the,Petaluma.SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan 3. Ordinance Adopting the Amended SmattCode and Repealing Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S. 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration/InitialStudy 5. Petaluma SMART RailStationAreas: TOD Master Plan (previously delivered to CC) 6. Appendix A: SmarkCo de Amendments (previously delivered to CC) 7. Addendum 8. Planning Commission=Resolution 9. Public Continents, E Items listed below are large in volume and.are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office or online. I. Petaluma SMARTRailStation Areas: TOD Master Plan http://cityofpetaluma:net/cmgr/pdf/same-tinandraft.pdf 2. Appendix A: SnlaitCede Amendments http://cityofpetalunia.net/cmgr/pdf/smartcode-final-draft.pdf 13 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION:ADOPTING A MITIGATED,NEG'ATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL,IMPACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PETALUMA SMART RAIL STATION AREAS: TOD MASTER PLAN AND AMENDED SMARTCODE WHEREAS, the City Council of the&City of Petaluma by Resolution2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed the filing of an application.for a:grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments' Station Area Planning Program; and WHEREAS; at the City Council goal setting session on January 23, 2010, one of the goals established by the City Council was to implement the CentralPetal'uma Specific Plan and maximize the potential for transit-oriented development; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma executed an;agreement with the'Metropolitan Transportation Commission in November 2010 to develop a station area master plan and related amendments to the City's SmartCode, which prescribes zoning standards for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") area; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma SMART Rail.Station Areas: TOD.Master-Plan Final Draft.January 2013 ("Master Plan") evaluates'the'potential for transit-oriented'development within the two planned Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas; and WHEREAS, the amendedtSmartCode contains amendments=reinstating parking requirements for the CPSP area, corrects certain other outdated text in the existing?SinartCode and makes certain changes to implement the.Master Plan ("Amended SmartCode"); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan,'and the Amended SmartCode constitute the "project" for CEQA purposes; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan=incorporates an analysis of market,dentand, housing, access, Connectivity, and parking, infrastructure and historic-preservation; and WHEREAS, the Master Plamand,SmartCodc also include a framework and development standards for public spaces, frontage types, building types, and phasing;,and WHEREAS,i,lhe Amended;SmartCode implements Master Plan recommendations; and WHEREAS, on,April 7,-2008, the City adopted Resolution No. 2008-058"N.C.S., certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report toi thc General Plan 2025 ("Final FIR") in compliance with the.California:Environmental Quality Act'("CEQA"); and WHEREAS,on May 19,2009, in Resolution No 20087084 N.C.S., the City Council adopted findings relating to environmental impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, including a i 14 finding:that the General Plar EIR'would serve as a,docunient-which could'be--relied on by future projects to Satisfy Certain CEQA requiren-lents; and WHEREAS, because the General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan through 2025-would result in five significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts, a statement of overriding considerations wasadopted by the City Council forthe General Plan 2025. The significant and unavoidable Jrnpapis and the statement of overriding considerations are contained in Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S:; and WHEREAS, the General Plan.2025 was adopted on May 19, 20b8 by Resolution No. 2008-085; and WHEREAS, the project doesnot modify density, change land uses or provide for future development other than as contemplated in theGeneral Plan 2025i and evaluated in the General Plan 2025 EIR; and WHEREAS, no specific development projects are approvedbythe project, which consists of a general planning and policy document:and related zoning amendments;;and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for thetproject.pursuantto CEQA, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, §§15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines")and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines to further assess the:potential environmental effects of the Master Plan, including any new or more significant effects that were not studied in the General Plan FIR; and WHEREAS, the analysis containedin the Initial Studydetermi'ned:that there is no substantial evidence that the project will.have:aaignificant effect On the environment, other than possible incremental contributions to:the:signifeant and unavoidable-impaetS'identified in the General Plan EIR, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was therefore appropriate; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Final EIR and the Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately address the environmental effects of;theproject-for the purposes of CEQA such that further analysisofthe effects in a secend.EIR would.be duplicative (see CEQA Guidelines §15152(d));and WHEREAS,.the,Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available to the public with proper notice and:in:accordance with CEQA on March 7, 2013, providing opportunity for public reviewand'comment; and WHEREAS, on March 26; 201`3, the.PlanningCommission-held a_properly noticed public hearing;.and afterreceiving and considering alhcomments on the proposed Mitigated Negative. Declaration, unanimously recommended that the City'Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration;and 15 WHEREAS, on;May 6, 2013„the City Council held,a,properly noticed hearing, accepted comments;from all interested partiesaon the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. Findings and.Adoption:of Mitigated Negative Declaration.,After independent review and consideration the information in the environmental documentation, including but not limited to the MitigatedNegative Declaration, its supporting Initial Study, all documents and studies referred to or-incorporated in the Initial Study and the record of these • proceedings, theiCity/Councils a. Find"s that the Petaluma SMART.Rail'Station,Areas: TOD Master Plan and associated Amended;SniartCode ("collectively, the project") will not result in nor increase the;signifcance under'CEQA of any significant or-potentially significant environmental effects not.previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan-2025. b. Finds that furtheranalysis of the projects effects in an additional EIR would be merely dupli'cative'and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study of Environmental Significance for the project. c. Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for'the project. 2. Adoption of Statement-of Overriding Considerations. a. The project does.not change of Modify the ektent or nature of the incremental contribution of General Plan 2025 programs and policies to cumulative impacts which were'found to remain significant and unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 Final EIR. b. Those impacts-are (i) Transportation Impact 3.2, deteriorated levels of service at 6 City intersections; (ii) Transportation Impact 3.9-1, increased noise from traffic along certain roadways; (iii) cumulative;potential noise impact;of possiblefuture rail and trolley service combined+with increased-noise from traffic; (iv) Air,Quality Impact 3.10-1, from buildout population numbers that, conflict with the`Bay-Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (.'Ihispregional air quality`plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan but the impact remains-the s_ame.);and (,v) possible•cumulative air quality impact resulting from the City's inability to:determine whether or not'implementation of the General Plan will make a,cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to global climate change. c. In.Resolution:NO..2008-084 N.d:S, the City Council balanced the five remaining unavoidable'impacts-against the General Plan's-benefits, and determined that themnavoidableiimpacts were outweighed by the benefits of the 16 General Plan 2025.`Pu suant to'Cornmunities.for a,figier Envfronmeniv. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4t1`98.) ,the City.Council nmstadopt new overriding considerations for :previously identified unavoidable impacts that:apply to the Master Ptah. The City Council specifically finds that to.the extent that the Master Plan makes an incremental contribution to the adverse+or potentially adverse significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the General Plan EIR which have not been:mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific:economic, legal; social; tecfinological,:environntental, land use, or other benefits and considerations, as set forth below, that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on the environineritand support approval of the project. These overriding con§ideiations include butare hot hi-hired to: (i) The project allows the City to plan for growth in an orderly manner and to carry out policies of the General Plan 2025,and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan which encourage development+supportive of alternative transportation,, contribute to the vitality of:thedowntown and Corona Road Station areas; improve connection and accessibility from the existing-downtown depot to Petalurna's'-historic downtown, and create Opportunities for eventual transit-oriented development. (n) The project will further an interconnected multimodal transportationsystem to improve traffic*circulation; lessen automobile dependence and lessen traffic congestion. (iii) The project will encourage provision of.a wide range of housing choices, including urban units.and apartments associated with'and:convenient to future SMART:rail-transit. (iv) By encouraging residential and business development adjacent to rail transportation and improving multimodalaccessibilityandcirculation within the City, the project furthers the,City's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Notice of Determination. Citystaffis directed to file:alloticetofbeterniination following adoption of the Master Plan and approval of the amended SmartCode imaccordance with CEQA. 4. Record. The location-and custodian-of• he documents and/or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon:which the decision is based is the City'of Petaluma, i l English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, attention: City Clerk. 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall take ihimediate.effect. 17 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PETALUMA SMART RAIL STATION AREAS: TOD MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, of Petalumkby.Resolution,2009-446 N.C.S. endorsed the filing of an application fora:grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments' Station Area Planning Program;and WHEREAS, at the City Council goal.setting session on January 23, 2010, one of the:goals established by the City:Couned'was to:inlplement the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and maximize the potential for transit-oriented development;and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma executed art agreement with the-Metropolitan Transportation Commission in November 2610`to develop a station area niaster`plan,and related amendments to the City's SmartCode, which'preseribes,zoning standards for-.the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") area; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010°the?City Council appointed a;1 T-member Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Station-Area Planning Process;and WHEREAS, City staff, its consultant;team and the Citizen's_Advisory Committee, with input from all affected stakeholders; developed the Petaluma?SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan, Final Draft dated January 201.3 ("Master Plan") and the proposed amended SmartCode; and WHEREAS, on March 26,20,1 3, the'PlanningCommission.considered,the,,Master Plan at a duly noticed public hearing ambunanimously recommended'that the City Council adopt the Master Plan and the amended.SmartCode;.and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the City Council approved an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Master Plan and amended SmartCode in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). NOW,,THEREFORE, IRE IT RESOLVED: I. Recitals. Therabove;Recitals are true and correct.and:incorporated herein by reference. 2. Findings. The CityCouncil tiridsas follows: a, The,Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan ("the Master Plan") is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025"because it is compatible with theGeneral`Plan s objectives, policies, general land uses and programs. In particular,,:the Master Plan provides for SMART rail transit-oriented mixed use-developinent surrounding thedowntown rail depot and a future additionalrail,station, which will complement and support;alternative transportation choices; encourages development 18 •which will strengthen the vitality.ofthe downtown area and provide increased accessibility from,transit facilities and adjacentneigfiborhoods while.adding to and preserving'the•distinctive fabric of the City's historic downtown. b. The MasterPlan is consistent with-the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") because it implements policies of the.CPSP, suppdrts,andprotects existing viable uses while providing,for new uses;that complement the,urban fabrics:of the CPSP area, and continues implementation of CPSP Objective 2-, creating an intense mixed use district with included residential uses oriented fo the river and the transit station. 3. Adoption of Mastei..Plan. The City Council adopts the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan, FinalDratt dated January 2013, which is incorporated herein by reference. • 4. Effective Date. The Master Plan shall take effect thirty days from the effective date of Ordinance No. XXXX, introduced on May 6, 2013,pursuant to State law, including Midway Orchards ij. County of Butte (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 778•and DeVita v. County of Napa(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 787, Fn. 9. 19 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE;OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA ADOPTING AN AMENDED SMARTCODE AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2152 N.C.S. WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City of Petaluma by Resolution 2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed the filing of an application;for a,grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area.Governments' Station Area Planning Program; and WHEREAS, at the City Council goal setting session on January 23, 2010, one of the goals established by the City Council Was to implement the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and maximize the potential for transit-oriented development; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma executed an;agreement with:the=Metropolitan Transportation Commission in November 201'04o develop a station area master plan and related amendments to the City's SmartCode, which preseribes'zoningistandards for,the-Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") area; and WHEREAS, The SmartCode prescribes zoning standards for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") area and Petaluma's two planned SMART station areas and the City has determined that certain amendments to the City of Petaluma SmartCode are required to implement the Station Area Master Plan and to correct'several outdated sections of the SmartCode.. The amended SmartCode containing said amendments is set forth in'Exhibit A to this Ordinance,and incorporated herein by referenee(the "Amended SmartCode"). WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010 the City Council appointed a 17-member Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Station Area Planning_Process; and WHEREAS, City staff, it consultant team and the Citizents Advisory Committee, with input from all affected stakeholders, developed the Petaluma SMART Rail:Station Areas: TOD Master Plan, Final Draft dated January 2013 ("Master Plan") and the Amended SmartCode; and WHEREAS, the Citizen's Advisory Committee at its February 21, 2013 meeting recommended that the Planning Commission.'forward a recommendation to the. City Council to adopt the Master.Plan and Amended SmartCode; and WHEREAS, on March 26, ,2013, the Planning Commission considered the Master Plan and Amended"SmartCode at a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously recommended that the City CouiiciF adopt the Master Plan and Amended SmartCode; and WHEREAS;.the Master Plan and the Amended SmartCode are collectively referred to as "the project:'?' 20 WHEREAS, on May 6, 200, the City Council, 'approyed an initial Study and Mitigated. Negative Declaration (MND)_ for the project- in full 'compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing, and considered all public comments onthe-project. WHEREAS, on May 6,,2013, in:accordance, with all applicable State and local law, the City Council adopted-the Master Plan; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE !COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. a. The above tecitalsaare true and correct and are adopted as findings of the City Council. b. The SmartCode. attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (Amended SmartCode) is in general conformity with-the Petaluma General Plan`2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("C-PSP") because the amendments are expected to encourage new transit-oriented development, promote a range of housing types, proniotejob growth, and assist in the preservation of historic structures, thereby contributing to the City of Petaluma's economic base, yielding net fiscal benefits and strengthening the vitality,and diversity of the community. c. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the Amended SmartCodc because the Amended SmartCode reinstates parking requirements appropriate to the CPSI''°and implements the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TODMaster Plan,("Master Plan"), which in turn: (i) Allows the City to plan Tar growth-in an.orderly manner and to carry out policies of the General Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan which encourage development:supportive of alternative-transportation, contribute to the vitality of the downtown and Corona,Road Station -areas, improve con nection and accessibility from the existing downtown, depot to Petaluma's historic downtown, and create.:opportunities for eventual transit-sensitive development on theCity's`north side. (ii)1 :Furthers' an interconnected multimodal transportation system to improve traffic circulation;.lessen automobile!dependence and lessen traffic congestion. (iii) Will encourage provision of a wide range of',housing choices, including urban units and apartments associated with and convenient to future SMART rail transit. (iv) By encouraging residential and business development adjacent to rail transportation and improving thultimodal accessibility and circulation within the City, will further the City's efforts to reduce greenhouse.gas emissions. 21 • Section 2. Adoption. The City Council hereby,adopts>the Amended SmartCode. Section 3. Repeal. The CityCouncil hereby repeals Ordinance No. 2152 N.C.S., effective upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Severability., If any section, subsection, sentence; clause,.phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction orpreempted by state'legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The,City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it-Would have passed and adopted.this ordinance and each and all provisions thereof irrespective of the (act that any one or more of said provisions be declared unconstitutional, unlawful orptherwise invalid. Section 5. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption bythe Petaluma City Council. Section 6. Posting/Publishing of:Notice. The City-Clerk is;hereby directed to publish or post this ordinance or a synopsis for the period and in the manner provided by the City Charter and Other applicable law. 22 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF PETALUMA PETALUMA SMART RAIL STATION AREAS: TOD MASTER PLAN CEQA Environmental Checklist PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Title: Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan, including the SmartCode Amendments (Appendix A) Lead agency name and address: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Contact person and phone number: Scott Duiven, (707) 778-4511 Project Location: Two SMART Station Areas: Downtown Petaluma Station Area and Corona Road Station Area Project sponsor's name and address: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 General plan designation: Various Zoning: Various Description of project: (Describe the whole action The project includes a Master Plan for TOD involved, including but not limited to later phases of development and SmartCode Amendments. the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site The Master Plan incorporates an analysis of: features necessary for its implementation.) • Market demand; • Housing; • Access, connectivity, and parking; • Infrastructure; and • Historic preservation. The Master Plan also includes a framework for public space, frontage types, building types, and phasing. Text amendments for the SmartCode are included as part of the project to facilitate plan implementation. Surrounding land uses and setting; briefly describe The proposed Downtown Petaluma Station the project's surroundings: area is primarily surrounded by urban and industrial buildings. The proposed Corona Road Station area is bordered by rural land and low-density development outside the Urban Growth Boundary on the northeast and commercial and business park uses to the southwest. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements): 23 Page 1 of 40 February 28,2013 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Introduction: This project is the Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan ("Master Plan"), a master plan for development of two areas within the City of Petaluma that are within the scope of the development evaluated in the Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("General Plan"), and its EIR which was certified on April 7, 2008. The General Plan and its EIR are available for review at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street. in the Community Development Department, and are also available online at http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/index.html. This Initial Study incorporates the analysis of the General Plan EIR and adds information regarding any environmental effects that are different in kind or degree from those studied in the General Plan EIR. No Master Plan policies create new or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because CEQA discourages"repetitive discussions of the same issues" (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(b)) and allows limiting discussion of a later project which is consistent with a prior plan to impacts which were not examined as significant effects in a prior EIR or significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the later project. (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d).) No additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and significant and unavoidable effects found to remain after adoption of all General Plan policies/mitigation measures. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the Master Plan. The General Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts are recognized in this Initial Study, as are any Master Plan policies that affect or reduce the impacts. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six intersections covered in the Master Plan: a McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road a Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane a Lakeville Street/East D Street a Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street a Sonoma Mt. Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street a McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue • Traffic related noise at General Plan buildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intra-city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts. • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout to population levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, discussed in the Initial Study Air Quality evaluation, Section 3.) • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant impact of global climate change. The Master Plan, which includes the SmartCode Amendments in Appendix A, is funded through a grant received by the City of Petaluma from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Station Area Planning Program. The funding program seeks to maximize the potential for transit-oriented development and has driven the project to be a holistic, multidisciplinary planning effort that ensures that the Master Plan reflects "best practices" in planning transit-oriented development. SMART will provide an alternative to Highway 101, the only north-south transportation facility in Sonoma and Marin Counties, by implementing rail service with 14 proposed stations and a bicycle/pedestrian 24 Page 2 o1'40 February 28,2013 pathway in the former Northwestern Pacific railroad corridor. Traffic congestion in the Highway 101 corridor has increased dramatically in the last decade and it is now ranked by Caltrans as one of the most congested freeways in the Bay Area. Commuter-oriented passenger train service will provide an estimated 14 round-trip trains per day, operating at 30-minute intervals in the morning and evening peak commuting hours during the week. SMART's environmental studies project 5,000 to 6,000 passenger trips per day will be made on the train and 7.000 to 10,000 daily trips will be made on the bicycle/pedestrian pathway. SMART projects the rail project will take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, by at least 124.000 pounds per day. The Master Plan includes a discussion of opportunity sites, a description and illustrations of the preferred plan, alternative frameworks studied, a description of some of the key design elements used to promote the goals of the funding program, including walkability and livability, a phasing strategy, and a program for the Station Areas (addressing market demand, housing, connectivity, infrastructure, and historic preservation). Project Location and Setting: The Master Plan is proposed to guide development in two areas of the City, the Downtown Petaluma Station Area and the Corona Road Station Area. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) has designated two station sites that will serve the SMART rail and trail project. The Master Plan areas are proposed for transit-oriented development that effectively capitalize on existing employment centers, commercial activities, and the complementary development of housing and additional job generating uses that would serve to support commuter rail. The Master Plan includes scenarios for future population growth within the City of Petaluma for use in the Master Plan area based on Petaluma's increasing share of urban population in Sonoma County (see Table 1). The Master Plan's market analysis and the population projections are derived from the adjusted state projections (which took into consideration that projections for Sonoma County and Petaluma were mostly proven incorrect by the most current Census). Based upon the foregoing, between 2010 and 2030 there should be an increase in households of between 5,400 and 6,400 households. These projections confirm that there will be a market for housing in the city. 2010 2020 2030 Change (2010 to 2030) Population Low 57,941 63,220 69,466 11,525 Population High 57,941 64.303 71,865 13,924 Households Low 21,737 24,281 27,183 5,446 Household High 21,737 24,697 28,121 6,384 HH Size Trend 2.65 2.60 2.56 (0.096) The Downtown Petaluma Station area includes the one half mile radius around the renovated historic rail depot adjacent to Lakeville Street and bounded by East Washington Street and East D Street. The area encompasses 636 acres. The Downtown Petaluma Station will provide easy access to the surrounding neighborhoods, downtown, Turning Basin, and regional transit connections. The long-term vision of the station area is that of a walkable extension of the existing downtown, with limited parking where the majority of the visitors arrive by transit, bicycle, walking, or water. The Corona Road Station Area is located in northwestern Petaluma in the vicinity of the intersection of Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard and extending out a one half-mile radius from the station site. The area encompasses 674 acres. The Corona Road Station site will likely include a significant park- and-ride component while also benefiting from improved transit access to nearby employment, housing, community health services like the Petaluma Health Center, and student services like Santa Rosa Junior College. Construction of the Corona Road Station has been deferred by SMART to a second phase pending improved revenues. 25 Page 3 of 40 February 28.2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan: Rail Station Location Map Coreoa Road Staticn Downtown Petalumo Station i • • • - f I • • • .. tot BOUNDARIES Olht riots Utter Growth boundary(1I6B Pivots 9M Cram, M 26 Page 4 of 40 February 28,2013 Downtown Petaluma Station Area Map• • r. 7 - _ lit&ktTJf T A ) \y..j t-J E �� •- ,rv[. �L. �C `.F Y� '�yr r• f• _T Nk...7 •' 'T / �A, • > M4'`4Y !, t r C17 Ttit 't .l .r 'i (` J.� �"Q+� ATV y ..%, ' 4:4-1. ...,.bpi - ''.• hn_ * i. V ( _,+� '�uIE te4+r �?. [:1�' 1 S' IT I1 ,J.!11C 'T{c- Downtown Petaluma Station Area N Legend N _ - ->... I Central Petaluma Spec he!'Ian Afr'.a -+I ' ti Central Petaluma FOCUS PDA Half Moe Ratlurs Around Station Ep Planned SMART Ran Staten E5 Exrsung Bt.; Tuns,:Mall 27 Page 5 of 40 February 28,2013 Corona Road Station Area Map • ��•I •. �.` i • .* i •%V. i I • ,` f • . . • '" ? . . ( • . \ �' •` I r.. '. I ;. .% . - . " Lt.. •'' . y ti....N.! + f i Corona Road Station Area Legend .‘4,-t J0 0 t00 feet r'1;;krona-r ly Specfic Plan Area Nat(M le Radius Aroand Station L__.!City Limits Urban Gr•:iwth HGrmdary;UGBI ,3GB Pusaade Expans on Anna tai Piannen SMART Rail Station • 28 Page 6 of 40 February 28,2013 General Plan: The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008, serves the following purposes: • Reflects a commitment on the part of the City Council and their appointed representatives and staff to carry out the Plan; • Outlines a vision for Petaluma's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation; enhances the true quality of life for all residents and visitors; recognizes that all human activity takes place within the limits of the natural environment; and reflects the aspirations of the community; • Provides strategies and specific implementing policies and programs that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize impacts and hazards; and • Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as Development Codes, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), facilities and Master Plans, redevelopment projects, and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The map below indicates the General Plan designated land uses within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area (1/2 mile from Station Parcel). The Station Area is approximately 636 acres, of which 447 acres are mapped with a designated land use (remaining 189 acres are composed primarily of Street ROW and Petaluma River). The primary designated land uses are Mixed Use (42%) Diverse Low Density Residential (24%), Public/Semi-Public (8%), and Medium Density Residential (7%). Within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area. there are also several designated industrial land uses (Industrial, Agricultural Support Industrial, and River Dependent Industrial) that together occupy 10% of the designated land use in the Downtown Petaluma Station Area. There are no proposed amendments to the General Plan to accommodate development in the Downtown Petaluma Station Area Downtown Petaluma Station Area General Plan Land Use Designations Y' e:'4,44' Low Density Residential 5.34 acres 1.2(°•: 'r P + � Diverse Low Density Residential 107.92 acres 2+15% • :. Medium Density Revdcrufal 29.52 acres 6.60% High Density Residential 3.50 acres 0.7033/4.4 a Tt. �..� ! `^ / 41r14-140- Community Commercial 0.10 acres 002's ���{ . j ,.. - Maid Use 18784 acres a"t.0?% I'-' Pubhci5enn Public 36.50 acres 8.17% s' Education 9.35 acres 2.09% , Industrial 22.13 acres 4.95% /� 1s,;r ,, - ,� � '� �,\ �AgrkukureSuppor[htdustnai 7.94 acres 1J8% y#��s; i ,7 - % "S:; `Fl``ref"�1� "$ /, \ a River Dependent Industria: 16.0S acres 3.59% ` *—r. <4 i>7 r, . 194'. �'` CITY Park 19.46 acres 4.35% y�. � /� `4) poor < 7 )� vR ; °F�:= '• 1° , Ii i/� Open Space 1.27 acres 029% �L``+ r�u 'Il ft �f►�g3i�i f, a∎/". "41.r .te w� ��� Total 446.94acr.s 100% 29 Page 71)1'40 February 28,2013 The map below indicates the land use within the Corona Road Station Area (1/2 mile from Station Parcel). The Station Area is approximately 674 acres, of which 408 is mapped with a land use (remaining 266 acres is composed primarily of area outside of the UGB, Street ROW, and Highway ROW). The primary land uses are Business Park (23%) Low Density Residential (20%), and Mobile Homes (14%). Outside of the area designated as Business Park, 13% of the site has a Commercial (Neighborhood or Community) or Mixed-Use designation. Forty-two percent has some form of residential designation, primarily low density. There are no proposed amendments to the General Plan to accommodate development in the Corona Road Station area. Corona Road Station Area General Plan Land Use Designations • • •w4 • �' `.a ,'.;'. ,� Very Low Density Residential 16.61 acres 4.07% • • Low Density Residential 81.39 acres 19.93% \S. High Density Residential 13.36 acres 3.27% �• \` Mobile Homes 58-64 acres 14.36% •, Neighborhood Commercial 8.56 acres 2.10% Community Commercial 35.20 acres 8.62% Mind Use 12.06 acres 2.95% `' Business Park 94.90 acres 23.23% ■•\r . •' Publk/Semi Public 21.55 acres S.28% • Ns, Education 4.45 acres 1.09% -„ , Industrial 35.75 acres 8.75% le City Perk 6.74 acres 1.65% Open Space 19.28 acres 4.72% •�..r \r� Total 416.94awes 100% General Plan 2025 EIR: The General Plan 2025 EIR was published in September 2007 (a revision was published to address Green House Gas impacts in November 2007). The Final EIR was published in February 2014 and certified on April 7, 2008. The General Plan EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. The EIR identifies the SMART rail corridor and its potential to include two stations in Petaluma, at the historic Petaluma Depot and at Corona Road. Central Petaluma Specific Plan: The Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) addresses land use, density and intensity, transportation, and community character in the Central Petaluma area. The Central Petaluma area contains extensive vacant and underutilized parcels surrounding the Petaluma River and Turning Basin, a rail corridor with transit potential, and adjacent commercial and industrial uses. Adopted in June 2003, the CPSP calls for a mix of housing and activities within a walkable core area, a variety of transportation alternatives, and a working industrial waterfront along the river. Through the adoption of the CPSP, the City of Petaluma became the first City to adopt the SmartCode as a mandatory overlay. The SmartCode is a unified land development ordinance template for planning and urban design. It provides detailed regulations for development and new land uses within the Specific Plan area, and describes how these regulations will be used as part of the City's development review process. The SmartCode is intended to ensure that all new buildings are harmonious with each other and with the character of Petaluma. The SmartCode is further intended to ensure that the area covered by the CPSP evolves into new, mixed-use neighborhoods with the following characteristics: 30 Page 8 of 40 February 28,2013 • The size of neighborhoods reflect a five-minute walking distance from edge to center(center meaning a railroad transit stop or the existing Downtown); • The mixture of land uses includes shops, workplaces, residences, and civic buildings in proximity: • A variety of thoroughfares that serve the needs of the pedestrian, the cyclist and the automobile equitably; • Public open spaces that provide places for informal social activity and recreation; and • Building frontages that define the public space of each street. The following proposed amendments to the SmartCode are intended to ensure that the development within the Downtown Station area is consistent with the community's vision and Master Plan . These amendments include: • Refinements to address procedural issues in the existing document raised by staff, developers, and community members; • Refinements to development standards that have been found to be impediments to development; • Expanded regulations to provide more certainty for the community and clarity for developers on the type and form of new development; and • Refinements consistent with the updating of the Smart Code template from the version that was adopted to the current version (v.9.2). The following table lists the proposed amendments to the SmartCode document (revisions in Appendix A of the Master Plan). There are no changes to the allowable development densities and intensities established in the CPSP. Introduction Provide an expanded Intent that combines the purpose included in the Intent existing Smart Code and the intent in Version 9.2 of the Smart Code. The expanded Intent will provide criteria used to rule on requests for Warrants. Section 2—Zoning Map Table 2.1 Transect one Version 9.2 of the SmartCode includes a table that provides descriptions of Descriptions[new] the character of each zone(Table 1). A version of this table that has been calibrated for Petaluma has been added to the SmartCode. 2.10 Provide a refined zoning map that shows a reduced amount of T6 required in the station area After analyzing market demand data, see Chapter 3 Zoning Map (Market Demand), it was determined that the ground floor retail and density required by T6 was more than the market could support. The updated zoning should focus T6 into areas that are most appropriate for ground floor retail and higher densities. Section 3—Building Function Standards 3.10.030 Introduce a Minor Use Permit(MUP). The minor use permit enables administrative review of uses that are generally compatible with the allowed Permit uses in that zone, but may have minor components of that use that require Requirements for an administrative review and/or conditions of approval to ensure there are Allowable Uses no conflicts with surrounding uses. The Minor Use Permit provides an [new] intermediate, administrative level of review that ensures consistency with the community's vision without adding the time and cost associate with a full Use Permit to uses that are generally compatible. Table 3.1 Allowed Functions and Update table to include Minor Use Permits. Permit Requirements Table 3.1 Allowed Functions and Update table to include T6-Open to allow for ground floor office and service Permit uses. Requirements 31 Page 9 of 40 February 28,2013 Table 4.1 Urban Standards Update the Urban Standards Table consistent with the vision for the Table Downtown Station Area: • Eliminate Density Maximums-Rely on Form-Based Standards to regulate development. Density requirements could discourage smaller units near transit. •Add Thoroughfares/Public Frontage Types to the table(consistent with SmartCode v.9.2). • Refine List of Civic Space Types to be consistent with revised Civic Space Standards. • Eliminate Lot Area and Lot Coverage Requirements for T5 and T6. Lot Area and Lot Coverage for T5 and T6 should be more precisely regulated by building type. •Add Build-to Line standards for T6 to ensure that all buildings are placed at back of sidewalk and there is a consistent facade plane. •Revise Setbacks, create separate regulations for Principal Building and Outbuilding, rear setbacks along alleys to 0'. •Add allowed Building Types. •Add Private Frontages. • Revise height limits. Allow 6 stories max. in T6; allow T5 to have height bonus to 6 stories. •Add regulations for Ground Floor Height, Ground Floor Depth. and Distance Between Entries. • Revise parking standards. 1 space per market rate unit: .5 space per affordable unit: 1 space per room for lodging uses; 2.0 spaces per 1000 sq. ft for all other uses. 4.20.010 Bldg Height Bonus Change exception to apply to T5. 4.30 Building Placement Update the Building Placement Table with the Building Disposition Table (Table 9)from the SmartCode v.9.2 that has been calibrated for Petaluma. 4.30 Frontage Types Provide expanded Private Frontage Standards that includes regulations for each frontage type. - Figure 4.4 Frontage Type Add frontage type Regulating Plan indicating where specific frontage types Regulating Plan [new] are required or allowed. 4.5 Civic Spaces Provide expanded Private Civic Space Standards that include additional regulations as well as smaller open spaces appropriate for urban location. Figure 4.5 Civic Space Add Civic Space Regulating Plan that provides additional dimensional Regulating Plan [new] requirements. 4.70.020 Live/Work Units Revise standards to reflect intended live/work types and ensure easy approval. 4.70.030 Mixed-Use Revise standards to reflect intended mixed-use types and address community concerns about industrial uses and noise. 4.80 Building Type Introduce Building Type Standards to provide additional guidance for the Standards[new] development of specific Building Types. 4.90 Commercial Signage Introduce Commercial Signage Standards to provide additional guidance for Standards[new] the development of specific Building Types. 5_10.030 Thoroughfare Provide additional standards related to thoroughfare design. Design[new] 5.10.040 Movement Type and Provide descriptions of the Movement Type and Design Speed. Design Speed[new] 5.10.050 Intersections [new] Add regulations to address intersections. 5.10.060 Public Frontages Add regulations to address public frontages. [new] 5.10.070 Thoroughfare Add the additional thoroughfare Assemblies to the catalogue of existing Assemblies[new] thoroughfare assemblies. 5.10 Thoroughfare Standards Key Map Update the thoroughfare standards key map for the Station Area. 32 Page 10 of 40 February 28.2013 Section 6-Parking Standards 6.10.070 Sunset Clause: Update Sunset Clause.Allow waiving of all parking standards should the Establishment of city adopt a policy targeting a parking availability of 15%for on-street Civic Parking parking spaces on each block face and parking is managed to achieve this Infrastructure supply goal through the use of permits,time-limits,pricing,or a combination thereof. Section 8-Code Administration 8.10.020 Warrant or Variance Provide a procedure for Warrants and Variances. Procedures[new] 8.10.030 Limited Time Update the list of allowed temporary uses to include retail incubator Permits structures and increase the limit of duration for these structures to up to 3 years with required yearly renewal. 8.10.060 Minor Use Permit Provide an administrative procedure fora Minor Use Permit. [new] Section 9-Glossary 9.10.020 Definitions Update illustrated definitions with illustrations from SmartCode v.9.2. 9.10.020 Definitions Provide additional definitions related to mixed-use addressing: • River Industrial •Agricultural Industrial •Primary Use •Accessory use • Live/Work and Work/Live •Hours of Operation(provide distinction between business hours and hours during which machinery is operational) Source: Table 8.3: SmartCode Amendments, Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Final Draft January 2013, Page 8-12. Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR: The Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR (CPSP EIR)was published in March 2003. The Final EIR was published in April 2003 and certified on June 2, 2003. The General Plan EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the 101 corridor approximately 15 miles south of Santa Rosa and 20 miles north of San Rafael. Situated at the northernmost navigable end of the Petaluma River, a tidal estuary that snakes southward to San Pablo Bay, Petaluma's boundaries are defined by the surrounding landscape. The City originated along the banks of the Petaluma River, spreading outward over the floor of the Petaluma River Valley as the City grew. The Valley itself is defined by Sonoma Mountain on the northeast and by the hills extending northward from Burdell Mountain on the west. To the south are the Petaluma Marshlands and beyond, the San Francisco Bay. Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary encompasses approximately 9,911 acres. The Downtown Petaluma Station area encompasses a number of valuable historic and cultural resources, and is bisected by the Petaluma River, an important navigational, recreational, industrial, and visual asset to the downtown area. The Corona Road Station area, in contrast to the Downtown Station's historic urban-industrial context, conveys a strong rural character. A large proportion of the area to the north of the proposed Corona Road Station site is outside the Urban Growth Boundary and intended to stay preserved as rural land in the foreseeable future; where developed, the Corona Road area maintains lower density forms in comparison to the Downtown area. 33 Page 11 of 40 February 28,2013 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED None of the following environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project. The environmental factors below are discussed in this document. 1. Aesthetics II 2. Agricultural & Forestry I 3. Air Quality Resources 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Geology/Soils 7. Greenhouse Gas 8. Hazards& Hazardous 9. Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Materials 10. Land Use/Planning 11. Mineral Resources 12. Noise 13. Population/ Housing 14. Public Services 15. Recreation 16. Transportation/Traffic 17. Utilities/Service Systems 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Signature Date 34 Page 12 of 40 February 28.2013 1. AESTHETICS: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and X historic buildings within view of a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? Aesthetics Setting Aesthetic and visual resources in the Master Plan Areas include views of the Sonoma Mountains, hills, and agricultural land, natural elements including the Petaluma River, Corona Creek, and landscapes, and elements of the built environment including historic structures, unique homes and architecture, and rural agricultural support structures. Aesthetics Impact Discussion: 1(a). No Impact: The Master Plan implements the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025 (General Plan) and the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). The General Plan contains numerous policies regarding the preservation of scenic roads and highways. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR are anticipated, and thus the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 1(b-c). No Impact: The Master Plan implements the General Plan and CPSP. Impacts from future growth have been previously identified in the General Plan EIR. Future development would be required to be consistent with existing adopted General Plan policies that protect the scenic resources of the City of Petaluma. Implementation of the Master Plan proposes to enhance visual character by creating visual interest in the public space framework that draws the pedestrian from one location to the next. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR are anticipated, and thus the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 1(d). No Impact: The Master Plan implements the General Plan and CPSP. Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO)§21.040.D specifies lighting standards for all new exterior lighting. Prior to approval of any new projects within the City requiring a Conditional Use Permit or Design Review approval, the City shall conduct project-specific environmental review to determine whether the project would cause any significant impacts and, where possible, to mitigate potential environmental impacts. In addition, any proposed project would have to conform to any applicable design standards and any adopted local or State codes that regulate public health and safety such as the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, or Mechanical Codes. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR are anticipated, and thus the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 35 Page 13 of 40 February 28,2013 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation In determining whether impacts to agricultural Incorporated resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or X a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by X Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Agricultural Setting Agricultural lands, located in the northern tip of the city, comprise approximately 77 acres, less than one percent of the land within the Petaluma Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). There are no forest lands, farmlands or agricultural resources located within the Master Plan areas. Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion: 2(a-e). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in impacts to farmland or agricultural uses located within the City of Petaluma. The Master Plan implements the General Plan and CPSP. Impacts from future growth have been previously identified in the General Plan EIR. Sites for future 36 Page 14 of 40 February 28,2013 development are zoned appropriately; most development will be as urban infill, no land in the Master Plan areas are designated important farmlands. No impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR are anticipated, and thus the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. In 2010 the City Council placed a ballot measure before the voters extending the UGB to 2025. 3. AIR QUALITY: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Where available, the significance criteria Incorporated established by the air quality management district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or X state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (emissions from direct, X indirect, mobile and stationary sources)? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? Air Quality Setting According to the Petaluma General Plan EIR (Air Quality—Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section), vehicle emissions were the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (59 percent), which is discussed further under Section 7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Air quality in both study areas is affected by vehicular traffic as well as emissions from natural gas and energy use in buildings. Downtown Petaluma Station Area air quality may also be affected by nearby industrial activities, and agricultural operations may impact air quality in the Corona Road station area, potentially contributing to dust and chemicals in the air. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan related to air quality are: • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout to population levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, discussed below.) All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the Master Plan. Air Quality Impact Discussion: 3(a). No Impact: The City of Petaluma is located in the Bay Area Air Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is charged with implementing regulations and programs to reduce air pollution and assist the Bay Area in reaching all outdoor air quality standards. The BAAQMD operates an air quality monitoring station in downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of Petaluma. The BAAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Division 37 Page 15 of 40 February 28,2013 routinely conducts inspections and audits of potential polluting sites to ensure compliance with applicable federal, State, and BAAQMD regulations. The 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan contain district wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor and carbon monoxide emissions. The 2005 Ozone Strategy was based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) employment and populations projections for 2003. General plans that are consistent with ABAG projections are considered consistent with the growth projections of the adopted air quality plan. At the time of adoption, the City's General Plan was not in conformance with the population projections of the 2005 Ozone Strategy. BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in September 2010. The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area ozone plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. As stated above, general plans that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts used in the CAP are considered consistent with the growth projections of the adopted air quality plan. However,the City's General Plan is not in compliance with the new 2010 CAP. The population projections are less than the City's General Plan. Air quality impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the EIR for the General Plan. No new or increased impact beyond what is already anticipated in the 2008 General Plan as a result of the Master Plan. 3(b-c). No Impact: In 1998, the Bay Area recorded excesses of the national one-hour standard on 8 days and excesses of the state standard on 29 days. In 2000, excesses of the national one-hour ozone standard were recorded on 3 days and excesses of the State standard were recorded on 12 days. To comply with state air quality standards for ozone, BAAQMD prepared the Clean Air Plan for the Bay Area in 1991 and that plan has been updated every three years since, with the latest update in 2010. The Master Plan does not propose any additional development not anticipated by the 2008 General Plan. Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The Master Plan will be implementing transit-oriented development, which by its very nature is projected to reduce overall vehicles trips, therefore having a positive impact or air quality be reducing vehicle emissions. Air quality impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the EIR for the 2008 General Plan. 3(d). No Impact: The Master Plan has identified sites in the planning areas where infill could occur, but does not propose any site-specific new development. Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No new or increased impact as a result of the Master Plan will result beyond what is already anticipated in the 2008 General Plan and 2003 CPSP. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to air quality, pollutant concentrations, and sensitive receptor exposure. 3(e). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No new or increased impact as a result of the Master Plan will result beyond what is already anticipated in the 2008 General Plan and CPSP. 4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special X status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 38 Page 16 of 40 February 28,2013 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and X regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, X marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Biological Resources Impact Discussion: 4(a). No Impact:Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or special status. The General Plan EIR states that occurrences of several plant and animal species with special-status have been recorded or are suspected to occur in the Sonoma County area and the Petaluma vicinity. Several of these species have been reported in the City, and most of these are associated with the Petaluma River and its tributaries. A number of the natural communities in the City also have a high inventory priority with the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity and threats, and are considered sensitive resources. Section 4.1, Biology and Natural Resources, in Chapter 4 (The Natural Environment)of the General Plan focuses on habitat protection in order to protect threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or special status species through numerous goals, policies, and programs. Impacts on such species either directly or through habitat modifications resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. No new or increased impacts as a result of the Master Plan will result above what is already anticipated in the General Plan and CPSP. The level and significance of environmental impacts resulting from future development projects will be further assessed in accordance with CEQA, as necessary. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to any biological resources identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. 4(b). No Impact:Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself have a substantial effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The goals and policies in Section 4.1 (Biology and Natural Resources) of the General Plan would serve to protect wetlands, habitat for special-status species, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and wildlife movement corridors. Additional biological and wetland assessments would be required as part of environmental review of proposed developments, as called for in Program 4-P-3.A of the General Plan. Where sensitive resources are encountered, adequate mitigation would be required through avoidance, minimization, on-site mitigation and off-site mitigation as called for in policies and programs in the General Plan. Impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive 39 Page 17 of 40 February 28,2013 natural communities resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. No new or increased impacts will result from adopting the Master Plan beyond those already anticipated in the General Plan and CPSP. 4(c). No Impact: The City of Petaluma has wetlands listed in the National Wetland inventory, which include: fresh emergent wetlands in the southern portion of the Petaluma River and Northern coastal salt marsh wetland and brackish marsh wetland in the lower reaches of the Petaluma River. Figure 3.8-1 (Habitat Areas and Special Status Species) in the General Plan EIR shows no wetlands in the two Master Plan areas. For protection of land adjacent to the Petaluma River and its tributaries Section 4.1 (Biology and Natural Resources) of the General Plan and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance have measures that protect waterways. Since no impacts to biological resources are anticipated beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are proposed. Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself have a substantial effect on any federally protected wetlands. 4(d). No Impact: All impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development within the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that development within the City's urban growth boundary would not interfere with the movement of fish or other wildlife species that migrate through the already urbanized areas of the City. Adopting the Master Plan will not result in new or increased impacts beyond those already anticipated in the 2008 General Plan. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to any wildlife species. 4(e). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Local policies and ordinances designed to protect biological resources were drafted in response to identified environmental impacts at full build-out as discussed in the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan. Adopting the Master Plan will not change or conflict with any of the existing local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 4(f). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or with Section 4.1 (Biology and Natural Resources) of the General Plan. Section 4.1 (Biology and Natural Resources) addresses development impacts to plant and animal habitat. Future development within the City will be subject to the policies of the Biology and Natural Resources section and environmental review as required by CEQA. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less man Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries? Cultural Resources Setting: As noted in the General Plan, Petaluma has over 300 properties of potential historic significance, a number of which are located within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area. The Coast Miwok Indians 40 Page 18 of 40 February 28,2013 resided in southern Sonoma County, and Petaluma was originally the name of a Miwok village east of the Petaluma River. Early settlers from the eastern United States flocked to the City in the mid 1800s after the discovery of gold. Historic resources within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area include the train depot, residential neighborhoods, pedestrian and vehicular bridges, and an abundance of commercial and industrial structures. A significant portion of the Downtown commercial core is located within the Petaluma Historic Commercial District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Downtown Petaluma Station Area development is designed to protect and complement historic districts and structures. The Master Plan notes that historic resources are central to Petaluma culture and contribute greatly to the aesthetic quality and character of the downtown. The Historic Preservation Chapter of the General Plan includes policies and programs to protect the City's historic and cultural resources throughout the City. In addition to those in the General Plan, the Master Plan includes recommendations for additional historic preservation efforts, and potential funding sources to implement recommendations. Cultural Resources Impact Discussion: 5(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource within the City of Petaluma. Impacts on historical resources resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the Master Plan areas or from the removal, modification or demolition of existing residences were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures integrated into the various elements of the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. While the General Plan has an extensive list of policies and programs for historic preservation, the Master Plan includes recommendations that focus on the top priorities and concerns specific to the Master Plan areas.Additionally, the standards from Section 7 (Historic Resources Conservation & Preservation)of the Smart Code establishes regulations for the protection of culturally and/or historically significant sites and structures in the Master Plan area. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review, development standards and compliance with all applicable policies related to any historical resources. 5(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Existing General Plan policies related to archaeological resources will continue to apply to future development projects. Impacts associated with archaeological resources resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures were integrated into the 2008 General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Adopting the Master Plan will not result in new or increased impacts on archaeological resources not anticipated in the General Plan or CPSP. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to any archaeological resources. 5(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No site-specific development is proposed as a result of Master Plan implementation. Impacts associated with paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures were integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to any unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 5(d). No Impact:Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Impact on human remains resulting from the anticipated growth and 41 Page 19 of 40 February 28.2013 development of the City or from the removal, modification or demolition of existing residential units were addressed in the EIR for the Petaluma General Plan. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to human remains or other cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42) ii) Strong Seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or X off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Geology and Soils Setting Within Petaluma, the most significant geologic hazards relating to the Master Plan areas are those associated with liquefaction, expansive soils, and ground shaking during earthquakes. Other geologic hazards include the potential for expansive soils and soil erosion. The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region. The principal faults in the area are capable of generating large earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking in Petaluma. No active faults run directly through the City, however the City is less than 5 miles northeast of the Rodgers Creek Fault. The traces of the Rodgers Creek closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), but show evidence of activity during the last 11,000 years, a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Within Petaluma, the areas most at risk from liquefaction are along the Petaluma River. Figure 3.7-5 of the 2008 General Plan shows areas with potential liquefaction hazard. Although liquefaction often causes severe damage to structures, structural collapse is uncommon. The risk to public safety from liquefaction, therefore, is relatively low. Structures can be protected from liquefaction through the use of special 42 Page 20 of 40 February 28,2013 foundations. The City's Building Code requires that each construction site suspected of containing liquefaction-prone soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard. Expansive soils are significant geologic hazards in the City. Expansive soil materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey foams in the City. Buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by expansive soils and the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings in the City has created significant safety concerns and financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils, the City's Building Code requires that each construction site suspected of containing expansive soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard. Soil erosion is a geologic hazard in relationship to construction activity within the City. Soil erosion is naturally occurring process. The agents of soil erosion are water and wind, each contributing a significant amount of soil loss. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope, the narrowing of runoff channels, and by the removal of groundcover. When completed, surface improvements, such as buildings and paved roads, decrease the potential for erosion onsite, but can increase the rate and volume of runoff, potentially causing off-site erosion. If unmitigated, eroding soil can clog drainages and cause flooding, slope instability, and additional erosion by diverting water flow. To reduce the risks associated with erosion, the City's Building Code requires that the grading of each construction site be planned and implemented to eliminate the hazard. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process is instrumental in this effort (see Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR). Geology and Soils Impact Discussion: 6(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. Impacts to persons and property associated with seismic activity resulting from full build- out of the General Plan were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to future development projects will reduce the severity of potential impacts. Conformance with standard Uniform Building Code Guidelines would also minimize potential impacts from seismic shaking. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal. future development will be subject to additional environmental review and geotechnical evaluation. 6(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts to soils resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. No new or increased impact will result above what is already anticipated in the existing environmental documents as a result of adopting the Master Plan. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to erosion. 6(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan itself will not cause structures to be subject to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Geologic impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to future development projects will reduce the severity of potential impacts. In addition, new development would be subject to the City's Implementation Zoning Ordinance related to grading, erosion, and sediment control. No new or increased impacts will result above what is already anticipated in the existing environmental documents. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse. 6(d). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan itself will not cause development to occur on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. Standard measures integrated into the 2008 General Plan in 43 Page 21 of 40 February 28,2013 the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to future development projects will reduce the severity of potential impacts. No new or increased impacts will result above what is already anticipated in the General Plan EIR as a result of adopting the Master Plan. Furthermore, any development as a result of the Master Plan would be subject to all existing City development standards and will be subject to further environmental review and soils analysis. 6(e). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan itself will not cause development to occur on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Master Plan areas are located within the City limits in urbanized locations where adequate sewer facilities are available. Impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to future development projects will reduce the severity of potential impacts. No new or increased impacts will result beyond those already anticipated in the existing environmental documents as a result of adopting the Master Plan. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to soils incapable of supporting wastewater disposal. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Potentially Less Than I Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions X of greenhouse gases? Setting The potential effect of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on global climate change is an emerging issue that warrants discussion under CEQA. Unlike the pollutants discussed above (Section 3. Air Quality)that may have regional and/or local effects, project-generated GHG emissions do not directly produce local or regional impacts, but may contribute to an impact on global climate change. While individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of GHG, when added to all other GHG producing activities around the world, they may result in global increases in these emissions. In addition, local or regional environmental effects may occur if the climate is changed. Therefore, a project produces an indirect localized and regional environmental impact from its contribution of GHG and the subsequent change in global climate. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan related to green house gas emissions are: • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant impact of global climate change. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the Master Plan. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 7(a-b). No Impact: The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, requiring that the State reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. An enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions was initiated in 2012. In addition, Senate Bill 375 seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. In response to these legislative actions, the City of Petaluma is 44 Page 22 of 40 February 28,2013 currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions which will implement General Plan Policy 4-P-27"...prepare a Community Climate Action Plan to identify and prioritize programs, projects, and procedural policies that will help the City achieve the community greenhouse gas emission goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 1990 levels by 2015)". Similar to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan identified by the California Attorney General, the Climate Action Plan will quantify community-wide emissions for 1990 (per Resolution 2005-118) and identify programs for reducing emissions by 2020. In 2007, the City prepared a revised Air Quality section for the General Plan EIR to address greenhouse gas emissions. Appendix A of the 2007 Revised EIR includes all of the applicable policies from the General Plan that significantly reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. One of these policies (Policy 3-P-97) directly identifies a component of this project: "work with regional and other agencies to create a new rail transit station near Corona Road with high-intensity, transit-oriented development." SMART projects the rail project will take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, by at least 124,000 pounds per day. The implementation of the Master Plan and Smart Code Amendments would not result in conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable strategies and implementation actions adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Plan-related impacts would be less than significant. 8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a X result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? 45 Page 23 of 40 February 28,2013 h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Hazards/Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion: 8(a-g). No Impact: The Master Plan is a policy and regulatory document and does not propose any physical development activity, therefore it will not result in creation or emission of hazardous materials. Regulations related to hazardous materials and waste are implemented by a number of governmental agencies that have established regulations regarding the proper transportation, handling, management, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials for specific operations and activities. Pursuant to CEQA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTCS) maintains a hazardous-waste and substances sites list(Cortese List). There are no Cortese sites within the City of Petaluma. The Project is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan or within the vicinity of a private air strip. In addition, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any project proposed in the City would have to conform to any applicable adopted local or State codes that regulate public health and safety, such as the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, or Mechanical Codes. Therefore, adoption of the Master Plan would not result in a significant impact. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to hazards or hazardous material. 8(h). No Impact: Downtown Petaluma Station area is predominantly commercial and industrial, with very little open space, therefore posing minimal potential fire safety problems. The Corona Station area is suburban in nature with more open space, posing potential fire safety problems. Impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures applicable to future development projects will reduce the severity of potential impacts. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere l� substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production X rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the X course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the X II course of a stream or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result 46 Page 24 of 40 February 28,2013 in flooding on-or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood hazard boundary or flood X insurance rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that X would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? _ j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? X Hydrology and Water Quality Setting: Petaluma River The Petaluma River is central to the Downtown Petaluma Station Area and runs through the southwest portion of the Corona Road Station Area, south of Highway 101. The portions of the river within the study areas are part of the lower reaches of the Petaluma watershed (an area of approximately 46 square miles). The river continues to the southeast of Petaluma and flows directly into San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma River is used for recreational boating and water sports as well as long-standing river- dependent industrial operations. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dredges the river on a four-year cycle to maintain navigability for commercial shipping. In order to ensure continued dredging services from the USACE, there must be an "economically justifiable"tonnage of commercial products moved on the river, as determined by the USACE. Dredging is vital not only to commercial operations, but also to recreational boating and flood control. While the General Plan suggests potential alternative sources to fund dredging operations, such as the establishment of an assessment district, the continued accommodation of industrial uses on the waterfront remains an important land use consideration. The Petaluma River and Turning Basin within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area are central to the identity of the City's downtown and are a key factor in the SMART station's connection to the City's historic urban core. New developments proposed under the Master Plan are encouraged to engage and activate the waterfront, preserve existing river-dependent uses, feature the river as an integral component of design and orientation, and enhance public access to the riverfront. Corona Creek Corona Creek is a tributary to the Petaluma River that runs from the northeast to southwest through the Corona Road Station study area. The creek bisects suburban residential development throughout much of the study area and serves as public open space, including a bicycle and pedestrian trail. Flooding The Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared in 2008 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identify areas in Petaluma subject to flooding during a 100-year storm. The flood zones are identified in Figures 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 in General Plan EIR.A"100-year storm" means that in any year there is one chance out of 100 for a serious flood to occur. There are several areas in and around the Master Plan areas that historically have experienced significant flooding, including areas adjacent to the Petaluma River and Willow Brook Creek upstream of Corona Road. 47 Page 25 of 40 February 28.2013 Water Supply Based on the General Plan EIR and a recent update of water supply and demand for the City's 2010 Updated Urban Water Management Plan adopted on June 6, 2011 (UWMP), adequate water is available to serve the Master Plan. In addition, the Sonoma County Water Agency adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown & Caldwell June 2011) on June 21, 2011. A copy of that Plan is available online at http://www.scwa.ca.gov/uwmp/. At page 1-8, and in Section 4.1-2, the Plan confirms the conclusion that neither the 2008 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion nor reasonably anticipated changes to it will affect the Water Agency's ability to deliver the quantities of water from its transmission system projected in its Plan. The General Plan EIR relied on the General Plan 2025 Water Demand and Supply Analysis (Dodson, July 2006, Technical Appendix, Vol. 2) and other referenced information to conclude that sufficient water supplies will be available to serve the City through General Plan buildout in 2025. The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updated information from General Plan 2025 background and environmental documents and extended the term of water demand analysis to 2035. The UWMP's updated analysis found, given the total estimated future population, land use, and estimated water demand. the City's existing water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water recycling and water conservation programs, that sufficient water is available for long-range development through 2035. The 2010 UWMP was found to be internally consistent with the General Plan 2025. In evaluating the reasonable likelihood that sufficient water supply is available for this Master Plan, the City has compared General Plan 2025 projected demand to actual use through December 2012. The results of that comparison are discussed below and show that potable water demand is well within the available SCWA supply, both for this project. and for cumulative demand some ten years beyond the General Plan 2025 buildout scenario used for cumulative impact analysis in the DEIR. General Plan 2025 Demand Monitoring General Plan 2025 Policy 8-P-4 provides in part as follows. The City shall routinely assess its ability to meet demand for potable water. A. The City shall continue to monitor the demand for water for projected growth against actual use. and ensure that adequate water supply is in place prior to, or in conjunction with, project entitlements. B. The City planning staff will discuss water supply with the developer for each new development early in the planning process and inform Water Resources staff of upcoming demands as provided by the applicant. C. The City shall maintain a tiered development record to monitor approved and pending project developments to allow a reasonable forecast of projected water demand. The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan updated the General Plan 2025 water analysis and further refined a water supply program that relies upon water from SCWA, recycled water(potable offset), and conservation. As noted in General Plan 2025 Policies 8-P-5-C and 8-P-19, the City also anticipated continuing use of groundwater to meet emergency needs and to offset peak demands. Per Policy 8-P-4 of the Petaluma General Plan 2025. City staff is required to monitor actual demand for potable water in comparison to the supply and demand projections in the 2006 Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report. Staff has compared actual demand for potable water to an annual SCWA supply limit for Petaluma of 4,366 million gallons per year (13,400 acre-feet) and a peak supply limit of 21.8 million gallons per day. In both instances. potable demand is well within available SCWA supply capacity. Tiered 48 I'age 26 of 40 February 28,2013 water rates, conservation efforts, and the conversion of Rooster Run Golf Course to recycled water have kept annual and peak demands within the available SCWA supply at approximately 2,972 million gallons per year and an average day maximum month peak demand of 11.5 million gallons per day, respectively. in 2012. Use through December 2010, exhibited a downward trend in consumption since 2008. reflecting significantly increased water conservation during the peak summer months. In the past two years consumption has resumed an upward trend. Staff has also reviewed the projected demand of entitled projects and proposed projects compared to available supply as of December 31, 2012. Entitled projects are defined as approved projects that are either under construction or yet to be constructed. Proposed projects are those projects, which are undergoing discretionary review or have been proposed as of December 31, 2012. When all proposed projects are added to the actual demand for 2012, resulting aggregate demand of 3,190 million gallons per year and average day maximum month peak demand of 12.42 million gallons per day remains well within the available SCWA supply of 4,366 million gallons per year and peak supply of 21.8 million gallons per day evaluated in the General Plan 2025 and the 2010 UWMP. Long term supply for buildout relies on the continued implementation of various phases of the City's recycled water program and water conservation programs to offset potable water use Those programs are analyzed in the General Plan 2025 and 2010 UWMP with estimated dates for implementation dependent upon demand. The General Plan 2025 monitoring policies outlined above will continue to track the contribution of these programs to the supply and demand balance. General Plan Policy 8-P-4.A is a further limitation on approval of development and requires an adequate water supply to be in place at the time of any future project entitlement. Projects within the Master Plan will be subject to Chapter 15.17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the Water Conservation Regulations Ordinance, which contains water efficiency standards for all installed water using fixtures. appliances, irrigation systems, and any other water using devices to ensure that water is used as efficiently as possible throughout new development projects. Chapter 15.17 also provides enforcement mechanisms and penalties for water waste, up to and including shut off of water service. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Discussion: 9(a,b and f). No Impact: As a policy and regulatory document, implementation of the Master Plan will not result in the depleting, degrading or altering of ground water supplies. The City has adequate water supply resources to accommodate development of the City in compliance with the build-out projection established in the General Plan. 9(c). No Impact: As a policy and regulatory document, implementation of the Master Plan will not result in alteration of the existing drainage patterns as it does not call for any specific development projects. Erosion or siltation resulting from the anticipated growth and development in the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures will reduce the severity of potential impacts. No new or increased impacts as a result of the Master Plan will result beyond what is already anticipated in the existing environmental documents. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to drainage patterns and erosion or siltation. 9(d). No Impact: As a policy and regulatory document, implementation of the Master Plan will not alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial alteration of drainage patterns or increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Impacts on drainage patterns and surface runoff from the anticipated growth and development in the City have been addressed in the Petaluma General Plan EIR. Standard measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures will reduce the severity of potential impacts. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject 49 Page 27 of 40 February 28,2013 to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to drainage patterns and surface runoff. 9(e). No Impact:As a policy and regulatory document, implementation of the Master Plan will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. With new Low Impact Development (LID) requirements, the storm water runoff coming from developed sites may be required to mimic pre- developed conditions. Therefore, upsizing of storm drain mains may not be required with development. However, LID also requires water quality treatment of runoff coming from impervious surfaces. While on- site building improvements will treat and possibly detain runoff from building roofs, specialty storm water inlets with treatment components will need to be installed to handle runoff from streets and sidewalks. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with applicable policies and regulations related to erosion and stormwater run-off. 9(g j). No Impact: The General Plan indicates that the Master Plan areas are located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The policies of the General Plan reduce impacts from flooding through the establishment of the Petaluma River Corridor(PRC). The PRC is set aside for the design and construction of a flood terrace system to allow the River to accommodate a 100-year storm event within a modified River channel. The General Plan also includes policies to implement the Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan. Impacts from potential flooding have been addressed in the General Plan EIR. As a policy and regulatory document, implementation of the Master Plan will not involve the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The sites identified for potential residential development in the Master Plan could be located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The City of Petaluma General Plan has in place several policies that avoid flood hazards. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies and regulations regarding flood protection, hydrology, and water quality. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general X plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X plan or natural community conservation plan? Land Use and Planning Impact Discussion: 10(a). No Impact: The Master Plan will not divide an established community. It is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City land use plans. 10(b-c). No Impact: The Master Plan is consistent with all relevant documents and plans that regulate land use, particularly the General Plan, Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and CPSP. Impacts resulting 50 Page 28 of 40 February 28,2013 from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. The Master Plan does recommend updates to the SmartCode to ensure that proper implementation measures are in place to support development under the Master Plan. No new or increased impacts as a result of the Master Plan will result above what is already anticipated in the existing environmental documents. Depending on the attributes of these future planning efforts, additional environmental review will be completed. 11. Mineral Resources: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and X the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: 11(a-b). No Impact: As a policy document, the Master Plan itself will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The General Plan EIR determined that no mineral resources would be affected through the implementation of the General Plan, therefore the EIR did not include an impact analysis of mineral resources. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to mineral resources. 12. NOISE: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project result in: _Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the X local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? _ b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or X working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 51 Page 29 of 40 February 28.2013 Noise Setting Noise sources in the Downtown Petaluma Station Area include vehicular traffic, industrial activities, and trains. Noise from vehicular traffic is primarily generated on East Washington Street, Lakeville Street, East D Street, and Petaluma Boulevard. Industrial noise sources include mechanical equipment, trucks, and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma is currently irregular, and thus does not generate significant noise, however, the addition of SMART service will contribute to noise within the station area. Noise sources in the Corona Road Station Area include vehicular traffic, trains, and agricultural activities. Noise from vehicular traffic is primarily generated on Highway 101, Corona Road, and McDowell Boulevard. Heavy rail tracks bisect the study area and, as noted above, while freight train service through Petaluma is currently limited, the addition of SMART service will contribute to noise within the Corona Road Station Area. The station area is also subject to noise from tools and machinery as part of agricultural operations along Corona Road. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan related to noise are: • Traffic related noise at General Plan buildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intra-city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the Master Plan. Noise Impact Discussion: 12(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Petaluma's Noise Ordinance (Petaluma Municipal Code, Section 22-301), or applicable standards of other agencies. Existing noise regulations are present and apply to all development projects in the City. Additionally, future projects would be subject to CEQA, and, if review was triggered, it would include traffic and noise analysis and, where necessary, mitigation. Future projects encouraged or accommodated by the Master Plan may produce traffic noise in levels that exceed City standards for noise-sensitive land uses in the developed areas of the City, but any such impacts would be addressed during the environmental review process for the specific development. 12(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne noise levels. Construction activities that would occur as projects are implemented under the proposed Master Plan would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Impacts associated with noise and vibrations were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures, integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and programs, will reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. All future development will be subject to site-specific environmental studies as determined appropriate by the City and will comply with all City policies and regulations related to noise. 12(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the City above levels existing without the project. Impacts associated with noise and vibrations were addressed in the EIR for the General Plan. Mitigation measures, integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and programs, will reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. All future development will be subject to site-specific environmental studies as determined appropriate by the City and will comply with all City policies and regulations related to noise. 12(d). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the City above levels existing without the project. Construction activities that would occur as projects are implemented under the proposed Master Plan would have the 52 Page 30 of 40 February 28,2013 potential to generate temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts associated with temporary increase in ambient noise levels were addressed in the EIR for the General Plan. Mitigation measures, integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and programs, will reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. All future development will be subject to site-specific environmental studies as determined appropriate by the City and will comply with all City policies and regulations related to noise. 12(e). No Impact: Not applicable. The project is not located within the airport approach zones or the Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission referral area, nor is it within two miles of a public or public use airport. 12(f). No Impact: Not applicable. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? Population and Housing Setting The transit-oriented residential development that is proposed under the Master Plan supports SMART ridership goals and is intended to provide residents with a range of housing unit types and sizes. The Master Plan proposes to provide diverse housing opportunities near the Downtown Petaluma and Corona Road SMART stations. The Plan includes recommendations to encourage and facilitate residential development, an analysis of residential development potential, and potential sources to finance affordable and workforce residential development. The Downtown Petaluma Station Area could potentially accommodate over 1,500 additional units on station area catalyst sites and vacant and underutilized sites as identified in the Housing Element. Within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area, there are 3 primary catalyst sites (Golden Eagle Shopping Center, the Haystack Parcel, and the SMART parcel), which present the best opportunity for transforming the Downtown Petaluma Station Area, meeting the goals of the General Plan and CPSP and the community's vision. The additional units could result in a total of over 3,500 units within a half-mile of the Downtown Petaluma Station Area. In addition, vacant and underutilized sites within the Corona Road Station Area could accommodate approximately 487 new units. Assuming that 15 percent of the new units were affordable, as proposed in Chapter 4. Housing Recommendation 1, the station area could accommodate approximately 73 affordable units Population and Housing Impact Discussion: 13(a). Less Than Significant: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself induce substantial population growth in the area. Population growth estimates for the Master Plan were based on adjusted state projections. The projections used show a population low of 69,466 and a population high of 71,865. This is below that projected for buildout under the 2008 General Plan, which is 72,707 by 2025. Therefore, population growth estimated for this Master Plan is consistent with the 2008 General Plan. New housing 53 Page 31 of 40 February 28,2013 development as infill development within the parameters of housing densities established by the Land Use Element will not induce substantial population growth beyond that estimated by the General Plan. Additionally, the Master Plan includes an analysis and program for the necessary infrastructure that will be required at proposed build-out. The infrastructure improvements are designed to accommodate the full capacity at proposed build-out and because the master plan will not be completed all at once the program establishes priorities and phasing of construction. Therefore, the impact from growth in the area (directly and indirectly) is less than significant. 13(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Master Plan proposes to implement policies from the City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element that support the development of on-site inclusionary housing, provide incentives for residential development, prioritize affordable housing subsidies, and preserve existing residential units. The project helps to implement City's Housing Element programs and policies that facilitate housing conservation and maintenance and therefore has the potential to improve the quality of the existing housing stock within the City of Petaluma. There is no impact. 13(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Master Plan areas are largely built out; proposed residential development will be primarily infill development on vacant or underutilized nonresidential sites. The Master Plan contains recommendations to address the City's future housing needs by encouraging housing that provides diversity in type and price. No aspect of the project involves the displacement of any number of people. There is no impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project result in substantial adverse Incorporated physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? - X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? _ X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Other public facilities? X Public Services Setting: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the project. Impact fees are used to help fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, parkland, and others. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements. The City is served by Petaluma government services. 54 Page 32 of 40 February 28,2013 Public Services Impact Discussion: 14(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities to maintain necessary levels of service. The proposed downtown development areas are generally well served with public utilities and will not require a significant amount of infrastructure costs to serve the proposed build- out of the development. Impacts associated with new fire protection facilities resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the EIR for the Petaluma General Plan. Mitigation measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures are designed to reduce all significant impacts to levels of less than significant. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to Public services. 14(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts associated with new police protection facilities resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures are designed to reduce all significant impacts to levels of less than significant. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to Public services. 14(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with providing new or physically altered school facilities. Impacts to school facilities were addressed in the General Plan and EIR. There are three different elementary school districts (Petaluma City Unified, Waugh, and Cinnabar)within the Corona Station Area, while the Downtown Petaluma Station Area is entirely within the Petaluma City Unified School District. The General Plan estimated that the Waugh and Cinnabar School Districts would decrease their enrollments while the Petaluma City Unified School District would experience an increase in enrollment. The City's secondary schools belong to the Petaluma Joint Union High School District and serve both the Corona and Downtown Station Areas and are estimated to have a decrease in enrollment. With future development in the Downtown Petaluma Station Area, it is likely that McKinley Elementary School will experience an increase in enrollment. If the expected enrollment exceeds capacity at McKinley, the Petaluma City Unified School District will be able to adjust the attendance boundaries with the other elementary schools in the district. 14(d). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities. There are eleven existing public parks within the two station areas totaling 16.2 acres. Within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area there are three proposed parks totaling 42 acres. Additionally, with the Master Plan, there is also approximately 2.5 acres of park and open space proposed between the SMART station and the Petaluma River and between East Washington Street and East D Street. The City has adopted a citywide parks standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. With the proposed park and open space component of the Master Plan areas, there is sufficient space reserved for future parks required with the increase in population. Mitigation measures supporting parks or other recreational facilities were integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to parks or other recreational facilities. 14(e). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with providing new or physically altered public facilities. The proposed Master Plan 55 Page 33 of 40 February 28,2013 areas are generally well served with public utilities and will not require a significant amount of infrastructure costs to serve the proposed build-out of the development. Impacts associated with new public facilities resulting from the anticipated growth and development in the City, were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to public services. 15. RECREATION: Potentially Less Than - Less than - No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Would the project: Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such X that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Recreation Setting The public space framework put forth in the proposed Master Plan accommodates a wide range of uses and variety of spaces for recreation, such as hardscaped plazas, a formal Neighborhood Square, an informal outdoor theater, boardwalk overviews, and a linear park. Recreation Impact Discussion: 15(a). No Impact:Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself result in an increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts to existing recreational facilities resulting from population growth were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the 2008 General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to recreational facilities. 15(b). No impact: The Master Plan does not have provisions or requirements for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The public space framework put forth in the proposed Master Plan does recommend improvements that involve construction of a new neighborhood square, Turning Basin Public open space improvements, an amphitheater, but not specific recreation facilities. Impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities in response to population growth has been addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures were integrated into the 2008 General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to levels of less than significant. Depending on the attributes of each individual development proposal, future development will be subject to additional environmental review and compliance with all applicable policies related to recreational facilities. 56 Page 34 of 40 February 28.2013 16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Would the project: incorporated a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand X measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian X facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Transportation and Circulation Setting The Master Plan includes recommended access, connectivity, and parking improvements in the area within a half-mile radius of the planned Corona Road and Downtown Petaluma Stations (the Master Plan areas), including: • A description of the multimodal approach and principles for planning and prioritizing projects, programs, and use of public rights-of-way. • An overview of planned access& connectivity improvements within the Downtown Petaluma and Corona Road Station Areas, including: o New sidewalks and pedestrian facilities, o New multi-use pathways (MUP), including the planned SMART MUP o New on-street bike lanes o New Neighborhood Greenways o Multimodal bridge improvements • Recommended enhancements for Petaluma Transit and shuttle service to and within each station area. • 'Complete streets' and universal design standards. • A detailed description of and plan for multimodal access to the Downtown Petaluma Station Area and circulation within the adjacent parcels planned for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). • Anticipated parking demand for: o Commuter parking (station-generated demand) o Residential parking (TOD generated demand) o Employment/commercial parking (TOD generated demand) 57 Page 35 of 40 February 28,2013 • Potential for shared parking and priced parking; • Feasibility of establishing parking maximum ratios and abolishing minimum parking ratios. • Potential TOD Parking Policies for these station areas, including strategies to reduce parking demand and promote alternative means of station access. This includes recommendations for a TOD parking ratios for residential and commercial projects o The share of parking to be built at surface and in structures in each phase of development. The public space framework put forth in the Master Plan accommodates a wide range of uses and variety of spaces to enhance pedestrian circulation, such as hardscaped plazas, a formal neighborhood square, boardwalk overviews, and a linear park. The phased approach will also enable surface parking to be used to meet the needs of existing site uses and transit riders until the Corona Road Station, which will serve as a commuter park-n-ride station, is completed. The Smart Code Amendments include thoroughfare design standards, movement types, and design speeds. The thoroughfare design standards are intended to balance vehicular traffic, pedestrian, traffic, and access. Movement types (Yield, Slow, Low, Suburban) are intended to assist in the selection of the appropriate thoroughfare design for the necessary level of pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort at any given location, while design speed is the primary determinant of movement type. The design criteria for Yield, Slow, and Low Thoroughfares shall be commensurate with local thoroughfares. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan related to traffic are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six study intersections: o McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road o Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane o Lakeville Street/East D Street o Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street o Sonoma Mt. Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street o McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the Master Plan. Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion: 16(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Increases in traffic resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City have been addressed in the General Plan EIR. The traffic impacts of any new development will be addressed in separate site-specific studies. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 16(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself cause traffic levels to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City on the level of service for roads or highways were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. The traffic impacts of any new residential development will be addressed in separate site-specific studies. 16(c). No Impact: Adoption of the Master Plan will not have any impact on air traffic patterns, given the nature and location of anticipated residential development outside of the established airport flight pattern. 58 Page 36 of 40 February 28,2013 16(d). No Impact:Adoption of the Master Plan, a policy document, does not involve construction or physical design. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts associated with hazards due to transportation-related design features or incompatible uses. 16(e). No Impact:Adoption of the Master Plan, a policy document, does not involve construction or physical design. No implementation measure or policy of the element would result in the construction of residential units that could result in inadequate emergency access. 16(f). No Impact: None of the recommendations contained in the Master Plan conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? 59 Page 37 of 40 February 28,2013 Utilities and Service Systems The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the project. Impact fees are used to help fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for open space, park land, traffic impact, wastewater, water capacity, storm drain, public art, and others. The Master Plan includes an infrastructure needs analysis, where it determined the proposed Master Plan areas are generally well served with public utilities and will not require a significant amount of infrastructure costs to serve the proposed build-out of the development. "Order of magnitude" costs for these utility improvements are identified in the following Table 6.2.B. Utilities and Service Systems Impact Discussion: 17(a). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself cause or exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impact of full residential build-out on wastewater treatment requirements was addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 17(b). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Within the Downtown Petaluma Station Area a new 18"water main along East Washington Street is planned for installation in 2013. Existing 8" and 12"water mains are located within Copeland St., Weller St., and a portion of East D St. The development area anticipates buildings with 4 to 5 floors that will require the capability of high water flows for fire protection. With the installation of new 12"water mains in the new streets, the grid of water mains will be complete, providing a network that will be able to serve the proposed development build-out. The Downtown Petaluma Station Area is well served for sewer, with existing large trunk sewer mains along Lakeville St., East D St., Copeland St., and a portion of Weller St. The proposed development will need to install 8" collector mains in the new streets and will be able to discharge into the existing trunk sewer mains. The construction relating to these improvements were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals. policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 17(c). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan will not by itself require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. With new Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. the storm water runoff coming from developed sites may be required to mimic pre-developed conditions. Therefore, upsizing of storm drain mains may not be required with development. However, LID also requires water quality treatment of runoff coming from impervious surfaces. While on-site building improvements will treat and possibly detain runoff from building roofs, specialty storm water inlets with treatment components will need to be installed to handle runoff from streets and sidewalks. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan identified proposed 24" and 30" storm drains along the New Transverse Street to serve the specific plan. The cost for these storm drain mains have been included in the plan and cost estimate. Current Phase II Storm Water Regulations do not require storm water detention for a 2 year event in areas that directly discharge to portions of the river that are tidally influenced. Storm water detention for 10 and 100-year events may not be required in the lower reach of the watershed and will require further analysis as projects are proposed. Issues related to environmental effects resulting from the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures were integrated into the 60 Page 38 of 40 February 28,2013 2008 General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Environmental impacts related to the construction of new facilities will be addressed through CEQA analysis. 17(d). No Impact: Adopting the Master Plan is not the type of project that requires water, as the project is a policy document. The continued and anticipated population growth projected in the element is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and all other elements. Impacts related to future water supplies were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 17(e). No Impact: A Master Plan is not the type of project that could require a determination by the wastewater treatment provider regarding the adequate capacity of the facility to serve the projected demand of the project, as the project is a policy document. The continued and anticipated population growth projected in the element is consistent with the Land Use, Growth Management and Built Environment Section (Land Use Element) of the General Plan and all other elements. Impacts related to the adequacy or capacity of wastewater treatment providers to serve the anticipated population growth were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 17(f). No Impact: A Master Plan is not the type of project that would generate solid waste, as the project is a policy document. Impacts related to landfill capacity and solid waste disposal needs resulting from the anticipated population growth of the City were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 17(g). No Impact: A Master Plan is not a project subject to solid waste regulations as the project is a policy document, involving no new construction. Anticipated future development in the City and impacts related to solid waste were addressed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been integrated into the General Plan in the form of goals, policies, and implementation measures to reduce all significant impacts to a level of less than significant. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §15065) A focused or full environmental impact report for a project may be required where the project has a significant effect on the environment in any of the following conditions: Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively X considerable? (i.e., incremental effects of a project 61 Page 39 0140 February 28,2013 are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. INFORMATION SOURCES: General Plan and Zoning Ordinance General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, General Plan Chapter 7. Community Growth Management, & the Built Facilities, Services& Education Environment General Plan Chapter 2. Community General Plan Chapter 8. Water Design, Character, &Green Building Resources General Plan Chapter 3. Historic General Plan Chapter 9. Economic Preservation Health & Sustainability General Plan Chapter 4. The Natural General Plan Chapter 10. Health & Environment Safety General Plan Chapter 5. Mobility General Plan Chapter 11. Housing General Plan Chapter 6. Recreation, Implementing Zoning Ordinance/ Music, Parks, &the Arts Maps Other Sources of Information Central Petaluma Specific Plan Other Records, Studies, Reports Central Petaluma Specific Plan EIR Published geological maps FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps General Plan 2025 EIR 62 Page 40 of 40 February 28,2013 ATTACHMENTS 5 & 6 • • NOTE: The following documents were provided to the City Council earlier under separate cover (see January 31, 2013 memo to,City'Council) to allow more time for review: Attachment 5 Final Draft Petaluma SMART Rai l'Station.Areas: TOD Master Plan http://citvofpetaluma.net/cm;dpd f/samp-f inal-dra fLpdf Attachment 6— FinalDraft.Appendik AC Sinai tCode,Amendments http:/[citvofpetaluma.net/cmgr/pdf/smartcodc=final-dratt.pdf 63 ATTACHMENT 7 ADDENDUM NOTE: The following pages contain edits and corrections made since publication of the Final Draft documents based on additional staff review and comments received and will be reflected in the Final Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan and Amended SmartCode. 64 Station Area Master Plan (FINAL DRAFT) City of Petaluma, CA Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan Deliverable 11 .b January 2013 Prepared By: SMART Station Area Plan Opticos Design,Inc. Citizens Advisory Committee 2100 Milvia Street;Suite 125 Berkeley,California 94704 Teresa Barrett,Chair 510.558.6957 David Alden Melissa Hatheway Scott Andrews David Keller Karren Bell-Newman Steven Kirk Phil Boyle Eileen Morris Prepared For: Brittany Burnett Kathie Powell David Chlebowski Heidi Rhymes City of Petaluma,CA Mary Dooley Bill Rinehart 11 English Street Sheldon Gen Bill Wolpert Petaluma,CA 94962 Amy Jin 717.778.4511 Consultant Team: Nelson I Nygaard Consulting Associates David Glass,Mayor 116 New Montgomery Street;Suite 500 San Francisco,CA 94105 Chris Albertson,Vice Mayor Mike Healy 415.284.1544 Teresa Barrett Gabe Kearney Mike Harris Kathy Miller Carlile Macy 15 Third Street Santa Rosa,CA 95401 707.542.6451 Lisa Wise Consulting Melissa Abercrombie Ray Johnson 983 Osos Street Dennis Elias Jennifer Pierre San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Alicia Kae Herries Bill Wolpert 805.595.1345 Kathy Miller,Council Liaison Urban Advisors 3335 NE 42nd Avenue Portland,OR 97213 503.248.4030 65 0 ii Final Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Notes 212 Add the following: The preparation of this report has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation.The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation." 66 Annotations created using Annotate on the iPad. Branchfire•www.branchfire.com 4.4 Affordable and Workforce Housing Financing Chapter 4: Housing 4.4 Affordable and Workforce Housing Financing A number of financing sources are available to support funds to facilitate affordable unit development.Table affordable and workforce housing development within the 4.4.A provides a summary of sources including eligible station areas.The City of Petaluma has a mature housing activities and contact information.This section includes program and a documented history of success in leverag- a description of each source and potential applicability ing financial resources,such as redevelopment set-aside within the station areas. Table 4.4.A:Affordable Housing Funding Sources __. Funding Source Type Eligible Activities Contact Bay Area Transit Oriented Loan Site acquisition, pre- Brian Prater Development Affordable development,construction, Managing Director,Western Region Housing Fund (TOAH) and mini-permanent financing Low Income Investment Fund (managed by Low Income as well as leveraged loans 100 Pine Street, Suite 1800 Investment Fund) for New Markets Tax Credit San Francisco, CA 94111 transactions. (available only for 415.489.6157 the Downtown station area) email: bprater @liifund.org Website: bayareatod.com Petaluma Commercial Subsidy Site acquisition, pre- Bonne Gaebler Linkage Fees development costs, Housing Administrator construction, and rehabilitation. City of Petaluma Funds may be used for rental or 27 Howard Street owner-occupied units. Petaluma, CA 94952 707.778.4555 Petaluma in-Lieu Housing Subsidy Site acquisition, pre- Bonne Gaebler Fund development costs,on-and off- Housing Administrator site improvements,and housing City of Petaluma related programs. 27 Howard Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707.778.4555 subsidy Site acquisition, construction, Beane-Gaebler -Development • • _• Commission City of-Petaluma 27 Howard Street Pctaluma,CA 91952 }wing-fund 707.778.1555 California HOME Grant Site acquisition, construction, Website:www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/ Investment Partnership and rehabilitation. affordablehousing/programs/home/ Act Community Development Grant Site acquisition, demolition, Website:www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/ Block Grant(CDBG) rehabilitation,relocation of corn munitydevelopment/programs/ tenants,construction of public index.cfm facilities and improvements,and housing related programs. Low Income Housing Tax Subsidy Construction or rehabilitation, Website:www.treasurer.ca.gov/ Credits (LIHTC) public facilities and ctcac/tax.asp improvements,and impact fees (rental housing only). 67 4-12 Final Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Chapter 4: Housing 4.4 Affordable and Workforce Housing Financing Bay Area Transit-Oriented Development Affordable Housing Fund(TOAH) • The Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund (TOAH)is a$50 million fund established in early 2011 to ! :: provide financing for the development of affordable hous- •- --•-- •- -- :-•:- : - ::: - -:• -, •- -- ing and other community services near transit lines in the .• .. , ' Bay Area.TOAH is managed by the Low Income Invest- ment Fund,based in San Francisco. To qualify for funding,projects must be located within an :• established Priority Development Area(PDA),as estab- lished through a program(FOCUS)led by ABAG and .: MTC.In Petaluma,this includes only projects located in the Downtown station area.The PDA boundary is roughly -• '• . •.: ... .. . •• !• - :: -- - Petaluma Boulevard to the south and west,Highway 101 to the east,and Lakeville Street to the north,however,the northern area extends northeast to Vallejo Street between California HOME Investment Partnership Act Madison Street and Jefferson Street.Project sites must be within a half-mile of transit services,including SMART As noted in the Housing Element,the California HOME rail bus rapid transit. Investment Partnership Act is a formula-based block grant program similar to CDBG.Petaluma has successfully uti- Borrowers can be nonprofit or for-profit organizations, lized funds ranging from$800,000 to nearly$4,000,000 to government agencies,and/or joint ventures.Funding subsidize site acquisition and construction costs for seven products include predevelopment loans,acquisition loans, apartment developments. construction bridge loans,construction-to-mini-perma- nent loans,and leveraged loans. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Petaluma Commercial Linkage Fee Fund As noted in the Housing Element,the Community Devel- opment Block Grant(CDBG)Program is a"pass-through" The City implemented a commercial linkage fee program program that allows local governments to use federal in 2005(Ordinance No.2171 N.C.S.).The City collects a funds to assist with housing needs.Petaluma has used fee based on square footage for all commercial,retail,and CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation,senior meals,and industrial building construction and expansion.The fee other housing related programs.The City's CDBG alloca- is collected in a fund that is used to support affordable tion is typically$325,000 to$375,000 per year. housing development,typically site acquisition and pre- development costs.As of May 2011,the fund had a balance of approximately$300,000. Low Income Housing Tax Credits(LIHTC) The Low Income Housing Tax Credits(LIHTC)program Petaluma In Lieu Housing Fund is an indirect federal subsidy used to finance the develop- ment or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.LI- The In-Lieu Housing Fund is generated by fees from HTC funds have been awarded to 10 Petaluma affordable residential developers who choose to make a payment to housing developments(including Vallejo Street Apart- the City rather than provide on-site housing units under ments I and II,Corona Ranch,Washington Creek Apart- the City's inclusionary housing program.The fund is ments,Caulfield Lane Apartments,Downtown River used to support affordable housing development,typically Apartments,and Casa Grande Senior Apartments).Tax through subsidies for land acquisition,pre-development credits are allocated through a competitive application costs,on-and off-site improvements,and housing related process managed by the State.To qualify,developments programs.As of May 2011,the fund had a balance of ap- must provide a minimum of 20 percent of units at a rate proximately$1.6 million(however,much of this is already affordable to very low-income households or 40 percent of allocated). units at a rate affordable to low-income households.Suc- cessful applications typically include additional subsidies such as local government contributions,density bonuses or other concessions,or other grant funding. 68 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Final Draft:January 2013 4-13 Chapter 5: Access, Connectivity, and Parking 5.4 Downtown Petaluma Station Area Note: Dimensions are provided for informational purposes only and may be refined during the production of more detailed engineering drawings. / 2' � 1' 11� DD' 1 epli 1'/ , 1' ,` / / a/ r 7 re 1614.1 7' // / O) ' / / / / / / i n' • /��C` /<\ / //r6 1%/ *(67) 7 / / , // / \\ N / NN y / / N. 12' /20. 4 .1' Ad/ / 0' 11 /1 0 80' A / / N East Washington Street Intersection Improvements at New Station Access Street and Lakeville Street 69 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Final Draft:January 2013 5-21 5.4 Downtown Petaluma Station Area Chapter 5: Access, Connectivity, and Parking Note: d informational Dimensions purposes are provide only for and may be refined during the production of more detailed engineering drawings. N o4.. NNN X000 o� DO �// // , ,w N N 0/i �0 S \ :../5' / / 1` , s,.. ,,,,, s �� 10'20' 40' 80' f 15' Oy „ / N 'l0' ,r . / f 5' / East D Street Intersection Improvements at New Station Access Street and Lakeville Street 70 5-22 Final Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Chapter 6: Infrastructure 6.4 Potential Infrastructure Financing Sources Table 6.4.A: Potential Infrastructure Financing Sources Improvement Type Parks & Funding Source Description Open Space Streets Utilities Petra •. .. ..... .. _ .,.... X X Comffruoity -` •. -Diwelopment •- T. . . .. Commission (Redevelopment . :.. . . - -• - - - Agency Tax 14C-FeMe44t the-areas--4:4- Flap, financing) . . • the State's actions. Transportation The Transportation for Livable Communities Program X X for Livable (TLC)supports community-based transportation Communities projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, Program commercial cores, neighborhoods,and transit corridors. (Metropolitan To qualify for funding, projects must be located within Transportation an established Priority Development Area (PDA), as Commission) established through a program (FOCUS) led by ABAG and MTC. In Petaluma,this includes only projects located in the Downtown area.The PDA boundary is roughly Petaluma Boulevard to the south and west, Highway 101 to the east,and Lakeville Street to the north,however, the northern area extends northeast to Vallejo Street between Madison Street and Jefferson Street. In addition to funding infrastructure improvements for pedestrian,bicycle,and transit facilities,TLC's menu of eligible project categories was expanded in 2010 to include non-transportation infrastructure improvements such as sewer upgrades.The program funds up to $75,000 per project.A 20 percent local match is required. Website: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/ tic/ 71 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Final Draft: January 2013 6-21 N I,- L 0 LI- a) t a) C U a) (0 a) N ,, O 4J s_ C C mo.I) coo (o a) Y o a) — " +, L a) 'i v 0 C c 4 N N C (6 a d0 5-1 a) o w o 10 U a C C c c a) a) o ra II Y > ._ u — ro>. _ 7 0 7 ro p • a) +• L•' }' p Y VI f...)O O O O O O ` O O a) .0 co a) °O (� 01 M ao ao ao Ni l9 d �- j ro , ,-i m ,-i c (D o .-i In .i c i v Y +- u c� Y N c-1 as 00 ,..1 .--1 Y Y ,-i N .-i .-1 1-4 .-I a a) a) a) ,,.:. (o ?' a) co a) 7 co -0 o O CU co cc a cc (0 ,, U •' L.L. b C 023 -p a) • a_+ ,n `) r0 rn ro • a) ) * CO N C) Tr O V L a) N Lid N t0 00 L, a) 7 N fo C W L 0 a) 01 lD lb u1 N n V1 7 N Ln n N M tD > 't-, a) U < O 0 7 CO t0 Ln N l0 t0 Ln M CO t0 N CO 7a, > as vt C OL N m > Q .Ni ,J1 00 NJ O M LN0 O 0 0 0 N a) 0 To Q O a) ,., en N sr) ,-I 0) ,-I Ln a) In l0 N Ln Lll 0 C C 'B a) a) 1r 2 +_, E C v 41i o A Y z if). ° ,1-1 V -' r�-I Q > ((0 4 -C Fj r O v z CO 3 C ;° v> v} o vi v) v� Y ,,, a In U Lr) . 4, 00 m CO u m E rr U;•CU 7 3 a7i Q 2 C cn ( G p Q>, C lJ a) a '-- m - LO Z fj Z +' a) co � Q. Q Z Q aL+ i O Y w O a) m r m i 147-+, ,_, ,- ,O _' r3 L, 7 C 7 C O Q C 0 0 0 \ o o a) 0 0 0 0 p C 4J 7 I— `ti co� a N. oo .-I ,-1 °C ci N t0 CO oo ° a •- E 7 a) z . C7100 a . cQ ,� c ,^-a n rn t` o •00 0o ,', O c ,_ �O O vim- Q1 c_i G a 0 N t0 co N N 4' vi L- = 0 N v °2S oZ$ a) i — a-' d vs 5 al E Q U * ,-4 00 00 CY N L0 U a) L!1 l0 .-1 N )-I co a1 al (1) r(0 >` = CO C L f p a) t0 L/1 ,--1 IN N 0 7 N rI [f IN 01 t0 0..0 4- a) •- 7 01 O O N N O �a t0 00 V N N O 0 �' a) i fB m co O I)1 tD ct m oo `° > LO M' O N1 Cr1 r` N 3 c u m 4-1 M a) > M 01 N N -I en ,., Ln In .--I N M Ln > a) •- Q) C y, M c0 N Lb 1.0 N (I) Lb CO Ln n In N a) 7 0 a) 4,•CL mi. F- (1) 1n t) •F N f\ Z M tD O tD n o To U s_ 7 Z L? t/} in. .-1 .--1 i/) V} .-1 IA- if"). ."1 ui > C N E al p L v1 CO Y U C a1 a) N O c a N _N a=, a) U (1) O E co h0 7 C U O L ,�, p a) N c u 4, ? CO Q L▪- 7 u Y a) > `° v a; '' ,v, (° co of n ° ra n n cu _7 w- O E ai a)v- D 0 a) < C C 0 vl C▪ C N N (a a) U U to ,., 00 _ a) a) (o (o a) a) (o ro > w co c `) a) (0 C -O "a t Y L -O -0 C . C v1 N a) Q 0 0) 7 s 0 a) a) t :..=a •a s a)• a) C 0. a L a. ar L E +-, IS U v7 K cc Y in (11 Y a' K Y In N Y 7 7 CD 7 "a '- 0 (6 ,-i N co ,-i N m .--I N m .--I N c0 a) ,N f0 N a) 4-, 0. a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) ,>-, i a) > .0 U ' of (0 v, VI co in v. ro in ,n ro C .- C a) ry L (a (0 Y (0 b Y (O (a Y (0 co Y 4-' aJ 0 .0 .0 0 C 0 C C 0 C C 0 Z C o N E v U, U a a H a s F- a s F- a a 1- * oo 0J Q M ti N al N 7 d N C a) O E >- p W E O E E E a) C = L 7 n .0 L L ay To LL C• C cu m -a M L `n CU Y_ ID v -1L V. E D O CO em-1 N N 0 N lam-+ O Z O N e-1 '••1 1-1 c-I ,—I O -0 -0 C C O N N VD N ct m •> Ill N el e-I CO 0) CO r-+ C m m O) OO O •-1 O a) > m e�-1 I.1 N N N C ar E - E D C -0 E acC o mU LL v; v J Lu 3 O a) E „ `) m W CO CEO CO^ Cr 0^O W > (i E U r-- ei I� m e I l0 , (r) z 4-' -6 n Q N N N N m N m - ).. - as a L t6 O • ) 0 In Y e-I L C (13 Y 0 'n CI Q O U _ Y ti p C ei Ol e1 m lD 0 CO C D Q1 01 00 CI m , m a- 4-' C K OTC w Y .6 v N m CO tL 3 L 00 LD O �t e-I CO h CO 0 `) a) e I v lb I", d LO h Co O Ln LO cr O 00 Q • CEC 0 N LD W N N O I� cY C co L , r,_j N N ul O� ill N NN O m O r-.7 O mO 4' 4 ; e-I ei e-I ei ro > a) l/L La 1/1. IA- t/? t!? Y L Ln U 03 C >, N > O , C > , r0 O 03▪ a) a) v o C ' Lc; DC ±.. a) c >, ,, Q ca 70 co _o 0 VI a) m �o U Ln 4"' a) Y > Y ++ 3 CO co /0 `+- U N C C C C 13 0) p C a) cu cu Y O O o a; of '^ '^ ' o `� a) E c cc In cc In cc � D C p Q a)y.' C `4- N N Cr lD LO LO U C Y '� O 0S 0Zi 023 CAS 06 o2S o2S E ++ N 41 v ei .--I m m tl) IA L!) 3 n3 Y E Y . ' tf Y Y Y Y To 7 ts 4.1 -0 E > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) > C O 0 on m to m m m m a W m U Section 3 - Building Function Standards Table 3.1 Allowed Building Functions and Permit Requirements Land Use' T4 T5 T6 T6-O DI 02 D3 D4 Industry, Manufacturing& Processing,Wholesaling Agricultural product processing - CUP-2,4 CUP'4 CUP'S P - P - Artisan/craft product manufacturing P` MUP"3 MUP"3 MUP"3 - - P - Chemical product manufacturing - - - - - - CUP - Clothing and fabric product manufacturing CUP MUP,3 CUP" CUP'4 P - P - Concrete,gypsum,and plaster product manufacturing - - - - - - P - Electronics,equipment,and appliance manufacturing CUP CUP2.3 CUP'! CUP'4 CUP - P - Food and beverage product manufacturing CUPS CUP2.3 CUP" CUP'-; CUP - P - Furniture and fixtures manufacturing,cabinet shop - CUP' CUP" CUP'4 CUP - P - Glass product manufacturing CUPS CUP,3 - - - - P - Laboratory- Medical,analytical,research& - P2 - - P - P - development Laundry, dry cleaning plant - - - - CUP - CUP - Lumber and wood product manufacturing - CUP-2,4 CUP'4 CUP" CUP - CUP - Machinery manufacturing - CUP-2,4 CUP" CUP'4 - - P - Media production P2 P2 P2 P2 p2 - P P Metal products fabrication,machine or welding - CUP2,4 CUP'4 CUP�4 - - CUP - shop Motor vehicles and transportation equipment - - - - - - CUP - Paper product manufacturing - - - - - - P - Photo/film processing lab - CUP2 CUP' CUP' - - CUP - Plastics,synthetics,rubber product manufacturing - - - - - - CUP - Printing and publishing P2 P2 - - P - P P Recycling- Small collection facility - - - - - CUP Research and development P P2 P2 P2 P - P p Small product manufacturing - MUP- MUP2,4 MUP2.4 P' - P - Stone and cut stone product manufacturing - - - - - - P Storage Outdoor storage yard as a primary use - - - - - - CUP - Warehouse, indoor storage - - - - - - P - Structural clay and pottery product manufacturing - - - - - - P - Textile and leather product manufacturing - CUP2 CUP' CUP' - - P - Wholesaling and distribution - CUP2,4CUP'4 CUP'4 - - P CUP Key P Permitted MUP Minor Use Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit -Prohibited 'See Section 9 (Glossary)for use type definitions 2 On a frontage where shopfronts are required, use is allowed only on upper floor(s) or behind an allowed ground floor use per the permit requirement indicated. 3 Permitted use(per the permit requirement indicated) if limited to a maximum of 5,000sf on ground floor 4 Permitted use(per the permit requirement indicated) in spaces of greater then 8,000sf on ground floor 74 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 19 m w a °r c er 3 A w o vl n c o' l - 6 7 V D i i I III DJ NATURAL ZONE RURAL ZONE SUB-00801 GEN0000UpEWN 000014094190 L N1 COM SPECIAL 3 ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE DISTRICT F Dr a.BLOCK SIZE re Beck Perimeter 200011100 170011 max. 170711.mat Rear to Sedan 4.20 us i 24001 mat.h tlocXso*1 20001.eat fa doersadh 2000 II 11.00 h blocks Mt a dowel padms sternal perking daril00NN _ Q • a.1HOROUGHFARES(.. - ., Hkghway pIAI rd p0mNlen ndpMMNo 1Menv11011 Rea to Setter 020 Road IRO) rd earthed sot 401.0114101 ml pa1Mte2 Street(ST) pma11e0 Dames! re pamdee O me(0R) damned metod 5ennlle005:marl Avenue(AV) pernea7 dem30d Fenm00 Dv warrant Commercial Street a Avenue pern Oel paneled pemi1100 B oulevard WV, pe'm3e0 by waned peened 01 wanX5 FOmen00 bl nurse ReavANy(RAI pamaled Funded Female! Rear Lana DILI parr land nd pandael rd panntle1 CIVIC SPACESI ,....r,.I�•.t. nyn,...,,-. k...n.e.,landeaa) n RplonN Palk rd Ferreted ad pe0NA6d nd panne] Ra101 to S 100 0.200 Spots Complex not peenlw Ill 7006101 repemael Caraiun11 Park paneled by ease not peened ndpemte! Grammy permtalt,wawad rod panelled ndpemasd Neighborhood Omen Rosette pommeled rdpemted Neighborhood Square paneled p rneer pm0t00 Plata permed permit. panted Pocket Plan pem0ed parn1Red panne., Pocket Park petalled paneled by wa1a11 n0l petalled PIaygrauna pamnad paneled 90111110001 wand Community Garden Fmu1ed pedaled Ey warm pTlSmdby wand a.LOT OCCUPATION Lot Meer I I I�tlakp mg Inas INaw ar IRe to Seat42 Lot coverage 5 Beldto Line-PRINCIPAL BUILDING Prom I l I Ina 191ePt11 100zpdalla 100.mt IRearb Sedan 4.20 I f. SETBACKS-PRINCIPAL BUILDING Front _ 01.net 151.max_ 011 mm.10 A.moor. re wgi606* Rear to 5e011mt.20 Side 51.net 301.max. 011 rem 1011 max. 00.min.ION Mar. Rar-No Alley P1.ran 511 mn. 011.mm. Rau-Alele 01.min. 00.tan. 00.nm. 9.SETBACKS-0010UILOING From Setback :D I. 40A notal511ca010 Rehr to Sedan 4.41 0 Side Setback 00 00 tai spice* PI Real.Nosey 51 tan. 51.mm. MI Make* Real•Alay 01.tan 0a rne. _MI j ACE.10 - h.N BLDG.F RONTAGE REVD Da Principal Frontpe I 0016 min. 17516 ma ISVA mm. IRdx to Sedan 420 G Secondary Frontage I 3V6 ran YX mm. 50%md I. BULGING PLACEMENT(Sae Seem 4.30 for Graphic Sump and Further Standards) Edgryad Dammed pedaled peddled RAM S0l1an420 lvd C. Moyne perett d paddled prat ed 1.J Renard punne0 parceled pe0Nled Coutyaid p m1le0 Damned panned I. ALLOWED 000.01NG TYPES I .•...-• • ..1 Carsip0 House pem11led not paned 409013000/ -:ei to Sedela9 Detached Hoose.Estate not parked rdpamtal Id pamAei0 Detached House.Vd1age - 00010101 nd preened a we11 not Deahed House.Cottage permaladd ne pmceMl repamlad Bungalow Court COnw> Maenad at Ferree! Duple Fndnd not paneled r0 peennoJ Townhouse Cemnited panelled nd Fenterm W eston Apartment panelled b paroled re perna0I Apartment Hausa 7010 0e0 panted ra Mannar Courtyard BulIdmO _demand paddled M penndled Main SUM Belding Fennel paneled pealed 10I0-RI.. not permitted f*nMled paneled 1 PRIVATE FROHIAGES t',-:-.1cn 1.40 Fvi Gee:,10,1,1.i • - Comm0171d nut Dammed not panted not Finaled Porch.Proledl00 or Engaged pem.ew rd permmed net pBmene1 Stoop paneled welted nd pamoned Folecou0 petalled phmmed id perndha0 Opened Peratted penenea nd pertudad Shophant peened maned,/ pmmled Team p 00130 paneled panne! GNNry 0etmted Demuae0 1000010d Arcade paetted panted petaled Padacnext:tee 4 a010011 not pawned paneled pemeted I. BUKOING NBGNI Principe BUideg .1 haws mw leave ma.2 met.(Sae Bslam net.Stn 'Rehr to Sedenl30 Seam 431010 ka MO boars mhmeunj 0uthullesa than ma 2starmmu_ m**Ida m GROUND FLOOR CEILING Lodging of ResideMlal Uses 10 nn 101 10 tan. Nets b Seem 420 00 larduding LludWork) AM other uses 12 nn 14'13.. 10 ran. n.GROUND FLOOR SPACE DEPTH Ira=50000• 0 era 111190e I `dOmm Ia+m+ 30'awl � ?CI'ifllh I bra 400 I 1D o.DISTANCE BETWEEN ENTRIES ) Icy C. To GroundFbor Uses Inct apemen Irma �mda IRONe to Sexton 420 L 0 To Wage{Rut Use p.PARKING 00001100 1st Layer pd00ed paddled peens. Rider to Rem 420 C and Layer plpaaMd Fattest 41000000 Q 210 Laser Fended pemme0 yeia. _ W q.PARKING REC0MEMENTS VI I madammakel rate we I slaseper merle lateral I split pet market 90 lee Rea ro Seen 1_0: n Reseennal pncluaery Limed.) y .5 space pa Amtrak ere 5 space per Okada*rare 5 SLaae pa eleatka11 Lodging I veep.rum yacape roan I an/cope roan a de DJ An the wet 2 MX.OW IAA 2Wass pa' OM1 2SPOCesca ICCOreA N y, BUILDING FUNCTION 1) a v 01 Section 4. Urban Standards SECTION PLAN LOT/ ) ( LOT! > PRIVATE R.O.W. PRIVATE R.O.W. FRONTAGE ) FRONTAGE > ENO Dooryard:The frontage line is defined by a low wall or �f hedge and the main facade of the building is set back a small distance creating a small dooryard.The dooryard , MI shall not provide public circulation along a ROW.The dooryard may be raised,sunken,or at grade and is — - * intended for ground floor residential in flex zones,live/ work,and small commercial uses.2,500sf. El Shopfront:The main facade of the building is at or near the frontage line with an at-grade entrance along o the public way.This type is intended for retail use. It , �r has substantial glazing at the sidewalk level and may of include an awning that may overlap the sidewalk. It may be used in conjunction with other frontage types. Syn: Retail Frontage,Awning. Terrace:The main facade is at or near the frontage line 411 with an elevated terrace providing public circulation along the facade.This type can be used to provide at-grade MI access while accommodating a grade change.Frequent I' steps up to the terrace are necessary to avoid dead , walls and maximize access.This type may also be used in historic industrial areas to mimic historic loading docks. m®EZ1 Gallery:The main facade of the building is at the frontage line and the gallery element overlaps the sidewalk.This 1 type is intended for buildings with ground-floor commercial f J uses and may be one or two stories.The gallery should be used to provide the primary circulation along a frontage and extend far enough from the building to provide adequate protection and circulation for pedestrians. 103� Arcade:A covered walkway with habitable space above often encroaching into the ROW.The arcade 1 should be used to provide the primary circulation along 1 a frontage and extend far enough from the building to provide adequate protection and circulation for I h pedestrians. This type is intended for buildings with ground floor commercial uses and is common along public courtyards and paseos. Key m Allowed Not Allowed 76 26 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 4. Urban Standards 4.40.100 - Shopfront [new] I I 1111111111111 B O F A 0 SetbackBTL Street SetbackiBTL Street Key -• - ROW/ Property Line --- Setback/BTL A. Description: #' • s Shopfront:The main facade of the building is at or �'��m� `' *k. , near the frontage line with an at-grade entrance along i asiommorim minum s C'-{' 1 the public way.This type is intended for retail use. It has I M„P1111 �11�1I! , I I • ; • substantial glazing at the sidewalk level and may include — "' an awning that may overlap the sidewalk. It may be used ." ` in conjunction with other frontage types. f i r ,iii ... illj. . Distance between glazing 2' max. Q r;- •• ( Ground floor transparency 75%min. -= Ali c 1111 . Depth of recessed entries 5' max. y., -- ` An example of a shopfront with a chamfered corner entry Depth 4' min. 0 IA ^s - . Setback from curb 2' min. 0 NE .. Height, clear 8' min. 0 L' • '�i'E- Residential windows shall not be used. - •,_s . r ' i . V Doors may be recessed as long as main facade is at BTL. i Operable awnings are encouraged. ' 1J 'r - Open-ended awnings encouraged. iV. I: a ' Rounded and hooped awnings are discouraged. �'t • Shopfronts with accordion-style doors/windows or ./�. ` •� �; ; other operable windows that allow the space to open to An example of a shopfront with a recessed doorway the street are encouraged. 77 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 33 Section 4. Urban Standards 4.40.1 10 -Terrace [new] 1 l A I E—A 0 0 >I B v _ I I I Setbatlk/BTL Street Setback/BTL Streer Key -'-- ROW/ Property Line Setback/BTL A. Description t f 1 Terrace:The main facade is at or near the frontage line with an elevated terrace providing public circulation along the facade.This type can be used to provide at-grade ;� + access while accommodating a grade change. Frequent ` steps up to the terrace are necessary to avoid dead • w . J walls and maximize access.This type may also be used in r - ii,• , - historic industrial areas to mimic historic loading docks. ir. `-. • 1 r � I rt 1 Depth, clear 8' min. 0 _ _ tt Finish level above sidewalk 3'6" max. 0 4 Length of terrace ISO' max. An example of a terrace in a historic industrial district Distance between stairs 50' max. 0 These standards are to be used in conjunction with . ., •/•.•' `'' ~ ``- - ' of--,. i -�� , those for the Shopfront Frontage Type. In case of :� 6—1 id... 1 - conflict between them,the Terrace standards shall ' `'''`'' . slt.;�_1 prevail. as c:-,'CJ. • - ►:;;•f. Low walls used as seating are encouraged. r{ ,� ` ... g g {�1>t � � _ _ c . '�� !� h { 1 - v r 'a a�'i, .: 4... _ ;''1 An example of a terrace used to accommodate a change in grade. The low walls are used to provide seating. 78 34 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 4. Urban Standards -- j �I ......-74 — —-r—r-li ITFIT1 ---- 1 -------11 -- ......10.. I 1 ---..... ---...... -..,..-11 ■,--- -10^ ..,,.. .-11111.---------- --L.------ I . • , •ii....0.,,,,_,____j 1 0,1 1,--•,_ ---1 r.--0..i__ _-...,.,_,0 6 ____77--.,:cr. Di AI 1 setback A Fill Si4walk Street A terrace accommodating a grade change along a series of shop fronts 79 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 35 Section 4. Urban Standards 4.40.120 - Gallery [new] • 111 if � I B A ■ 1( 0 > 1 • Serb.„Ik/B I L St,cei Setback/BTL Street Key --- ROW/ Property Line Setback/BTL ,... I y'Descri' ,�.,�,. - Gallery:The main facade of the building is at the frontage line and the gallery element overlaps the sidewalk.This type + y - t — M--) is intended for buildings with ground-floor commercial uses I, and may be one or two stories.The gallery should be used to N'. -e s provide the primary circulation along a frontage and extend far i ! +_ S ((( enough from the building to provide adequate protection and 3+ , circulation for pedestrians. R� - Depth,clear 8' min. Q -. ; ..... ...., . 4 P Ground floor height,clear I I' min. Q a Upper floor height,clear 9' min. G A one-story gallery with second floor access Height 2 Stories max. Q Setback from curb 2'min. 0 " 1 - r1r- ,� ' c These standards are to be used in conjunction with �,lifill those for the Shopfront Frontage Type. In case of - '--, , • ""� - conflict between them,the Gallery standards shall _� I — A til prevail. r Upper-story galleries facing the street must not be used I -r• i '' i R 4 I i , 1, • to meet primary circulation requirements. R l I,•s �� ,i �i t Galleries must have a consistent depth along a frontage. Gallery must project over a sidewalk. 1. y A two-story gallery 80 36 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 4. Urban Standards 4.40.130 -Arcade [new) • I • I I I I iii .4.—A • A • Seba�.k/BTL Street Setback/BTL Street Key -----ROW/Property Line Setback/BTL A. Descri. .,_ s: Arcade:A covered walkway with habitable space above often encroaching into the ROW.The arcade should p be used to provide the primary circulation along a frontage .' .4 I and extend far enough from the building to provide adequate ,,� + _ protection and circulation for pedestrians.This type is s. •+ I_ R intended for buildings with ground floor commercial I ' t ti uses and is common along public courtyards and paseos. u:' i -3.-. Depth, clear 12' min. 0 - _ _ - Ground floor height,clear 14'min. clear 0 . Setback from edge of curb 2'min. 0 An example of an arcade located at the back of a sidewalk, • abutting the public ROW These standards are to be used in conjunction with - ,n-- those for the Shopfront Frontage Type. In case of - conflict between them,the Arcade standards shall prevail. i •Arcades must have a consistent depth along a frontage. Arcades with more than 2 floors of habitable space above the colonnade may not encroach onto a Public I j 4 i ROW,and must be located so that it abuts a public ROW. An example of an arcade encroaching the public ROW. The arcade provides the only means of circulation along the ROW. 81 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 37 w c 3 P, I r W a 3 l CD ai I '0 10 L—` i----, -44t\- \ ai:f______________/,. _ i ''' 115, 7 ' cii „,. • .1'7-"; "." ,/,/ /4111' ..."-',.... N.. , /'0 ,// 'is, � )°� \d � �, / N L l O '♦ fP i ■ N. '''' / a , , , N. . ,, , .. .N. ? / ,, -- Y ?' /� /;2 i / • N„ NNN/22, 0 0 0 ® 0 O 0 00 ® 0 0 : i .-.. 5. L£ ng' A p o v O ? 5- d a A f0 a 0 , ,•,- f Q . 7 2 . o '"* „• - , ,T,�° L Q C a ° ` c 1. o n o o —.20. 4 E ; ,.-, „, ,..15- 11.-v a n o E. 9 . o ^ v+ _ v 3 m F o ... .. vi,v N 70 c 0 9 2 1 A a 94 1 3 3 .9l 2 n n, 3 °- '4,' ,3 a o rt.^_- T pi °a 3- j m n x 'm z « o H A x T r. S• $ a p ry 3 f 3 ,, ft o gm m 9 g 00 A « P o F C O C O 6 no' ' " N ro 0 ; 5 % .i = ^ N C V1 5 G ? Y 31 ` N F n 6 1. .6.=--C 0 7 3 ,3: m y, o o ? « o f oo M 5 « sa m R N ao a— . < v a — O 7 n0 0 3 6 3 S g > T O A- , m S o N «' J A . , o , —.2 .n a j > > N ' N A 7 7 w o 'iA f 8 2 3 5 &' . 2. 3 0 §- 4 - ry `° m o^ ,„ at m°$ a 2 2, , g ., ., _ v ;0,26, m m ?9 N cs w o E. v 3 3 ? 3 m -0 9 �' R A n o o N « a 3 j a c 8 ! w N 3$0 C rz- o 3 i - o: ,^-- U ° d _< m e - a m N . 9 ; a > u,ric- R 3 1D .' H> > G d o u, ' f o 0 5 w g 3 m o ° v " o v+ a .s', x " H 3 d— 53 g T m m m o , d D v n '') V £ 8 ' j• c n m « o n t a - rv ? g o ,5 E. ' a d o = ^ 11.' ° P. o a G <; to m 5-0 '4 '_p^ 3 _a to m o 9 N 'k 3 Z' n p o f c d „9,, n P' f n " FN E07 nmw m F n6 " 5 i ' r g D 5 n « e' e a '' vel o — O H G 0, o F ' H n �° m y n' a 4' g m ; 5' 5 P m° f N a ., I "o ° u 1 n m m Q `� ° n A a 0. co N Section 4. Urban Standards of signs. Copy design and layout consistent with these principles is encouraged,but not required. 1. Sign copy should relate only to the name and/or nature of the business or building. 2. Permanent signs that advertise information such as continuous sales,special prices, or include phone numbers should be avoided. Information should be conveyed briefly or by logo,symbol or other graphic manner.The intent should be to increase the readability of the sign and thereby enhance the identity of the business. 3. Sign lighting shall be designed to minimize light and glare on surrounding right-of- ways and properties and adhere to the following criteria: a. External light sources shall be directed and shielded so that they do not produce glare off the site,or on any object other than the sign. b. Signs that blink,flash, flutter,or change light intensity, brightness,or color are not allowed. c. Neither the direct nor reflected light from primary light sources shall create hazards for pedestrians or operators of motor vehicles. d. For energy conservation,light sources shall be hard-wired fluorescent or compact fluorescent lamps,or other lighting technology that is of equal or greater energy efficiency. Incandescent lamps are prohibited. 4.90.080 44-07048--Temporary Signs Temporary Signs,such as banners or posters placed along a commercial frontage or displayed within a shopfront are allowed provided they are in compliance with the following design criteria: A. Temporary signs may only be used to announce an upcoming or occurring event/sale and must be removed upon the conclusion of the event. B. Temporary banners may be displayed for a maximum of 30 days. C. Temporary posters may be displayed for a maximum of 60 days. D. The combined area of any signage within a shopfront (temporary and permanent)may not exceed 20%of total shopfront area. E. A Temporary banner placed within the public ROW must provide a minimum clear height of eight feet. F. Temporary signage must he in clean and good repair. G. Political campaign signs must comply with Zoning and Municipal Code Requirements. H. Shall meet the standards found in Table A (Allowed Temporary Signs) 83 94 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 4. Urban Standards 4.90.090 Yard Signs [new] to NAME Yard Signs: This sign type is mounted on a porch or in Width 36" max. 0 a yard between the public ROW and the building facade. Height 36" max. 0 Yard signs mounted on a porch are placed parallel to the building's facade. Yard signs mounted in a yard are placed C• Location parallel or perpendicular to the ROW. Clear Height 6'8„ O Mounted on Porch 618' min. Mounted in Yard 12" min. Overall Height 5' max 0 Signs per Building Mounted on Porch I max. Mounted in Yard 1 max. • D. Miscellaneous Yard signs may not be located within a public ROW. Yard mounted signs shall be parallel or perpendicular to the ROW. 84 96 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Section 5. Thoroughfare Standards Table 5.10.070.6: East D Street ., „q ' -nt-1. i i • ir>: ` ti � I. Ni.,, t o Y ©1FitO><O () )" © < o ) E-0->It 0 1' O Y 0 > Application Public Frontage Assembly Movement Type Low Frontage Type Commercial Street Design Speed 30 mph Drainage Collection Type Curb and Gutter Overall Widths Planter Type 4'x4'Tree Well Right-of-Way (ROW)Width 88' Q Landscape Type Trees at 30'o.c. avg. Pavement Width 58' 0 Lighting Type Post,Column, or Public Frontage Width 15' 0 Double Column Lane Assembly Walkway Type 15'sidewalk 0 Traffic Lanes 3 @-I-0" ® Curb Type Square Bicycle Lanes 2 @ 6'5' Parking Lanes 2 @ 8', marked Q Medians None ' Center Lane is a travel/turning lane,i;), 85 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 127 co co N r- 7. d S _ (Q U N j V M y Y N d�p O V c c c d 3 Enn n3 41•2 5 e o d v NSN b H N V �.Q y N G cii H V E n Ol Oin C u O m° 1° oO c E C J v °V m 9 o 0 a t y o E .4a 3 Q t £ " iro `N a a Y ac A m E If, d z p ii ' 6 O &c. 2'p 3 48 O =O„. O u u n V Q n to d " c S y —Q,, .,N �H C- b vr Q[ U.- }. N D Cw c A ai c vi . Q o' go:, -4 o " �� Ery S m yN A C m A c Q C F ry nN q D p vN a E -a g � C ev 4- a s.E-5 O 0 0 O U ��pp6 Q U N &Q U 5 N FF ;w Q 6 N sly.. V...� Z.... ZJ Z� Zv Z K.... .n 1- 11 I I I I I I I ZK.LG. z . a Q 4. M 0 ry FS' C C 41 ii i Q or".4. • 5h Srt cns+ C L d at N E A N 4 C O b b m E b N 6. Section 6. Parking Standards & Procedures 6.10.030 - Reduction of Parking Requirements The number of parking spaces required by Section 4.10(Urban Standards Table)may be reduced,and the type or location of parking spaces required by this Section 6 may be modified as follows. A. Alternative parking arrangements. The review authority may reduce the number of parking spaces or eliminate on-site parking requirements for projects where the applicant executes an agreement with the City to: 1. ; 2. Waive the right to protest the formation of a parking district;or 3. Provide some other fair share contribution acceptable to the review authority The agreement shall be recorded.•■-• .. - .. . - - . t,... . .. - .. •. ■•- . , • . , , - . . : . • . - - . . . strr-r-etHtfliftg-thc site: B. Shared on-site parking. Where two or more uses on the same site have distinct and differing peak parking usage periods, (e.g.a theater and a bank),a reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be allowed by the Director. Approval shall also require a recorded covenant running with the land,recorded by the owner of the parking lot,guaranteeing that the required parking will be maintained exclusively for the use or activity served for the duration of the use or activity. Possible options for determining shared parking arrangements include the Urban Land Institute Publication Shared Parking. C. Waiver of parking. The Director may reduce or waive the number of parking spaces required based on quantitative information provided by the applicant that documents the need for fewer spaces(e.g.,sales receipts,documentation of customer frequency, information on parking standards required for the proposed land use by other cities, etc.). D. Waiver of parking-Off-hour uses. The review authority may waive the parking requirements of this Part for land uses that are determined by the review authority to operate exclusively when their peak parking demand occurs after the evening peak period parking demand for the Central Petaluma area,and adequate on-street or public parking is available. E. .. . . • : - - - . -- . . • - - - . . • - - - : I : :. -- •.. .• . .. •- . .. .• • -- -.. :• granted;if only-one quarter of the . . . . . :-: 87 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan Draft:January 2013 157 Section 6. Parking Standards & Procedures F. Of site parking. A project that is not located within a parking assessment district may locate required parking away from the site of the proposed use 1. Location of parking. Off-site parking shall be located within a 1250 foot walking distance of the site.(This distance corresponds to a five minute walk.)Where approved by the review authority,off-site parking may be located at a more remote site. 2. Evaluation of proposal. In considering a request for off-site parking at a distance of greater than 1250 feet,the review authority shall consider whether adequate provisions,such as shuttle service,have been provided to bring drivers from the parking to the site. 3. Guarantee of continued availability. Required parking spaces that are off-site shall be committed by a recordable covenant,lease,or other agreement,acceptable to the City Attorney. The parties to the covenant,lease,or agreement shall include the owners, and if applicable,the lessees of the off-site parking spaces and the owners,and if applicable,the lessees of the subject site,with covenants reflecting the conditions of approval and the approved off-site parking plan. 4. Loss of off-site spaces. a. Notification to the City. The owner or operator of a business that uses approved off-site spaces to satisfy the parking requirements of this Section shall immediately notify the Director of any change of ownership or use of the property for which the spaces are required,and of any termination or default of the agreement between the parties. b. Effect of termination of agreement. Upon notification that a lease for required off-site parking has terminated,the Director shall determine a reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur: (1) Substitute parking is provided that is acceptable to the Director; (2) The size or capacity of the use is reduced in proportion to the parking spaces lost;or (3) A parking in lieu fee shall be paid for each space eliminated. 5. Valet parking. Off-site valet parking may be authorized through Conditional Use Permit approval,provided that the off-site parking location shall comply with the requirements of Subsections E.3 and E.4 above. Compliance with Subsections E.1 and E.2 is not required for valet parking. 6.10.040 - Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements Parking spaces for the disabled shall be provided in compliance with the Uniform Building Code(UBC),the Federal Accessibility Guidelines,and/or California Code of Regulations Title 24,as applicable. These spaces shall count toward fulfilling the parking requirements of this Code. 88 158 Draft:January 2013 Petaluma Station Area Master Plan ATTACHMENTS RESOLUTION NO 2013-04 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PETALUMA SMART RAIL,STATION AREAS: TOD MASTER PLAN, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE UPDATED SMARTCODE AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City°Council ot'the City of Petaluma by Resolution 2009-146 N.C.S. endorsed the filing of an application for a grant from the.Station Area Planning Program; and, WHEREAS, atihe City Council goal setting session on Jan0dry23, 2010, one of the goals established by the City Council was to implement the Central:Petaluma Specific Plan and maximize development potential around transit-oriented development: and, WHEREAS, the City of'Petaluma executed an agreement in November 2010 through the Metropolitan Transportation"Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments' Station Area Planning Program-to-develop;a.transit-oriented development master plan forPetaluma's two planned SMART station areas; and, WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010 the City Council appeioteda 17-member Citizen's Advisory Committee for the StationiArea Planning Process;and, WHEREAS, the Master Plan reflects the work and input of the Petaluma Station Area Citizens Advisory Committee; and, WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City'on May 19, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the project is also consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, adopted by the City on June 2,2003; and,. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and'Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)'was prepared pursuant to the requirements of^the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS,;notice::of'the City's intention to adopt a,MND,and of the availability of-the tL1ND;ifor,a thirty day public review,and'comment period was originally given on,Mareh 7,, 2013 im,accordance.with CEQA; and, WHEREAS;.onMarch 26, 2013, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider and review the Master Plan, SmartCode Amendments and Mitigated Negative Declaration for recommendation.io the City Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE:IT:RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby: 1. Finds;that the proposed SmartCode•'amendments are'in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan and consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare; and, 89 Planning'Commission Resolution No.2013'.04 Page I 2. Recommends that The Petaluma Clty Council approvethe Petaluma SMART Rail Station Areas TOD Master Plan; and, 3. Recommends that The Petaluma City Council,adopttle updatedSmartCode; and 4'. Recommends adoption`of the Miiidated,NegativeDeclaiaiien for the project. ADOPTED this 261h day of March, 2013, by thetollowing vote: Commission Member • Aye No Absent Abstain Abercrombie X Elias X Herries X Chair Pierre X Johnson X Miller X Vice Chair Wolpert X Bi(IWOlpert, Vice-Chair ATTEST: APPROVED AS FORM: fr,;(//1,49 ,/-1!/10 r)i fjeaiher Hines, Comiiitiee- Secretary Eric Danly, Ci ttorney 90 Pldnning.Cominission Resolution No.2013-04- Page 2 ATTACHMENT 9 Public Comments 91 Satpal Singh 421 Petaluma Blvd.South Petaluma, CA 94952 February 21, 2013 Citizens Advisory Committee City Of Petaluma 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: SMART Station Area Master Plan Subject: 75 Zoning To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is,to,request a change to the Station.Area Master Plan. Specifically, we are requestingthat'the code governing allowable land uses in the T5 zone be modified for gas stations from "2 (Not Allowed), to CUP(Conditional Use Permit) As presented in the Final'Draft no expansion of an existing gas station is allowed. In fact, the stated purpose of the "existing non-conforming" zoning of a gas station in a T5 zone is to ensure that the stations will someday betelirbinated'altogether. When applied to the station we own and operate at 421 Petaluma'Blvd:-:South'this`means that the approximately 8,000-plus local residents we currently serve would be forced to travel 2-3 miles further inorder'to purchase fuel for their vehicles. The Master Planalso calls'for the re-development of the Petaluma Blvd S. corridor in accordance with very specific architectural requirements,; We,would like to tear down an old and unsightly carwash at our gas station along this corridor and`build;a neighborhood market in.conformance.with those architectural requirements: We believe a market in this location would provide the local residents with a'very convenient place to buy groceries within walking/biking distance from their homes: The proposed allowable land uses in the T5 zone prevent us from pursuing this concept[ If the code--were,rihodifieddo CUP for,gasstationslitwould then be possible for us to submit:a proposal:to,the City that,would include upgradesrto the gas station and the construction of a.local market. This would have'the dual impact of keeping the vehicle trips short, providing°a market within walking/cycling distance from home, and furthering the intent of the Master Plans to'revitalize the corridor along Petaluma Blvd. South. Sincerely, Satpal Singh 92 G\Unm\WO,d1GCC Q,mesmmdence\GarenrProjecs\421 Petaluma BIddtCC Leu.r.maoOC t .f . PETITION I i We;the undersigned, arse Petaluma.residents and are customers of'the'Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd.:South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 I zone from"Not Allowed" to "Cond itional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out; as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents.living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE SIGNATURE DATE /ADDDD/RESS• / CI Oft• 44 :, 41 i_di i a /I cis,113 V 15 7`4 Pp) �/ ;II /lp1►mal1 lsa NfiLtLar 6Ut‘ a c ' 1 • , 11. k r Qyl, 444` tcS t '/ Ls 2i6. �11- 1 `, , u u . �,k �v I - 1 ? to: -11 WO J Id /3 ( sue/ � � G e . �iel' `A A :� `y , O,. 1 i1tb r((<- a - In � �.w1I. r 1 �j (9' 7 5/- 1 C@ ce/cA7ico cif ltL � G /yylon (515th-I&' \ A� --A:of-A .i $ iu:M 't1 T _4 •. iQ ] -s; Cs- Yd eri - At c M 3/ ( if C. c v esfo s+ a_td well I) fc 6:.16, Ca I )3 r ills I - if , alrellig I, 0 VA el ' , ..e, ik-cal 49 Ja rro ,1/4n47 h .. -13 . ; « y el- pp- y/. - 93 1 PETITION We, the undersigned, ark Petaluma residents and are customers of the.Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the.Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living;on the South end of Petaluma. NAME // SIGNNATURE (T44$1, DATE ADDRESS o 4 BeACCi 3-5/J �el 6 y9/:s4 31' '154 g-g� , li Caw ' ' ' k;,-96 (I t& A 2- CE K M 92.'2 See/ 3 S N IA.2.,..- . : - 24 Uwe. II _.�A+r-. "We +1/A " 9 :3 Parka unit Eddf il-P. t n Q M . 3\'t\\3 -1-6,AA) rn--0\ e-4,1",r/oa, o'1 %_e,te 3 7 s..0. \q-LA/1- , I/ i.r .. 4/ di .40-/ // , f a l ''i I . $a l _SIII I Sa q p0 Cel 1 3 f o cl r T - 0kW.c7M OS eri Tfro 9 13 rb0 rierL r. a bvti` tffei- ,be- i , of Car 40 ✓,.. 54I1 ��„k 1 / 6 O P 1 q-e 11_, FArtanatir d 5 MEE \Q-3 . , /n Ailtie!?. "" `�% 3/Y/ 3 (f z0 e I et CT d t �s'`r '�9�ir 3 2 3 1-(2-5 (0e-o'c�-00 IV_ II'Ai - hart ,-,e% 714, Kw .Cy e ;- I j94 I PETITION We;the undersigned,;are Petaluma residents and areicustomers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be:modified°by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now If it were to be phased out, as-the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS ��m� Ao ,= ∎. r ; ° 341/ 3 .o (,Uetfe yr -qq isz Ja r (3 .S IMP im,17 ' , c t 0 Wis, r, d %u u • I - 0 3 0 -. Pi 3 re2i--; •• niUM001. armor ','% ro f tea-.- + . A ,;__ a. I tjt:R11/4-19VianK cfq____M 31(ofr cc Rh5 KU qn R. y /A 3/ifyl3 9-07 - ? (4 7r696li A : li l.l i_A I,1llII ii .13 Mb , I ate Mid i `- eac--t r-- `..-z-- 3 -/f rL3 C to - G -5 7- L _ )-h w . I LA,.aw 3 'f f- f.� Y7. . - I6'rt<0 0J `-1 . '.6 7 5aLi u Dann; -11- L//g e st -A / _. e ‘)/417-tar, Ails VVMii,11ar ■I1b��ll ,� 31f1 '/13 It l r'Plcnear circle NA nugcz tom / lAin'rtNo ; // /j Op � • 4 o Hi ekR L IR?fp / . , , Ill/13 `/1 fb P. Cr&2<�Psr-Acim sz -ke q fir. ,v, Y'7, 3 pi( 3i « ' oda, l 95 1 ■ I PETITION We, the undersigned, are Petaluma;residents-and are customers of the Texaco stationlocated at 421 Petaluma.Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request'that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed"to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. if it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands ofresidents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS B i d e /4,75-01 i'l 7 G-- • 3-//-/i 6O e( ."-- P eV S _ 3 i. l 13 VC , t , 1/ . .1A\ l" (� ` 1131 e1 j e e�1a�ilj1 bit • `'i\ ea .k it LLl P e r V Song c , 3 /i// 3 /U S✓. ne7 kAf .6eAi � 9Y1r2 0e1h s , C;. 4 i 3_,,../ 5 /93 'Gve s4 <51 f2/9n0 c iai Ilk_. ./ 2-11-I t' 2 olive S-- 93-75,1 J O— i,, 707 3_r2r13 X126 Bl G ,L - s2- 5+Th < -- 1P®,/1 d f ft-4s 32_1 z0 f Pell rie f Gr pr .11j�ra.�ur�o . �� 3- /L- 13 7 l4 5-�v , a� lJmd; ' W°a � , e.; 3..12-13 10( G. &ice ?e ov u, puppet. " i / 3 - /2-t3 22� Gelth+ PG 1t ice. Z , k , , x'11 3- t2-.13 .267 Gossa3e AUK; ..,c-N \ M- 4be As 3- z-/3 I (Etc/4A,, ti,i..- - r/,, s4-.M ,1 j/ 307 5-+". s� et+ Agoa rtes z/iq a C - ayea,ta MCVWMOOPDAS- n f- ,., : ' Q9 1'�-\a;i3 X 15 c \c,7,S k\Jft t P -j- L ► k E -' Ht!l9- l.[ 171' d i3- ( -13 .\k v. mig f7, . Cao le i, , 1 96 i I PETITION We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the,Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the codegoverning allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This`gas°station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS ■ I S 2 vin fl o�n �a�. 2--k3 1 - • s C P Jl> WI via VIN« Fto11400 / Ir. Mt/ti lays- ,kt/flfl Szabo dflfl 411 • frets/- 1/7 07 e74-57- Peuticoi n 1 e Qn LC�i r �. , � 3 1213 ?O( J; ; ! J �Olney/= it. 3 ,2 f3 w, ie ew'c�-?-e s2 OkohAl ShAkkhlunr 119p1610 &too' Te-trieu-i- 410 c -4. th(,ro'a Q/e c 3/T.2/3 :1.6 6oro im 514 V4i led 0 c/ "fe,3/4-c Sci,f4r4 /67? .g4,11 1,5 tot coy, eo eAcktem °wit? )kit I , ttlin-, 2: 1 Z9EWAI i OVL Irk AO(n% O' ftrawLc, s,(/1 e ' -1 -(5 t ato /4d't4' r2_20 A L pn- 4 Tn r2_' _ �Ti 342-i3 1a36 Mt.Nrs c-..4IVK ___ . .. �niratC;---_� 3 L3g� 'ss t.LAP I' rolfref( e 7 12fr3 • S/0 '16 57' itx-AZ /11/11*, 13 /2 •/3 /g/% Zoe?_0 e Say. 9547c Tow Plif I Z , 1 7-G IA/ Cs) Qa„,— 11, 1 , 'IL e>r rtao pr` 97 • . . .J ' PETITIO; We, the undersigned, are Petaluma'Iresidents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditiional Use Permit". This"gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be plased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIAATURE 1 DATE. ADDRESS Elm --oh Fro 1 6 10 ) _ oral,/ i% , if worlo , ( I aa I• f6! -lit I. U thi��,G- ' 1 OIb, U Js ) s . t , s., i Ley 41.61--&&a_ Ve:/«$9de1 _ 3 1 1013 25 /o Do Kg/e5 $1 `!i 1 ✓i. e . 4NL l TSntLE ,.a I •' .J//Z/t'3 7 / leD .37 . peentinnh,6 .,. jthei �� G�j� „��,��1 tr � 'a ��Q:.., �1C � In M®M .-12_ '/ ,1C&4 nACJ4 k , 'd'4' 4 r `3 /2 .r? tiara 211"C 6 fejr0 i '� 3- 12--r �$�_ �rl ' , .pie _it��� er' w� �i tit. /liu.„ 1, �o sue' 3/ y foal° r 0f Rif) r4, ® ,,, ' Iii n es =on 1 A. I I_.;t► MEI • G - lei-- °tit grialgiartirallaMOMMIIMM E 98 PETITION We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing;allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". Thisgas,station is very convenient to our location now. lf'it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of°residents livingon the South end of Petaluma. NA'. E S(6 ATURE DATE ADDRESS oft _00147, win � ja � e :170 n - v :Ili C i ®� / , 3X2113 9/rT«i , v IPjj ( S .'Z /3 MI5 0ALit! 1D Warta w W; 1a f, i`� 5/ia-(!7 t2 q5 C a m-a,mcv Rom • cup , mUel I� 4049 eri e . WILoo 44.4- 4 GJ v/I i e p �.to niaIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ca &co,.. -F So`CS' 9 , s u;` aYc? - M _ STAa.� lgitfru'e C if/At- 9,//3/ 3 1a-7 le4,110, bdc 1. 99 PETITION We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customersof the Teiaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS 0-10Q00±keton jrw — -)as vinci-Al est `11° , A _ t 3 I I/ 7 26 re- Irk- EV. ((to _uiy 5 , c C it ( 6' r °cuts' „, fly • 1113)1 501040ilkAp4 Lot r LI) /A, -41 ,64. 3 / C C r), FATIIMIEF1011 eit , fe CV At r Fos 7atn-i- I .750 10 03 -1 S c 13_1914 , e• • _,z, .4 le; 16rThri ._ . \ bli>4 ifilfill 51 /76.91V 4 1 4- 27 lit 4. / / -2490 4(74 Free/ Aic#4,1 " J2. ft . _ - eri-byfr- fie )15 tioditiM 49,e - 5-64 4 NA4 mit , 4 er- e<nli-isre" V/3 zoi, $°1 is A ZZ riz_ rii\V g-im 6 N.) a hib 4. NB Li_ co-porn taw Qv ickelm k--A 0%uot-. • 100 PETITION --- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd -South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Alloy%ed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now If i.-.were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left t. service the thousands.aresidents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME , • SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS DO 0 Ovt I B P g v 6.8 pnytem op mnA.1"poi fricriftur thAllinEnni N . L0-0 I Uri! -„,,Z4, EMINI CD( 5-0)4 YSterc- e0 innrallninEll 9( 14- en 7; (Iff sparigaMAIFIleffin"Zia ftraiguatim - 41-1 MI= ate /tic cif 40 I AtosigiO it? St• laScyd •-Cam IRMI 11301111.1 3 14 •IMNIMMTffili 111rd • 11101 7,11.fl I sw.' _ 40Riv\Asoillatasantil CO Cr&CUL_ kL,olz Vt d 4 Ififfininnolgrifilat Li-la 'SOL- and br 3-1ifae, 101 6- catget - 111111Wall _ (at v_ar Avg i EMT 5/-4/4e76c A-ro IIWSall 3-Jit- 13 4 STLeer Kcpc cg-A2, I 44- S=ol 4>elt-LiQt_ jgt*, &KJ KIM Ginn's 0-0 6 A A 4 4 .tra- VIA Pral ringrealgq, l_rgukari • ' ABSSIbM/Za ratia rek: AMEN 101 PETITION We, the undersigned?are Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners'request that the Station Area Master I Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the-thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS ' Lit Aga .4 Al ' - 'a st n i �,__ r T '1 'LS YSGaro ff t A• ow n59), 3/r -//13 vocti 63 r i Feu - - .i6s �- 7//`q//; /grA,1�`/6 h Or- e( -2- Ur) n I.Isc - (\\\A� c� ac, � �, vD , t9 l3 U kuII t&{ Cic , Chi er4gd1 ads c e ill /1 / ' %rn 1I F,7,4/27, /a.: rsi,J cm 1/ _ . „i2 - /IY/i' 6/ Tf FSr netcy it 4 ��f/ I �r - '�% ELI dI 1 ,, ,rte In a► - fl •, i 4 . 02 �i .� . i�a ' To se ,V'6 eti ,t�l?rr C� i ,si y/ At A 1 /kfez2 ° -e Post e o e/aaà : flhiisn Iv, A... . '® 0 ,` Pi VA �( T cki Pte_ ,is, , . ca fitAt r�,? 1.ig'0�.. 2 Is 13 5/S` C 5�t ,�, iI'I ?il .. , ., Il.��l� Tarn 102 , . PETITION We, the undersigned, a"re Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma;Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit": This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out,as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME IGNATURE �D/ATE ADDRESS 1 A , a / ars La 2- z L-k &„ -Q-' Iv, c ' % olie-12it,1/4 . , ' lb( 2 41 ( 75cici ,)0;)c n r cnWso Qv& 3-6/5 Gee. •c-ele-, 0 r 9� r PA Q 3 —1d—sii 'Fe A-cok, LA.ck. ran uk° ©ref ' aS'a / (v r/g 9 - 1T o a /-( o'l°o'o " 3- \ 641 , ► ,-. /0 / yfc..., %�'� 3• 6i:,1,3 5/A-d-• 5--.� /2OJciJ ,�.d 9s/93"Z J 'N r°'" , SYR�, c/6 73 60 . 5T-eel' 11 Irv- rOkiR 3 —lle-13 ' it ISiC >' a,_ 3 - /6 r3 /be' a 6oinfl- 9 L/a / 60 ale b, )hail/ a- e - 3-' 7^13 ;AO 6' r. 1111 . 3/13 13 132c , s F E. ? G"„'1 -2 , ASot1z-fee in,, 3//Z 1'3 1l `f' JDeIGi•1Ton vrEw Creel 103 1 • . 1 . . . . . . PETITION . , . ... We, therundersigned, are Peialurna residents and are customers of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Bl Vd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the 15 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no • local gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE DATE • ADDRESS i I ilk N 1 i ' (7_J4 0 iii ' skied e. at' 0, ' {Irf i I 1.71, Mit / - or 47, (e- ,,,rw,,,,cik, v,,, ..., , , ,, oti J., ,,,_ __, A , 121 HeSt f '/ / ' Pr121/1.111211- 5s • 6• • r ' - l'Or 3' 7 -1 ' 3o&f- g›_s O / d 71 I k MI (c[ _ 4 .s, 0 . ail g 1 1 % ( ._ -r , I -Ty Fili , , ' awimig i mi 3 an ; ff # * cA ,,,. iiis_Aa. ...._........ .........__ . 67 _ , i_rignilial, Et left 901 1114i if ' ' ' iwraoliMil 3 P /3 SC)9 A - •-n■ _LACC I I i z a t i a z , , CnOt A A r r a m e i Ca c . . :4 (-Lau 661i1 0:•-"Fr 4, j tr 4 3 Ift2,- •Ilar- er-lv-, Pn..),,,ce_ tf ... AS g R.0 911---- t-- fr. 'sr 111110ai 't I* 1.$ Mir 1 P p ( ' Mr VW- /MI 5 - . Sfr- vtuti..J1c-c-Ascs - ----- 3 /C3 / r_? 60) m AT V d 6i ( it „( kQ lk , _ ciy ,- 4 k , 10/15 ) 6 _ i (1 4 - flat vw 1/4 1 CM- hilt V , A r • .) ,-, c,r,,,,, L3 !-Ion' ' _ _ _ : offis to.:2, L,,,__A,.....4(c_ ,... ,.. , g 10/146411 c.C) Pi . ' iv 3/1q//3 & 00 irl„vr Vls—Oc) 1 's 104 . . . PETITION . We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customersof`the Texaco'station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd.South. We support the Owners'request that the Statidn Area Master Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for as stations in the T5 i'one from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gasstation is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local.gas station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNATURE 'DATE ADDRESS a /044 -- 3 7/913 . '111'1/4.9 I /254° ) I+!LV Are:c q I • R41, .r. . }vil.STelai Anger ' fr.' . � Firr ` rjr - J _1 S � r CtC ' C re it efts lit / 0 I f -. . 2 3 : t o b virile t ej O 3f9/A9 13 t d rttvVv� iN. AAA l., r ion t o i l e 3' 1 '6 S' `f l r + S fr e ii,9 1 1.0., Mu.'llO) 0x,/3.. ' -t„ it (1 go iejlri �® �21.li13,, 1-7-8 l) ENPc U e i Pk, .t,toesiLs‘e--, Wit' '.±-- UP Atli A.\ tow ?Lill id - CheIZ y Larzsenl. ekiltdailigAt. 0(0- 3 • ?Add I 01-41/f63 Rifts;R 5;040, cut,— ; kk1/13 -flea giy Ito 0 p a7 cliff(9 7 e _. 105 I . . , I PETITION We, the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customers of the Texaco station locked 1 at 421 Petaluma Blvd. South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master i Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the 15 I zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now If i were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left lo service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGNA i ., DATE ADDRESS 1 ' ,....7:77.7- Cliga rit- -- -"ellatz°-a 031,22Z r/S '777 • 1/417, 41 I ill L\iyan c\--k VS Van ' r6 la I a . . • ‘a a. • _.. t A 0.1.4/ ..... PJ0-%1/4; (c)"1\ Larr bcd ik3 SCl/C' 5‘1A-c64- (040 Oc i - re 91PdA3 'Rbet/ 17))/(49(f5n• ?ANA rA--- 6oryvi,ef 4 re- _ _, ._,, __, , , ( „ , • co 74k p we-Pk ,/ c amefrrt Vrlii 1W-owl- oi p/Kgrl- 4,6_, • Pkirgy a A °11 / / / . i 0,7, ____ •49„6///3- 6 rumL40 OAAP ?411i957.1 • al412A1M110\i - 2- 13 I/5 6-76c,e3 er ty-7577/ 0 se_ ir; --I 6/2943 Li froesit.„ Avc, ctos- .-E-ii- Sk‘e,\Nita -fraki .7PevrriA-mt-12490L 3/22/n . /WO ic 5 ( Pe21 • 1 AAckici ELL; C ct--,A,..nra -II t 3/4213 tit 0 F sil • 1 kratitc'slcuo■-1,7 terr ari -5/2-145 20-2- waikka- J. ili _cp , ) scuath-leuticaus a , ,, i ‘, . i 0 ,42413 2-2z) gC9-614-64richt< .1 (p94- , ei , , Pt Asa. • ir i 2/3±33/ 7 r--6-3,..tol, frqbbs-e-r-To • 1_ c,a53 eitu-oitti n jz 1 5 (ft I Se. 4.- cq". ill i/ 0110 •_0 -- 3/22(0 .W9 - 1/41-41 $f • t- S ' isA. ,AL\ ° i ,TIZZ(9 h'c'( tce-n-i—etk 1 ein(A IN •1Y1c.clinci - 3/Bah) I r-ii 9 0‘0 . 1-DKA)(Oft\ \gill ,96° A-L t„ 27:413 A il'i ir V n 1 \ 1,6).....1,1 it tAllt A.\Oat ■iltrits. RAI, v_..,& -, .- - =q.t.., , . 106 f i • PETITION We/the undersigned, are Petaluma residents and are customers'of the Texaco station located at 421 Petaluma Blvd.,South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master, ' Plan be modified by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in the T5 zone from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit This gas station is very convenient to our location now. If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas,station left to service the thousands of residents living on the South end of Petaluma. • NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS • . Baran na- �rav 3 . . . ra . - ue a. !' � ..ui•i . l l�_ i/..//v �� ay a`300 • I�.I�II! �. . *ix opt I es- • •v I 1-0 se 'Yu �. -67 �3O 5 be S urnu Ili . cr) geonEUI S i/V - ,a/a-'3L13 q.?()6 v_0,064, 5 Paa�tur l - pagg /El MVO' e ; :+, h. faatrr : ® , - + ► ' - "L�►lal> 0o n0--I 7'4 1 el �I �A ` T/f_� A .c / / /' /4 St',' c c/cm,A (nn I f �anrel Olt' A /aka'145oh IMIffil 21 cvi ye- Pr tI ._ . f. °i' ®liMr En _ it 5 CA < ibita d v"' glans III 1\ v� r •' _ 107 i ' q'. L PETITION • - We, the'undersigned,:are Petaluma residents and are customers of.the Texaco station located at 421 Petalumaalvd: South. We support the Owners' request that the Station Area Master i Plan be modified-by changing the code governing allowable land uses for gas stations in.the T5 lone'from "Not Allowed" to "Conditional Use Permit". This gas station is very convenient to our location now If it were to be phased out, as the Master Plan envisions, there would be no local gas station left,torservice the thousands of ,residents living on the South end of Petaluma. NAME SIGt4 :H .ATU' •, DATE ADDRESS 1-I561 :Bra vir i ---) 3 IS-2ora 110 1 7-th Stint _LP wy 4i mel 5'±U-iL fic, , . / 3/2'- Z,3:‘BD SE 9 &:�Yf- •,a Q_ a joe S -o i, -..„,at��'A:n„l�� 1P a / y3 / _d., Aw7J grettO //' e 9),e&ezat / 3/ '5 3 °7oa X54� . G l 494 v' • • 108 RECEMD MAR 19 2013 March 15,2013 CITY MANAGER Scott Duivan; City Manager's Office City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Petaluma.SMART`Rail Station Areas: TOD Master Plan and the Proposed Zoning Amendments to the Petaluma SMART Code/133 Copeland Street/George Weiner Dear Mr. Duivan: Pursuant to your request, I,am setting forth the,reasons for asking for insertion of a policy in,the draft TOD Master Plan and the Proposed Zoning Amendments to the Petaluma SMART Code'("Master Plan") in connection with existing and foreseeable future uses in my industrial buildings located at 133 Copeland Street. 1. General Plan: Section 2.2;of the Petaluma General,Plan;;on page 2-5, states that land use development in the.Central Petaluma Specific Plan Area("CPSP"), in which my property is located, shall be undertaken according to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan("Specific Plan"). General Plan Policy 2- P-11 provides as follows with respect to properties located within the Specific Plan area: "Encourage and support the rehabilitation and development of buildings and structures reflective of the history of Petaluma's rich agricultural and river- oriented industrial past and present use, , . ." This General Plan supports continued industrial uses within the Specific Plan sub area. 2: 'Specific'Plan Policies and objectives of the Specific Plan support the retention of existing viable uses located within the Specific Plan area. These policies include, butare"not limited to, land Use goal no 1 on page 28 of the Specific Plan, which provides as follows: 'I 109 Scott Duivan,,City Manager's O ffice City of Petaluma March 15,2013 Page 2 "Goal 1: 'Support existing viable uses, and provide for new uses that complement and complete the urban fabric. There are a number of existing,viable industrial uses within Central Petaluma that contribute significantly to the identity ofthearea and the economy of the City and region. New'development withinCentral:Petaluma should not be at the expense of theseexisting businesses." Page 31 of the Specific Plan, Policy 1.1, provides'as follows: "Policy1.1: Support the existing industrial,uses. The plan places a priority on supporting the existing industries, which are well established ,and economically viable. The introduction of new uses' this area is predicated on the understanding that the industrial operations will remain, and new uses need to be carefully considered to,ensure their compatibility with the ongoing industrial activities." On pages 101 and 102 of the Specific Plan,there appears the following: "Objective 1: Preserve the industrial and commercial complex of structures, including the Dairymen's Feed and Supply Coop, one of the community's most visible structures?' The text then goes on to list"potentially significant resources"and,under the "Industrial/Agricultural"category,133.Copeland Street is specifically referenced as a potentially significant resource. Following that listing, Policy 1.1 appears and reads as follows: "P.olicy 1.1: Recognize the industrial structures in the North River as having local, historic.significance. The two major extant resources are the well documented, Hunt and Behren's Enterprise and the Dairymen's Feed and Supply Coop. These two industrial structures [dominate] the Petaluma skyline and are surrounded by a number of auxiliary warehouses and sheds. These could contribute to the formation of a local historic district totaling seven properties." 110 Scott Duivan, City'Manager's Office City,of Petaluma March.15;2013 '( Page 3 3. Master Plan Figure 2.2 on page 2-6 of.the draft Master Plan designates 133 Copeland Street and other properties as"Priority Opportunity Sites." The text on page 2-7 relating to "Priority Opportunity,Sites"'clearly states as follows: `By identifying'them as'opportunity:sites, it is,not intended to force the existing uses out Instead it is intended that over time as the area develops, pedestrian oriented mixed- ' use development will become the highest,and best use for these parcels, providing the land owners, with the opportunity and economic incentive to redevelop. This language'clearly supports and anticipates the continuation of my existing leased businesses and similar future,tenants. 4.. Proposed'SMART Code Amendments The zoning map of the Master Plan and proposed.zoning amendments in Table 3.1 would shift the zoning at 133 Copeland Street from the T6 zone to the T5 zone. That shift would render incompatible existing industrial, commercial and retail uses located at 133 Copeland Street and would contradict the General.Plan,iSpecific Plan,and Master Plan goals and policies to retain existing viable uses and structures. While I understand the long-term salutary goals of the City in connection with its plans to ultimately,redevelop this area,the fact of the matter is that mixed use residential development at 133 Copeland Street is impossible as long as the Dairymen's Feed and Supply Coop is<in operation. That use, with its attendant heavyindustrial truck traffic,noises, smells,and odd work hours, would makeresidential redevelopment of the property functionally impossible: III 5. My Suggestion lI For the reasons above, I amrrequesting that a parcel specific•policy be placed into the Master Plan,and Specific Plan tor deal,with current and reasonably'similar future uses at 133 Copeland Street. I would propose the text of that policy read as follows: "Existing industrial; commercial and retail, uses at 133 Copeland Street may, notwithstanding other amendments to building function standards or permitted occupancies set forth elsewhere ink the Master Plan, Specific Plan or SMART Code, be allowed to continue and that any 111 Scott Duivan„City'Manager's Office City of Petaluma March 15 2013. • Page 4 reasonably similar future tenants to those tenants in the existing buildings may, from time to time, reoccupy the space'presently-leased so long as the Dairymen's Feed.and • Supply Coop is an ongoing industrial operation. At such time as the Dairymen's Feed and Supply Coop use is terminated, 133 Copeland Street will be subject to the restrictions and requirements of the T5' zone and the non- conforming use sections of the Petaluma City Code." Use of parcel specific planning policies is a useful,planning tool to deal with unique situations. Many such examples may be found in the Sonoma County General Plan.. I believe that the foregoing policy would allow for and anticipate the eventual redevelopment•of the area surrounding the Feed Coop while, at the same time,not encumbering my property with impossible land use regulations and severely impacting both the ability to use and thevalueofmy land. I think,that.this policy would be a reasonable compromise which recognizes,thellong-term City goals, while, at the same time, making it clear that the status quo may continue so long as the adjacent heavy industrial use continues to operate. I do not believe that inclusion of this policy in the Master Plan and Specific Plan will setany precedent with respect to other properties within the Master Plan or Specific Plan-areas because my property is the only one located immediately proximate to a heavy industrial-use and,there are no other,siniilarl •situated or occupied buildings in the Area. I very much appreciate your willingness to consider my issue and discuss it with the Planning Commission. Should,you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Again, thank you for your, and the Planning Cornmissio i's, consideration`of what I perceive as a i. personal, desperate economic problem. Sincerely, 7 azer7 Georg Weiner • 112 ! I . og M M tafw .ow �;;s• WED D a P 'P MAR 19 2013 l R TtA; rtgl a n `,fiir CITY MANAGER • Judy Arnold,Chair March 15, 2013 Marin County Board of I Supervisors Barbara Pahre,Vice Chair Mr.John;Brown ,Golden Gate Bridge, City Manager Highway/Transportation District 11 English'Street Jim Eddie Petaluma, CA.94952 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway/Iransportatlon District Re: Station Area Master Plan Debora Fudge Sonoma County Mayors and Councilmembers Association Dear Mr. Brown, Eric Lucan Thank you for both meeting with Mr. Mansourian and briefly discussing with me our Transportation Authority of Man n concerns regarding the Station Area Master Plan ("Plan"). 'Jake Mackenzie At the outset; I. congratulate you, your staff and' the committees for producing an Sonoma Mayors and - Counclimembers Association outstanding draft plan. Notwithstanding, SMART; as the owner of the center piece Stephanie Moulton-Peters property, has-coneerns. Mann Council of Mayors and Councilmembers While a "transit-oriented joint development project" ("TOD") must comply with the City's zoning-,(see Ptibiic Utilities Code. section 105087) "rail transit facilities" are not Phillips Transportation Authority of sUbject to either,the City s-zonin g regulations (see.PubhcUtilitiescode section 105100; Mann Govt. codesection 53090) or the City's design review process (see Public Utilities code David Rabbits section 105096).-Hence,-should SMART decide to construct rail transit facilities including Sonoma County Board of stations, platforms;switches,terminais, parking lots or bicycle and pedestrian pathways Supervisors on the SMART propertyiit is exempt'fromthe City's zoning requirements. ' I ,Carol Russell ISonoma-Mayorsand' I'could find nothing in either the text'of the plan or the various maps acknowledging Councilmembers Association SMART's statutory Zoning.immunity. I ,Kathrin Sears ;Marin County Board of SMART is particularly concerned because should it exercise its legal right to construct Supervisors transit facilities on site it is possible that some of the assumptions (particularly: Shlrleezane vehicular/pedestrian circulation) used to develop the plan may be questioned, At a, Sonoma County Board of minimum the plan should recognize SMART's status and the possibility that the very Supervisors specific form based zoning for the SMART property may be impacted. should SMART construct rail:transit facilities on all Or a portiomof the site. IFarhad Mansourian General Manager Moreover, in the event that SMART does pursue a TOD project, we believe that flexibility in thedesign of the internal circulation on the site,is warranted. In fact,section ,Suite Old Redwood Highway suite zoo 3.11 of the plan provides that "because markets are likely to change it is necessary ry for Petaluma,CA 99959 the"code to allow maximum market flexibility''. We recognize-that'there is a 100 foot Phone:707-794-3330 transverse-street essentially splitting the property proposed under the current code. To LFax•707-794-3037 , ,www.sonomamanntram.org. better facilitate development prospects for the site, the code should move in the direction;of more flexibility, not less. At minimum, we request that the "Transverse StIreetH design beidesignated as"recommended" not"required".The final design of any fu;ture street through SMART's property shtould.,take into account, and balance, the 113 • needs of the City, SMART and.a-developer putting forth'a specific development plan. In conclusion, while it is very.likely that.some type of will occur on the SMART property it is also possible that al portion of the property may be utilized for transit facilities rendering the very-specific zoning not viable, SMART believes that the plan should reflect such reality and provide flexibility due to the unique circumstances not enjoyed by other privately'owned parcels located within the'planarea. SMART desires to work collaboratively with the City to insure that our respective interests are'protected. We are looking to you to for any assistance that you can offer to accomplish thabgoal. Please;don't hesitate to-contact me should you have any--questions/comments. Sincerely, r nes Flageollet SMART Counsel cc:Judy.Arnold 1. David Rabbitt Farhad Mansourian • c , 114 Dear Petaluma Planning Commission, Lam writing:for two reasons. The first is;to protest the,new construction planned for Sunny slope=and D Streets. The second is to offersuggestions for the proposed construction:near the downtown Petaluma Depot. And these tWo plans are related. I am a writer and an artist:.have-lived in SonomaCounty for 24 years,,in downtown Petaluma for the lastfive. I'm also a native-to North Marin, and have known Petaluma since the 1960s,watched;it change and grow. I have also lived'ii,New York, Italy, and San Francisco, and have seen?changes:iin California,and-the world and know that planning is everything. Regarding the proposed.Dayidon development; we've allbeen to Walnut Creek, (and Rohnert Park) and are sure we don't Want Petaluinato'look like`that. I'm afraid that will be the end result of okaying developments'on a piecemeal fashion, especially using developers from Walnut Creek. Np imagination, really! I am amazed how many-tites,,when at parties in San Francisco, [tell people I live in Petahuna and they say'they are thinking of moving here! Artists, academics, architects, writers . . . And the next thingtbey say is "It's'really got a heart, a downtown, I like the old feeling, the open space,the c ommmnity'feeling, places to walk. It would be nice to get a little place there." They don't say they want to move to Walnut/Creek because they want a mini-mansion and shopping centers. • This week I tinally;looked attthe•plan,for the walkable downtown area surrounding the Smart Train Depot, and was:so appreciative=you,are;planning pedestrian-friendly connections. I also saw thatisome of the buildings may be.5 6 stories, and.the population dense in that area. I live on Wilson S_ t., south of D, and although I like:my quiet neighborhood, I am nevertheless'all for buildingdensely,in the downtown area. So many studies support.dense inner citiessurrounded by open space as a more sustainable way to develop, building better community,'better quality of life.-So please understand I am not saying don't build in my back yard. But I wonder if eventual tax revenue from this downtown dense construction can'tbe applied to extend park-land.and public use on the periphery of town: specifiallyout D St. Please try to think-more,imaginatively about this new development! Petaluma has,a chance-to keep its identity•as a unique, charming yet affordable, livable town: it will attract day visitors.and new residents, and keep its uniqueness: if only the,planning cominission has a bit more imagination and vision. We already have rhonert park, etc etc. My'su ggest i ons'are: Stop the Davidon development: there are plenty of Livermore locations for things like this. 115 If the Davidon development;is going ahead regardless, insist on a topnotch EIR!instead of the shoddy work so far. Increase density downtown:and use tax revenues for parkland on.Petaluma's periphery with trails and corridors connecting to Helen Putnam, keeping,the red barn. For now: take it more slowly: fora:couple of-years, lease.the farmland back to existing dairy ranchers to keep Petaluma's historic charm, lease until downtown developments are complete, so you can,plan later with a much better understanding of what Petaluma needs. The smart train and interoior construction will change:many things. Also, as I urge you to have a bit more imagination as you finalize plans: here is a great idea for the depot area: Petaluma is charming, known for it's charm. The newconstruction near the movie theater has not met expectations to invite pedestrian traffic, tourism, etc? Seriously,who goes there unless they have to except kids? Both,tourists and residents prefer the older sections of town. For a reason, charm, history,.etc. SO why not scour Sonoma,Napa, Lake counties for historic buildings that can be saved and moved into the depot section. Maybe three per.blocki set them in, and fill in new construction around them. This would create a seamless mixed architectural design to the downtown area, become an attraction for its uniquewision, keep all of Petaluma charming, and make_people actually, want to walk around!And what a great thing to see when you get off the train. In downtown San Jose, even with,a topnotch Modern:Museum, the newer parts are so unimaginative, visitors just don't go there. and yet„iii towns like San Luis Obispo,Paso Robles, Larkspur are justnnice places to both live and spend the day. Tax revenues, tax revenues, businesses„homes! The•historic buildings could be used as restaurants (charming)'or offices, or more antique malls`-to entice train riders in or even built into larger,:complexes the way.Berlin has built its few surviving old buildings into the modern city. Please consider using;your imaginations and helping Petaluma keep its existing charm. Thank you„ Patti Trimble, 324 WilsoirSt. Petaluma, CA 94952 707 360 8189 prntrim @gmail.com. 116