HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 10/21/2013 - Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 4
Maria Drive Apartment Complex-35 Maria Drive
Prepared By:
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
<0Ar' tr
k; ttrt
A r S
ss �.
II' '
1858
June 27, 2013
•
4-1
CITY OF PETALUMA
MARIA DRIVE APARTMENT PROJECT— 35 MARIA DRIVE
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND
Project Title: Maria Drive Apartment Project
Lead agency name and address: City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Contact person and phone number: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner
(707) 778-4401 •
Project Location: 35 Maria Drive
APN: 007-200-078A 077
Project sponsor's name and address: Marty Brill
JDA West, LLC
505 Montgomery Street; 11th
San Francisco, CA 94111
General plan designation: Mixed Use
Zoning: Planned Unit District
Greenbriar'Medical and Office PUD
Description of project: (Describe the whole action The applicant has applied to the City of
involved, including but not limited to later phases of Petaluma for a 144 unit apartment complex on
the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site 5.85 acres. The site is currently developed with
features necessary for its implementation.) an existing 16,000 square foot medical/office
complex that will be demolished. The
proposed development is for 144 apartment
units consisting of, 54 one-bedroom units (800
sq. ft.), 72 two-bedroom units (1,000 sq. ft.) and
18 3-bedroom units (1,275 sq. ft.). The project
requires the following:
1. General Plan Amendment;
2. Rezoning;
3. Site Plan & Architectural Review; and
4. Lot line.adjustment to merge the two existing .
parcels (007-280-078 &.077) into one parcel
(condition of project approval).
Surrounding land uses. setting; briefly describe The site'iscurrentlydeveloped with an existing
the project's surroundings: medical/office complex and other site
improvements such as landscaping and a
paved parking area. East of the subject
property is an existing multi-family apartment
complex. West and southwest of the subject
property are commercial uses and directly to
the north is a public path which runs along
Washington Creek and abuts to an existing
single family residential neighborhood. South
of the subject property is an existing little
league baseball field and an existing
elementary.school.
Other public agencies whose approval is required N/A
(e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation
agreements):
4-2
Page 2 of 62
June 27,2013
MARIA.DRIVE APARTMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE #
1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND — 4
1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 7
1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 7
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 9
3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL:IMPACTS 10
3.1. AESTHETICS 10
3.2. AGRICULTURAL and Forestry RESOURCES 13
3.3. AIR QUALITY 14
3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 23
3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES 26
3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - 28
3:7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 32
3.8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 35
3:9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 37
3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING 41
3:11. MINERAL RESOURCES 42
3:12. NOISE , 44
3:13. POPULATION AND HOUSING' 48
3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES: 49
3.15. RECREATION 50
3:16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 51
3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS' 58
3.18: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res.Code §15065) 61
4. INFORMATION SOURCES: _ 62
•
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Maria Drive Site Plan 6
Figure 2 Maria Drive Apartments Site Aerial 7
Figure.3: Existing.GP and Zoning Designations 8
Figure'4 ,,Maria Drive Apartments Rendering 11
• Figure5: Health,Risk'Exposure 20•
Figure 6:`Noise Monitoring Locations - - 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons • 34
Table 2 Trip Generation Summary— Existing &Baseline Conditions Only 53
Table 3 Trip Generation Summary—Future Conditions Only 53
Table 4 Summary of Existing& Existing Plus project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations 53
Table 5 Summary of Baseline.& Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations 54
Table 6 Summary of Future & Future Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations 55
4-3
Page 3 of 62
June 27,2013
1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND, •
General Plan: The Petaluma:General..Plan)2025, adopted in:2008, serves the following purposes:
• Reflects a commitment on the part of the CityCouncihand 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
• Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will
enhance the character•ofthe 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, redevelopmentprojects,and the Urban Growth Boundary,(UGB).
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 that is consistent with a prior
plan to impacts which were not examined as:signifcant 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 subject Project.
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:
o McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road, Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, Lakeville
Street/East D Street, Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street, Sonoma Mt Parkway/Ely
Boulevard South/East Washington Street, and 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
resurliption;ofiintracity trolley service; which would increase,noise impacts.
• Air quality impacts resulting from GeneraLPlen buildoutto 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 3.3.)
• A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the
significant impact ofglobal climate change.
The ER reviewed all potentially significant environmental impacts,and developed measures and policies to
mitigate impacts. Nonetheless significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under the
General Plan. Therefore, the City prepared and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which
provides the rationale on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the potential
environmental impacts. This environmental document tiers off of the GP EIR and holds that all potentially
significant environmental impacts identified under the GP EIR are"acceptable" and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Rage of 62 -4
June 27,2013
•
1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Maria Drive;Apartments;Project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Site Plan
and Architectural Review The General Plan Amendment would change the current land use designation from
Mixed Use which allows a'maximum.density of 30 units per acre, to High Density Residential which allows a
range of 18.1 — 30.0 units per acre; Rezoning'the subject property would change the zone from Planned Unit
District (Greenbriar Medical& Office PUD) to R5. In addition; a Lot line adjustment would be required to
merge the two existing parcels (007-280-077`& 078) into one parcel to allow forthe development of an 144
unit apartment complex on the 5.85 acre site, which would result in a density 24.6 units per acre. The
proposed development includes six-buildings containing a mix of unit types as follows:
54 one-bedroom units (800 sq. ft.),
72 two-bedroom units (1,000 sq. ft;) and
18 3-bedroom units (1,275 sq. ft:).
8 accessible units (all ground floorunits will;be adaptable)
3 units to accommodate those:who are sensory impaired
The apartment buildings will be three stories in height with an average building height of 35 feet
(approximately 42' to the peak of the roof). The project includes two points of access from Maria Drive and
internal circulation via a center drive'.aisle. A total of 252 vehicle parking spaces and 144 bicycle parking
spaces are proposed throughout the A proposed courtyard provides common areas such as a 3,517
square foot community building, swimming pool/hot tub, accessible picnic area and playground area
Existing concrete wall along the westerly property line will remain. The"chain link fence along the northerly
property boundary would be removed and replaced with a combination wrought iron fence with concrete
columns. A similar wrought iron fence,v ilt be placed along the property frontage.
The site is currently developed with an existing medical/office complex, which will be demolished to
accommodate the proposed development.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities include .sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, bike racks and
project connectivity to the adjacent Class I multi-use path along theWashington Trail.
•
4-5
page 5 of 62
:June 27,2013
Figure 1: Maria Drive Site Plan
j, -.,,I Ir 4 't_7: LAL1.lt:i,iliI liIl ! IIiIcii.I — ,I i I
,
Ai.."� 1 4' '' L :.H .� ago' !
ars a �( /y7 t r
% 44
f.
<� 0. C \\\ A 9{ ,1 i.. f t.i l I
41' lout :
7,e
/e/
N
,r / '
* ., /, /
l„,.. (
/ /
4-6
Page 6 of 62
June 27,2013
1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The
projectsite is located at.35,Maria .Dri,e`hiithe'incorporated'City,Petaluma, within Sonoma County. The
assessorparcel numbers are 007-2804)78 and'007-280-077:
The 5.85-acre projectsite is located on the northeast side of Petaluma, eastof East Washington and North of
South McDowell Boulevard. the site is-currently developed with an existing 16,000 square foot medical/office
complex that:was constructed in the mid 1970's. The existing buildings would be demolished as part of the
project proposal.
Across the street, east of the subject property is an existing 224 Unit apartment complex, Addison Ranch
(a.k.a.; Greenbriar Apartments) on approximately 17.2 846 acres (General Plan designation - Medium
Density Residential 8.1-18.0hu/ac and zoned POD). To the west and, south, is the Washington Square
Shopping Center (zoned Community"Commercial). Directly to the north is a public path adjacent to
Washington Creek. Beyond the path/creek, is a -single family residential neighborhood (zoned R2 with a
General Plan land use designation of .Low Density residential 2;6-8:0 hu/ac). Southwest of the subject
property is an existing little.league:baseball field and an existing elementary. school (McDowell Elementary
School). The East Side Transit Center; boated .approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site,
provides nearby access to a transithub. The.map below shows an aerial view of the subject property and its
surrounding uses.
Figure 2: Maria Drive Apartments'Site Aerial
a
it
{f x
j
1.3. 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. It :is situated at ,the northernmost navigable end of the
Petaluma River; a tidal estuary that snakes southward to San Pablo Bay: The'City'originated along the banks
of the Petaluma River, spreading outward:over the floor of the Petaluma;River Valley as the City developed.
The alley 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 andthe San Francisco Bay beyond.
.Page 7 bf,62 4 7
June;27,2013
Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) defines rthe,:limits,within which urban development may occur and
encompasses approximately 9,911 acres. The UGB,was'implemented'in 1998 and extends through 2025.
The General Plan and ER evaluated potential impacts a ssociated with existing and proposed development
withih the UGB.
The subject property currently has;a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use and is zoned Planned
Unit District (Greenbriar Medical& Office PUD), The map below shows General Plan and zoning of the
subject property and the surrounding properties'. The applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan from
the current land use designation of Mixed Use (maximum density allowed in':;Mixed-Use.land use is 30 hu/ac)
to High Density Residential (18.1 —.30.0 hu/ac). The High Density Residential`classifcation would permit a
full range of housing types, and is intended for multi-family housing in specific areas where higher density is
considered appropriate.
Figure 3: Existing GP and Zoning-Designations
jai l f re \zC ''. ,/,- � r. ,,� , , 0 @" + *ran, o"'`
"'`g ./ '�s g "7 /�, y° } n 'gym a '-r t� �--- ..... - .1. f
-�✓! " r - `+'3i � ... el.-.,` rte"$
'2`.Nac.$4‘1,- .4,,,..* "<6. /a '.,-'7,"- '-'.-CA7-L'. -_ -.raws. t "*.:".1/41.4'aaa,c-4,.'I a'14. 0,0
/ ups ! -„ '
f l�j� Y \ $cf l
/ ` `- / f�Ta �'"� '°r
f 4 ''*./424%.,-"y" , .. .,, , ''", - �F'!4x ,fit• , 4
•1 ' w x vS �� ! .' JI' .6f�
�qq
t ! y., i „ �Y f f �*S}j..�k�M•6*✓ i"*r ; `%....'.\ i.s'!"" 4 L:r.. ''' >1 4..ita VAZ. `7 ..._.4�f. . ...
The subject project!s,iteis located between commercial retail and residential land uses, in the:northeastern
most portion of the Washington Core Planning Area The project site is currently developed'with an existing
medical/office complex., The'complex includes four existing one-story buildings, parking and landscaping (turf
and perimeter trees), which are proposed for demolition as part of the project. The site was developed in the
mid 1970's and the buildings are in need of maintenance and repair. In addition, many of the office spaces
are vacant.
The subject property is'currently zoned. Planned Unit District and is part'of the Greenbriar Medical & Office
PUD. The project proposal includes a zoning ordinance amendment from PUD to R5. The R-5 zone is
consistent with and implements the proposed High Density Residential General Plan land use classification.
The R5 zoning district is applied to areas intended for the most;urban housing types at densities,ranging from
18.1 to 30.0 Units per acre, but where:lower density housing is considered conforming.
The subject project is consistent with the Land Use designations set forth and evaluated in the Petaluma
General Plan 2025 ("General Plan'') and its ER, which was certified on April 7, 2008. The General Plan and
Page 8'of,62
'June 27,2013
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.neticddlindex.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
activities associated with the subject 'Project create new or more severe significant impacts than those
disclosed in the 2025 General`Plan EIR.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would,be potentially:affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact.Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
1. Aesthetics x 7. Greenhouse Gas 13. Population / Housing
Emissions
2. Agricultural & 8i. Hazards & Hazardous 14. Public Services
Forestry Resources Materials
3. Air Quality x 9. Hydrology/Water x 15. Recreation
Quality
4. Biological Resources 10: Land Use/ Planning 16. Transportation /Traffic
5. Cultural Resources 11. M ineral Resources 17. Utilities/
Service Systems
6. Geology/Soils 12. Noise x 18. Mandatory Findings of
x 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
N EGATIVE DECLARATION'will i be prepared.
I find that although the proposed,projectcould have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effectin this case because revisions in the project have been X
rnade.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 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 significanteffect 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 orNEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are'irnposed upon the proposed project, nothing'further'is required.
4-9
Page 9:of 62
June 27,2013
A Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which,consists of this Declaration, the
attached Initial Study and all mitigation:measures contained herein,'will beprepared, distributed and posted for
the p is comment peri.dl.f June 27.2013 through July 17,2013.
ig ature:A icla Gludice Senior.• armor Dat
i 626/3
Applicant Signature Date
3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following section addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment.
3.1. AESTHETICS
• it
Less Than'
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with' Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Have a-substantial.adverse effect,on a•scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ El
b)Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic.highway? ❑ ❑ ❑
.:T
c) Substantially degrade the:existing visual character 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 views in ❑ ® ❑ ❑
the area?
Sources: 2025 GP and EIR.
Aesthetics-Setting: N.
The 5.85 acre site islocated.east of Washington Street and North of'Highway"101, in the central portion of the
City of Petaluma. The general characteristics of the properties surrounding the project area is a mixture of
residential (single family and multifamily residential) and commercial,uses. A little league baseball field'and
elementary school are located to southeast"of.the subject property, The'project site is current developed with an
existing medical/office complex constructed'in:the',mid 701s, associated landscaping and parking, all of which
would be demolished and replacedwith the proposed development..
The project proposes the development of 6 new apartment buildingsrcontaininga total of 144 units including,
54 one-bedroom units (800,sq. ft), 72 two-bedroom units (1,000 sq. ft) and 18 3-bedroom units (1,275 sq.
ft.). Two different yet complimentary building types, Type A and B are proposed. The apartment buildings will
be three stories in height(approximately,421 to the peak of the roof). The project includes on site parking(252
parking spaces both uncovered`and covered - garages and carports) associated common areas such as a
courtyard, community building ;(approximately 3,500 sq. ft), swimming pool/hot tub, picnic area and
playground area (refe`rto Figure 1 above.)
The design focus of the-project is the centrally located courtyard. Thecourtyard,has been designed with a
multi-age playground and tot lot, fullyfenced,in pool and patio area as well ass trellised picnic and BBQ area.
The landscape has been.configured to provide open space and grassed/turf•areas adjacent to the courtyard
and4he associated amenities. The landscaping provides-a Mix of fublic,,semi-public and private spaces for
residents.
4-10.
Page.10 of 62
-01119 27,2013
.Maria Drive Architectural Design
The overall design theme is,'a blend of residentiahscaledrCalifomia Craftsmen architectural styles, complete
with batten and board siding, 'shiplap and manufactured Wood:outriggers.with cultured stone columns and
base treatment of cobblefield stone.textured accents: The two building types, A & B, have similar design
features to create both a"'front door' and a "back of house" composition but distinct enough on their own
merits. The consistent design feature at the'entry forboth building types is a gabled portico which will have a
base'ofcultured stone and vertical banding of the batten& board siding. The gabled roof will be supported
'With Craftsmen styled outriggers.
The architectural materials utilize three (3) primary siding materials for both A & B; the design is a
contemporary palette. There are three '(3) primary siding types composed of cementitious siding materials;
the batten & board siding; and two different heights of shiplap or horizontal siding (3" and 6"). The third
exterior material introduced is stucco; which'will be limited to the corners of`each building type. Stucco will
also be utilized for exterior balcony half=walls and vertical column elements supporting the patios and will
have a belly band to separate itfrom the shiplap siding. Additional design elements include painted wood
plank shutters, painted wood outriggersand,'powder coated metal railings:atpatio and deck half walls. Below
is a contextual drawing (Figure 4) illustrating'the proposed project along Maria Drive at the main entrance to
the.project site.
Figure 4: Maria Drive Apartments Rendering
1 '
AA
in
it
-�
J 1 !if �\ r Ali .,
IF
_— - -
•
1 I
MARIA DRIVE APARTMENTS
Aesthetics Impact Discussion:
3.1(a). No Impact: The site is not located in an:area that-bas expansive views or valuable scenic vistas. It is
located within a central urban area.of the City of Petaluma. Views of hillsides rdgelines and,open space are not
readily visible from the-project site:and would not change with the project. Therefore, the Project will not impact
scenic vistas.
3.1(b). No Impact: The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic resource, is not on a state
highway and contains no scenic resources. The project site ie located within an urbanized area of the City.
Views of the hills to the northwest are occasionally-visible along Maria Drive. The proposed project will not
4-11
Page•11 of 62
June 27,2013
interfere with views along,Maria Drive: Therefore, the Project will not.impact scenic resources visible from a
state scenic highway or locally.scenic'istreet.
3:1(c). Less Than Significant Impact: The project site serves as a transition area between a large retail
commercial area and residential land uses. The proposed', building massing and architectural concept are
consistent with the existing visual character of the project area..The proposed development introduces a
three-story residential developmentto the project area which would be in conformance with the proposed R5
zone height limits. The proposed design is in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. The
landscaping plan and orientation of proposed buildings towards'the center-courtyard buffer future residences
from the adjacent commercial center, and provide existing residences in the project vicinity with a
complimentary land use.
The project site is already developed with urban uses and there are no scenic or natural resources onsite. The
existing complex would be replaced by, a residential project that would,serve as a transition to adjacent multi-
family and single-family neighborhoods. The project architecture will complement existing development in the
area and will be landscaped throughout the grounds and parking areas: The proposed project will not
substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site or its,surroundings. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact to the visuatcharacter of the neighborhood.
3.1(d). Less Than Significant with Mitigation: Exterior lights will be installed in conjunction with the
proposed development, which will increase artificial light onsite. somewhat, compared to the existing
development. The project has the potential to result in new lighting associated with streetlights and exterior
residential lighting that could affect nighttime'view in the project area. In order to assure that new lighting
introduced onsite does not constitute a significant affect, development is required to implement Mitigation
Measures VIS-1 and VIS-2 below. These measure require that all exterior lighting be directed onto the project
site and access ways, and shielded to prevent glare-and intrusion onto adjacent,properties. Only low-intensity
light standards and/or wall mounted lights shall be used (no flood lights), and lights attached to buildings shall
provide a "soft wash" of light against{the wall and shall generate no direct glare The project site is surrounded
by existing urban uses with existing site and street lighting: With mitigation, the proposed project will not
substantially increase light anct glare:ionsite or`in the project vicinity. Therefore, the Project will have a less
than significant effect on the environment due to increased lightand.glare.
Mitigation Measures:
VIS-1: In order to avoid light intrusion•onto,,adjacent properties, all::exterior lighting shall:be directed onto
the project site and access ways, and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent
properties.
VIS=2`. Only low-intensity, light standards,and/or wall mounted lights shall be used (no flood lights), and
lights attached to buildings shall providea "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall generate
no direct glare.
I _
:Page 12 of 62
June,27,2013
•
3.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES •
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with. Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as ❑ ❑ ❑
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑
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 Public ❑ ❑ ❑
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51.104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Sources: General Plan Land Use and UGB.
Agricultural Setting:
Agricultural lands are limited within the UGB and there are no identified forest lands within the City of
Petaluma. Agricultural resources are prevalent outside of City limits and within the County of Sonoma. An
impetus to the establishment of the UGB was to preserve natural resources, agricultural lands, and other
open spaces.
Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion:
3.2(a-e). No Impact: Agricultural lands are limited within the UGB and do not include the project site or area.
There are no identified forest lands within the City of Petaluma. The project site will have no impact on prime
farmland, unique'farmland,or farmland of statewide importance. There are no Williamson act contracts onsite or
in the project vicinity and the project would not interfere with any such contract. The proposed project would not
conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural or forestry purposes. The project would have no impact to
agricultural or forestry lands.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Page-13 of 62 4-1 3
June`27,2013
3.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available,the significance:criteria 'Less Than
established by the applicable air quality Potentially Significant Less than
management or air pollution control district may Significant with Significant No
relied upon to make the following determinations. Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑
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 state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? . ❑ ® ❑ ❑
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Sources: "Health Risk Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 35 Maria Drive," prepared by Illingworth &
Rodkin, Inc dated"October 22, 2012;2025 GP and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; and BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines.
Air Quality Setting:
The City of Petaluma islocated within the'San'Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District'(BAAQMD). The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act
establish national and state ambient air quality standards respectively. The BAAQMD is responsible for
;planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the Bay,Area Air Basin, including the City of
Petaluma.
The BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations, the closest to the project site is located in
downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of`Petaluma. The Santa.Rosa monitoring
station records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CD), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03),
and Particulate Matter (PM25). The BAAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Division 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.
4-14
Page 14 of 62
June 27,2013
Air quality impacts.resulting from°the anticipated,growth and'developmentiof the City were addressed in the
FIR for;the General Plan. No new or increased impact beyond what is already anticipated in the 2025
General Plan result of the proposed multi=family residential project
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 Bay Area Air Basin, including the project site, is
designated as non-attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone standards; 0.09 parts per
million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Bay Area is also in non-attainment for the PM10 and PM25
state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than:20 ug/m3 for PM10 and less than
12 pg/m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Bay Area Basin is designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard and„will be required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP)for
PM2.5. All other national ambient air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.'
Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is, a combination of natural .geographical and meteorological
conditions as well as human activities such as construction and development, operation of vehicles, industry
and manufacturing, and other anthropogeniCemission sources.
General Plan
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 3.7 (Greenhouse Gas;Emissions). All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the
proposed multi-family residential project, including the following:
Community Design
4-P-6 Improve air quality through required planting of trees along streets:
4-P-15D Reduce emissions from residential and commercial uses by requiring the following:
• Use of high efficiency heating and other appliances, such as cooking equipment,
refrigerators, and furnaces, and IowNQx water heaters in new and existing residential units;
• Compliance with or exceed requirements of CCR Title 24 for new residential and commercial
buildings;
• Incorporation of passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar
energy use for both residential and commercial uses, i.e building orientation in a south to
southeast direction, encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures,
landscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than pavement to
reduce heat reflection;
• Encourage the use of battery-powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not
impact local air quality for nonresidential maintenance activities;
4-P-16 To reduce combustion emissions',during construction and demolition phases, the contractor of future
individual projects shall encourage the inclusion in construction contracts of the following
requirementsormeasures shown t6 be equally effective:
• Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per
manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction;
• Minimize idling time .of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment,
motor"vehicles,,.and portable equipment;
• Use alternative fuel construction equipment (Le., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum
gas, and unleaded gasoline);
• Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters;
• Use diesel equipment%that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-
road heavy-duty diesel engines;
• Phase construction of the project; and
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment.
1 "2010 Clean Air Plan;”prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010.
4-15
Page 15 of 62
June 27,2013
Air Quality'Impact Discussion:
3.3(a-c). Less Than Significant Impact: The°proposed multi family residential project does not propose any
additional development not anticipated by the 2025 General Plan. The current General Plan land use
designation onsite is Mixed-Use, which allows for a residential density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre, The
Maria.Drive Apartments proposed 24.6 dwelling units per acre. As such the proposed multi-family residential
project is consistent with the impacts evaluated in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not
by itself violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant. Impacts to air quality resulting-from project implementation will be less than significant.
Construction Emissions Significance,Criteria
Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in association
with construction activities such as demolition, grading and vehicle/equipment use Major sources of
emissions during grading and site preparation include (1) exhaust emissions'.from construction vehicles; (2)
equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed
`surfaces; and (3) soil disturbances from grading and backfilling. Air quality emissions generated during
construction of the proposed project will be temporary and cease once construction is complete.
Emissions impacts from construction:relating to ozone precursors (ROG and.NOx), particulate matter, (PM)
and air toxics are evaluated for the purposes of this Initial Study using the 2010 CAP and BAAQMD's 2010
CEQA significance thresholds. Average daily construction emissions in_pounds per day (1b/clay), of 54/ROG,
54/NOx, 82/PM10 (exhaust) and 54/PM215 (exhaust) or less are considered less than significant under the
2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds. There is no carbon monoxide ,(CO) emissions threshold applicable to
construction emissions. Also see the air quality screening level discussion below.
Operational Emissions Significance Criteria
The BAAMQD CEQA significance,thresholds for average daily maximum (lbs/day) ROG, NOx, PM10(exhaust)
and PM2.5 (exhaust) are the same for the project. long-term (operational) emissions as for construction
emissions. The annual maximum tons per year (tpy) are specified in the significance threshold for operational
emissions as follows: 10 tpy/ROG, 10 tpy/NOx, 15 tpy/PM10 (exhaust) and 10 tpy/ PM2.5 (exhaust). For
carbon monoxide (CO), the operational significance thresholdis 9.0' artibles per minute (8-hour average) and
20.0 ppm (1-hour average). Also seethe air quality screening level discussion below.
The proposed project will result'in both stationary'and mobile sources of operational emissions. Although
there,are no new stationary "point sources:' created (large emitters'such as manufacturing plants), the project
will include small individual "areas sources such as residential furnaces and water heaters and consumer
products such as solvents, cleaners and paints. Most stationary source:emissions from residential use would
come from the consumption ofnatural gas. Long-term mobile source emissions will result from vehicle trips
associated with the residential use of the project site and to a 'small extent, off-road sources such as
landscaping equipment. The project will generate a net average of new vehicle trips per day (see Section
NewiSource Risk andrHazards Significance Criteria
If emissions of TACs,orPM2,5 exceed any of the thresholds of significance listed below, the proposed project
would`resulf in a significant'impact,and mitigation`would.be required
• An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in 1 million, or non-cancer(chronic or acute) hazard index
greater than 1.0.
• An incremental increase of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter annual average PM2.5.
A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and
foreseeable future sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the fence line of a source or from the location of a
receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the followingthresholds:
• An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index(from
all local sources)greater than 10.0.
• 0:8 micrograms per cubic meter average PM2.5.
4-16
Page 16'of 62
June 2t,2013
Maria,Drive.Apartments Air Quality Screening
In addition to the significance thresholds-outlined above, the 2010 'BAAQMD Guidelines provide "screening
• criteria" which were developedto establish a,conservative.estimate of whether a proposed project could result in
significant impacts to air quality: If all the,screening;criteria are the;local agency is not required to perform a
detailed quantitative analysis of a project,„because the criteria were developed by BAAQMD using the Urban
Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS), which contains default emissions assumptions'for certain types of land
uses. The proposed project does not have any characteristics that would create emissions from stationary
Source-engines or industrial sources subject to BAAMQD rules and regulations.
The screening criteria assume a "greenfield” development without consideration of any mitigation measures and
do not assume sustainable design elements or an infill location close to public transit and services. The
project is located in close proximity•to the East.Side Transit Center and provides convenient access to public
transportation opportunities. The proposed project will exceed the minimum requirements of Title 24 since
development is required to achieve CalGreen Building Code standard, which generally exceed Title 24 by
15% through the incorporation of sustainable design features and resource and energy conservation
measures. It is an infill project, located close; to public transportation and public services, and replacing
existing development. All of these factors further reduce its air quality emissions impacts and place it well
below the BAAQMD screening criteria.
Because the project is below the screening size criteria in BAAQMD Guidelines Table 3-1, it will not result in
the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the BAAQMD
thresholds of significance. Operation of the'Project would therefore result in less than significant project and
cumulative impacts to air quality from criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions.
The project is well below the screening;level size for apartments,which is'451 units for operation and 240 unit
for construction, as shown in BAAQMD Guidelines Table 3-1. In addition; the proposed construction does not
include the simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases, and will not involve more
intensive construction activities than the default assumptions used by URBEMIS for demolition, grading,
cut/fill, earth movement and truck haul material transport. Therefore air quality emissions generated by
construction would have a less than significant impact and would not violate any aft quality standards.
At operation, air quality emissions will be limited to typical residential sources including the operation of
vehicles and the occupancy of residential;units: The proposed development is required to adhere to all Title
24 standards and the CalGreen Building specifications. These requirements'assure that buildings are energy
efficient and conserve resources In.addition, efficiencies are gained due,to the infill nature of the project,
proximity, to nearby shopping; access to transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed onsite and
connectivity to existing facilities in the project vicinity. As mentioned above,'as a 144-unit apartment complex,
the subject project is below the operational screening level of 451 units and'therefore would have less than
significant impacts to air quality"at operation.
3`3(d). Less Than Significant Impactwith,Mitigation: In order to"evaluate-the potential air quality impacts
to sensitive receptors, including existing residences in the project vicinity and the new residences to be
developed onsite, a Health Risk Analysis was conducted,by lllingworth',.& Rodkin.(dated October 22, 2012) for
the Maria Drive Apartment Complex: The following discussion;is based on finding of that analysis. Operation of
the proposed project is not expected to cause any localized emissions'that'could expose sensitive receptors to
unhealthy air pollutant levels. However,construction of the proposed Maria Drive Apartments Project has the
potential to impact existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity due to short-term exposure to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Existing Sensitive Receptors
Construction activity would include demolition of existing buildings, excavation, grading; building construction,
paving and application of architectural coatings. During, demolition, excavation, grading and other
construction activities, substantial amounts. of. fugitive dust could be generated. The amount of dust
generated would be highly variable and would.bedependent.omthe size of the area disturbed at any given
time amount of activity, soil conditions and meteorological conditions.
To address fugitive dust emissions that lead to elevated PM10 and PMZ.g'levels near construction sites the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify best control measures such as water exposed surfaces,
4-17
Page.17 of 62
'JUne,27,2613
limiting the area of•disturbande, covering haul trucks, and paving driveways. These are set forth under
mitigation Measure AQ-1 below. With implementation of best control measures during construction activities
and specifically during site grading, when the majority of fugitive dust is generated, air quality impacts to
nearby'sensitive receptors can be reduced to levels below significance.
In addition to fugitive dust, construction equipment-and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel
exhaust, which is a toxic air contaminant (TAC). BAAQMD has developed screening tables for evaluating
potential impacts from TACs associated with construction projects. These screening tables indicate that
construction activities similar to this project could have significant impacts within 1,000 feet of nearby
residences, with the primary impact being excess cancer risk. As such, the project specific health risk
assessment was conducted to evaluate increased cancer risk due to demolition, excavation, grading and
building construction occurring over a fifteen-month construction period.
The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of diesel particulate matter
(DPM) at existing residences near the project site. The ISCST3 dispersion model is a BAAQMD
recommended model for use in refined modeling analysis of CEQA projects. The ISCST3 modeling of
construction activities used a single area source with a release height cof.6 meters to represent the project
construction area. The elevated source height reflects the height of the construction equipment's exhaust
pipes and buoyancy of the exhaust plume. Emissions from trucks traveling near the project site were
assumed to travel along Maria Drive and were modeled as a line-source.
The dispersion modeling incorporated construction emissions projections generated by the California
Emissions Estimator Model Version 2011'.1.1 (CaIEEMod), which assumed that,construction activities would
occur 5 days per week between 8 am - 5 pm. The CalEEMod model provided annual PM2,5 exhaust
emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off road construction equipment used for construction of the project of
0.13 and 0.055 tons per year for 2013 and 2014 construction years, respectively. On-road PM2.5 exhaust
emissions were calculated by CalEEMod'as 0.01 and 0.005 tons per year for 2013 and 2014, respectively.
On-road emissions are a result of on-road haul trucks.travel during demolition activities and vendor deliveries.
Since only a portion of the total on-road vehicle exhaust emissions would affect local residents near the
project site, emissions from vehicles traveling on Maria Drive near the project site were calculated based on
the length of roadway travelled relative to the total travel distance used by CaIEEMod to calculate total
emissions.
The ISCST3 model used a 5-year data set (1990 - 1994) of.hourly meteorological data from the Petaluma
Airport, located about 0.85 miles northwest of the project :site. Period average concentrations from
construction activities were predicted for 2013 and 2014, with the concentrations for each construction year
based on the 5-year average concentrations from modeling 5 years of meteorological data. DPM
concentrations were calculated at receptors placed at nearby residences for two receptor heights, 5.9 feet
(1.8 meters) and 15.9 feet (4.8 meters), representative of the first and second floor levels of apartments and
multi-level homes east of Maria Drive.
Increased cancer risks were calculated using the maximum modeled annual concentration and BAAQMD
recommended risk assessment methods using age sensitivity factors for child exposure (3rd trimester through
'2'years of age) and foran adult exposure. Since the modeling was conducted assuming emissions occurred
365 days per year, the default OEHHA exposure'period of, 350 days per year was used. Infant and child
exposures were assumed to occur at residences through the entire construction period.
Results of this assessment indicate an incremental child cancer risk of'21.3 excess-cancer cases in a million
and the adult incremental cancer risk of 1.1 excess cancer cases in a million would occur at the location of the
Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI). The location of the MEI is on the first floor of the multi-family residences
on the east side of Maria Drive. The predicted excess child cancer risk of 21.3iin one million would exceed the
significance threshold of 10 in one million and would be considered significant. The annual average PM2.5
concentration at the MEI location.was modeled as 0.17 ug/m3, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3
ug/rn3. The maximum non-cancer risk evaluated using BAAQMD's hazard index would be 0.03, while the
threshold is 1.0. Therefore, the'project will'be subject to mitigation measure to assure that potential impacts to
sensitive receptors are reduced to level below significant due to an increased risk of cancer from exposure to
fugitive dust and TACs.
4.18
Page 18 of 62
June 27,2013
.Ih,order to reduce DPM and fugitive.dust-and minimize the exposure,of existing sensitive receptors to TACs
"Best Management Practices" (BMP) will be implemented during all phases;of-construction in accordance with
AQ-1 through AQ-4 below BMPs include limiting idling time of construction' equipment, assuring that all
equipment is properly maintained to manufactured specification, and staging equipment away from sensitive
receptors. The type of construction equipment used onsite as'•well"as the construction schedule and operating
time of equipment also contribute'to the level of DPM generated. The mitigation measure below specify
construction activity requirements that will reduce emissions and limit the exposure of nearby sensitive
receptors. Specifically, MeasuressAQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce:the computed maximum child cancer risk
to 93.in one million and a maximum. PM2.5 concentration of 0:07 ug/m3., as reported in the Health Risk
Assessment Report. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, set forth
below, air quality impacts to ezistingsensitive receptors will be reduced to levels below significance.
Sensitive Receptors Onsite
The subject project would site new:residences, which are considered a sensitive receptor, in proximity to an
existing Loading Dock (Safeway) and in the vicinity of an existing stationary source emitter (Chevron).
Proximity to loading docks is associated with' exposure to TAC's or PM 2:5,- predominately from diesel
emissions. The .BAAQMD recommends using a 1;000-foot radius around a project site for purposes of
identifying community health risks from siting a new sensitive receptor. As a new sensitive receptor would be
located within 1,000 feet the health risk analysis was conducted to identify'the potential risk of exposure to
future sensitive receptors.
Impacts from Safeway Loading Dock,
The U.S. EPA ISCST3 dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of diesel particulate matter
(DPM) from future loading activities,at:new project residences. Modeling was conducted using 5 years (1990
- 1994) of hourly meteorological data from-the Petaluma Airporrobtained from 'BAAQMD. Truck emissions
were modeled as a line source(a series of volume sources along a. line):representing a travel route from
Safeway to the north along Maria Drive (which is considered a conservative-assumption since they may also
travel to the south, but that would be away from new receptors) DPM concentrations were calculated at
receptors within the project site at a height of 1.8 meters. Cancer risks were calculated for a 70-year
exposure assuming constant emissions at 2015 levels over the entire 70 year period. A cancer risk
adjustment factor of 1.7 was used,for'ithis analysis. The location of maximum risk is in the southern end of the
proposed project as shown below in Figure 5.
4-19
Page 19;of 62
June,27,2013
Figure 5: Health Risk Exposure
0j a 7 5i 0;71"/ i- Tr °r. w II i',a Xu ala :� ': j 4,1 3r? ' ,.
Y* .pm o�" 'C t ., ,.r _»»°"s' "c $:-; wt xa ,any - fir
423390Q J� ka T �'i �� ` '-.'� A ')
l°/
dir
9 kxt ,t l'K�'"'°" ��' " sax ;r `.
re:17,:**- -
t u K lases ' s `
t . c w x *31 ..a
. e a , ...-'' `a '. S',,'� y,
��,.s„..c..tl.,.� Luc 4:;: Ott -1.10: v. V,y x
i 33TOR �p1?::F.t-t4: Y� 1�'iL 11''-.zx,a. . .a e; . x - S ��r O • .10: PI: - d� Th!Lac I1
$ r,'.x"` e o A u�� t'x .w. +,e"rT`4+ ., '12;p - '.
}` ys e x `r�z ew' .- stir; 4.-oOOO, 0 8 o m ° '�,s,-.441,4 w. M 4.a 3>50 `
PAa � 4 �,° Project O .: ,K -!y,._.,;. ' ' Y ' P ..
z ' ,„r. ':[ '+ o °`Stte 1 ° $h ' "z`Y r`� g „t
w� 4.'"': 'sx. o '1:::-4}o �e rnw.}'. r �};�, ,.s ;Sir a }3400 1 -•: 00 OOS Y •C L 1 ¢S y '
e c -� .. 7 d z t" e #-
.°.e"-° ..� y '�O ff -^'a " a: bb y y�a
1 S. C eN iel a '4
z
4233550 h .$ 7 - `� a ,y �q* ,,Jt E` aR5O e tf r
'K ..ey, 7. ..,o ''{ k 11t' 2. v
a rt
'' -yy a f,5,8 e SY.2S2way �'^+�., ' � � £'a.�"�'-b C�
4233500 s ° state, f a. '"r� z."t',5 � .« > G
1, s ; ` ,* h _ �, cancer Rts, ' • I .-.e aa. " %d
42333W � �'� ``. "i '�§�^^ � i -,,,A k'Y -. �r ,.�3'0 "4s^., ;"'Y .
L. ''c '3 ink S - 1--`�''' "".'*u�i-.ir5t� .ry.^.. p u. Ja .s.c
m A.S.
532900 532550 533000 533050 533100 533150 533200 533250 533300
533350
UTM-Eastvg(meters)
As reported in the Health Risk Assessment Report, emissions were calculated using emission rates.from
EMFAC2011 for 2015 for trucks inSonoma County. Five (5) diesel-fueled medium duty trucks (MHDT) and 5
diesel-fueled heavy duty trucks (HHDT) Were assumed to 13 daily for 365 days per year between the
hours of Sam to 5pm. Emissions were calculated assuming a travel speed of 25 mph on Maria Drive and 5
mph along the back of Safeway to the loading dock. Emissions for years beyond 2015 were assumed to be
the same as those for 2015.
The maximum increased cancer risk for a new residential receptor at the project site from diesel particulate
matter emitted by delivery trucks is 0.40 per million and PM25 concentration of 0.0007 pg/m3. This is well
below the established annual average threshold of 0.8 pg/m3 for PM2:5. Therefore, new residences would not
be subjected to substantial emission cbncentratior s due to the Safeway loading dock and impacts to
proposed sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
4-20
Page 20 of 62
June 27,2013
•
Impacts from Stationary Sources
The BAAQMD's-.Google Earth Screening Tool also provides locations of stationary sources of TACs and
screening level'exposures that do not account for the distance from the source. This tool was used to identify
sources within 1,000 feet of the site This tool identified one source, Plant G4887, that is a Chevron gas
station.located-at 1440 East Washington Streetabout 600 feet-west of the project. Based on these data, the
nearby gas station is predicted to have a cancer risk of 3:4 in one million, a hazard index of less than 0.1, and
a PM2.5 concentration of less, than 0.1. jug/m3 at the proposed project .site. These are well below the
established thresholds. Therefore health impacts to new sensitive: receptors on the project site due to
exposure from the nearby stationary source would be less than significant.
Cumulative Community Risk Impacts
Based on screening data provided by BAAMQD, the combination of exposures from Safeway loading dock
activity and the nearby stationary source would result in excess cancerrisks•of less than 4 per million, PM25
exposures of less than 0.1 pg/m3 and a.Hazard Index well below 1.0. These:exposures are well below the
cumulative source thresholds identified byBAAQMD. Therefore, new residences on the project site would not
be exposed to substantial pollutant concentration and impacts would be less than significant
3.3(e). No Impact: None of the project activities are anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. During the project construction period, some objectionable odors may be
generated from the operation of diesel:-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving. However,
these odors would be short term in nature and'would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land
uses, including sensitive receptors. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would
result.
•
Mitigation Measures:
The following measures will minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potentially substantial fugitive dust
and exhaust emissions, and assures that temporary construction emissions do not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for community risk and hazard impacts:
AQ-1. In order to-assure that potential impact to.existing near by.sensitive receptors are reduced to levels
below significance, The'applicant shall incorporate the Best Management Practices for construction
into the construction and 'improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
specifications. In addition an erosioncontrol program,shall be prepared and submitted to the City
of Petaluma prior to any construction activity: BMPs shall include but not be limited to the
BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures:as modified below:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
accessroads) shall be watered two,times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or,dirt track-Out onto adjacent, public roads `shall be removed using wet power
vacuurii street sweepers at least.once'per,day: The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15"mph.
5. All roadways driveways and sidewalks shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall
be laid as soon:as,possible after grading unless seeding"or`soil binders are used
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting'equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to-5. minutes (as required by the California airborne.toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points:
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly 'tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running improper condition?prior to operation..
8. Equipment staging shall occur as far as possible from existing sensitive-receptors.
9. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number-and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
4-21
P,age 21 of 62
June;27.2013
The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
10. The Developer shall'designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the.
dust and erosion control program and'provide name•and phone number to the City prior to issuance
of grading permits: Post a publicly visible sign with the,;telephone number of designated.:person and
person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and
take corrective action within 48 hours.:The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable:regulations.
AQ-2. Diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site more than
two days that are used for demolition:,and mass grading/excavation shall meet U.S. EPA particulate
matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or an equivalent measure such as the use of
alternate powered equipment, alternate fuels, and added exhaust devices. The applicant shall
provide the City"with a list of measures-to be used along with an updated Health. Risk Study that
demonstrates effectiveness of such measures to reduce predicted cancerrisks below thresholds of
significance.
AQ-3. The contractor shall prepare a.project schedule that minimizes the number of hours that equipment
will operate and includes the provision of idling restrictions:
AQ-4. Line power shall be installed at the site as soon as possible after construction start and shall be
used to power equipment to avoid use of diesel-powered generator engines.
4-22
`Page 22 of 62
,June-2-7,2013
3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Less,than No
Would the project: S ignificant. Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ❑ ® ❑ ❑
local or regional plans, policies., orregulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified ❑ ❑ ® ❑
in local or regional plans, policies, 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; 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 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
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community. Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Sources: Holland's Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986);
2025 General Plan and EIR Figure 3.8-1: Habitat Areas and Special Status Species; Open Space Lands Map of
the Petaluma General Plan: Figure 6-1.
Biological Resources Setting:
Biological resources are protected by statute including the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey: These regulations provide the
legal protection for plant and animal species of concern and their habitat.
As reported in the 2025 General Plan EIR•several plant and animal species with special-status have been
recorded or are suspected to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Petaluma. A majority of
these species are associated with the Petaluma River and its tributaries. The City of Petaluma Planning Area
also contains species that.are identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity
and threats, and are considered sensitive resources.
4-23
'Page 23 of 62
June 27;:2013
Within the Urban Growth-Boundary, -biological resources are largely limited to the Petaluma River and its
tributaries, which contain aquatic-and riparian resources as well as wetland. The National Wetland inventory
identifies 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: The Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan, prepared in 1996,.contains policies and guidelines to protect these important
biological resources.
The 5.85-acre site is located in the center of the urban core of the City of Petaluma and is already developed.
The general characteristics of the properties surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
A little league baseball field and elementary school are located to southeast of the subject property. The
northwest edge of the project site is adjacent to the existing Washington Creek Trail. There are no biological
resources onsite due to the existing development:and surrounding urban environment.
Biological Resources Impact Discussion:
3.4(a). Less Than Significant Impact"With Mitigation: The proposed project,would not have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any .species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local, or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as the property is currently developed with an
existing medical/office complex and associated landscaping and parking lot improvements.
As described below, under discussion 4(e), the subject project contains 62 Eucalyptus Trees that would be
removed. Onsite trees may provide perching and potentially nesting opportunities to bird species including
migratory birds that are protected under the MBTA. Adherence to the General Plan policy 4-P-4, as well as
California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the MBTA will assure that potential impacts
to migratory bird species are avoided.-Should removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation occur within the
breeding season (February 151 through August31et), then a pre-construction bird survey shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist, see mitigation measure below: With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 below,
potential impacts to migratory birds,will be less than significant.
3.4(b). No Impact. Theproposed project would:not have.a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural communityidentified'in,local orregionatplans, policies,,or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and'Wildlife Service. The,subject property is currently developed
with existing structures, landscaping and paved parking area. There is no known riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural communities identified on the site. The project site is located immediately south of East
Washington Creek. The project design ise.consistent with the existing development onsite and provides for set
. backs in buildings from the adjacent creek. The project will not adversely impact this nearby creek that may
support biological resources: Therefore,;there'will'be no impacts to natural,communities due to development of
the proposed Maria Drive project.
'3.4(c). No impact. There are-no wetland or water of the state or US on the project site. The proposed project
would'-not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of,the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means.
34(d). No Impact. The site is,currently developed with existing buildings, landscaping and paved parking
areas and is surrounded;by other existing development:including residential and commercial uses. There are no
migratory corridors onsite or in the project vicinity that would be impacted due to the proposed.development.
The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
34(e). No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with,any local policies'or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance: The site is currently developed with
existing buildings, landscaping and paved parking areas and is surrounded by other existing development
including,residential and commercial+uses.
4-74
P.9624,of 62'
-June 27,2013
•
The existing trees on the property were inspected by Robert W. Propos, a Board Certified Master Arborist. A
tree report was prepared by Mr. Propos dated September 21, 2012, of Propos Tree & Landscape, Inc. The
report prepared by Mr. Propos inventories the existing trees on-site for their type, size, overall health and
• species and evaluated if the trees would be required to be preserved. under the City of Petaluma Tree
Ordinance, Chapter 17 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The trees predominately found on the site are
Eucalyptus. There are some smaller ornamental trees and shrubs around the existing buildings that are
associated with the existing landscaping. The tree report concludes that there are no native trees on the
property nor are there any Landmark or Heritage trees: The report also notes that while the dominate species of
tree on the property is Eucalyptus they are all less than 30 inches in diameter and appear to be in fair to poor
overall health and are infested with an insect.known as Lerp Psyllids. The trees also show drought symptoms
with premature leaf drop and yellowing.of the leaves and have notbeen properly maintained. There are a total
of 62 Eucalyptus trees on'the property all of which ate recommended for removal, and none of which is a
protected tree required to be preserved under Chapter 17. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to
biological resources due to a conflict with the tree ordinance.
3.4(f). No Impact: The proposed 'project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma, which would regulate the proposed
development on this parcel. Review of the Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan indicates that
the site is not designated open space. The site is currently developed with existing buildings, landscaping and
paved parking areas and is located surrounded by other existing, development including residential and
commercial uses.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1. To prevent impacts to nesting birds covered by State and federal law (California Department of Fish
and Game Code and the MBTA), the applicant shall avbid,the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy
vegetation between February 1 and:August31, during the bird nesting period. If no vegetation or tree
removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid
the nesting period, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified
wildlife biologist no earlier than seven.days prior to the removal of trees. Survey results shall be valid
for the tree removals for 21 days following the survey. If the trees are not removed within the 21-day
period, then a new survey shall be conducted. In the event that an active nest for a protected species
of bird is discovered in the areas.to be cleared, clearing'and construction shall be postponed for at
least two weeks or until the biologist has determined that the'young have fledged (left the nest), the
nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts, whichever is later.
4-2c
Page 25 of 62
June27,,2013.
35. CULTURAL RESOURCES'
LessrThan
Potentially Significant, Less than No
Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact
p 1 Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial, adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§'15064.5?
• b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an .archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy ,a unique
paleontological resource or site:or'unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
111 El
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Sources: Petaluma General Plan'2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; 2025 GP EIR: CEQA Guidelines
15064.5;
Cultural Resources Setting:
Historic resources are central to Petaluma culture and contribute greatly to the aesthetic quality and character
of the City..During prehistoric times; drawn by tfie fertile soils and abundant wildlife, the Coast Miwok Indians
settled in the Petaluma River Valley. European settlement began in the 1800s and increased after the
discovery of gold. The California Historical Resources Information System identifies a number of Native
American archaeological resources sites and historic era cultural resources,.within the UGB. Petaluma
contains 3 Historic Districts (Oakhill-Brewster;; Downtown, and A-Street Historic Districts) located in the
southwest portion of the City's UBG: The Historic Preservation Chapter of the General Plan includes policies
and programs to protect the City's historic and cultural resources throughout the City.
The project site is not located within any of the historic district nor-does the site contain any historic or
potentially historic resources. The site is currently occupied by an existing medical office building that was
constructed in the 1970s. As proposed the existing buildings will be•demolished and replaced with the Maria
Drive Apartments, Development of the existing medical/office complex involved grading and ,ground
disturbance. There were no prehistoric, archaeological, or paleontological resource or human remains.
identified,onsite during the previous ground disturbance conducted as part of the development for the'existing
•medical/office complex. No cultural resources-are expected to be present on the project site As part of the
General Plan Amendment process the.,City contacted the. Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria advising
them of an opportunity to begin consultation in accordance with SB 18 which requires local agencies to make
contact with local Native American Tribes wishing to participate in the General Plan Amendment process.
The City has been working with the FIGR to address to the potential for discovery of resources and/or
remains.
Cultural Resources Impact Discussion:
3.5(a). No Impact The site_is currently developed but contains no identified historical.structures. There is no
P
'evidence that the site is;_an otherwise historically significant site area or place. The buildings on the site which
are to be demolished were constructed in the mid.70's,and are of no historical significance.
3.5(b). No Impact. No prehistoric, archaeological, or paleontological resource or human remains or
cemeteries are known to exist or have been found on the site. Therefore, no impacts are expected in this
• 4-26
Page 26 of 62
June 27,,2013
area. Nonetheless, there is always the potential for discovery of archaeological artifacts during grading and
excavating,activities. In the event that covered cultural resources are unburied,. of Mitigation
Measure'CUL-1 and CUL-2 below; would assure that potential impacts to cultural resources are avoided.
Therefore, there'would be a less'than significant to cultural`resource's.
3.5(c). No Impact. There are no known paleontological or archeological resources on the site; therefore,
there are no potential impacts. There are no unique geological features associated with the site.
3.5(d). Less Than Significant Impact'with-Mitigation. There are no known human remains that have been
interred on the site. However, in order to.ensure that potential impactareavoided in the event that human
remains are discovered during excavatiomof`the site or during construction, all,requirements of state law shall
be complied with including requirements that the county Coroner and the Native American Heritage
Commission be contacted to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such
remains should they be determined to be Native American. CUL-3 below sets forth these requirements. With
CUL-3 below, potential impacts will'bereducedto levels below significance,
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 Prior to excavation for the swimming pool, the applicant,shall conduct test drilling to the depths
expected for the pool. A City-approved archaeologist shall be present during test drilling and excavation for
the swimming pool or for any work involving depths of more than 5 feet.
CUL-2 In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction
excavation activities shall be suspended fora period to be determined by a City-approved archaeologist to
allow for adequate inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate.
CUL-3 In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction
excavation activities shall be suspended and the following measuresshallbe undertaken:
1. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted.
2. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours..
3. The project sponsor shall retain a City-approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate
inspection, recommendations sand retrieval, if appropriate.
4. The Native American Heritage.Commission';shell identify the person or persons it believes to
be the most likely descended from the deceased Native AnSerican, and shall contact such
descendant in accordance with state law.
5. The project sponsor'shall be responsible for ensuring. human remains and associated
grave goods are reburied with''appropriate dignity at a place,and process suitable to the most
likelydescendent.
4-77
Pade'27 of 62
June.27,2013
3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Less?Than
Potentially Significant Less than project: No
Would the Significant with Significant
p ) Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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 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, fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Publication 42.
ii. Strong Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Hi. Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ® ❑ ❑
topsoil?
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 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), creating ❑ ® ❑ ❑
substantiaf'risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately'supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ ❑ ❑
the disposal of waste water?
Sources:.Petaluma General Plan,2025: Chapter 10.1 Natural Hazards, and Figures 3.7-2 (Local Geology),
,3:7-4 (Ground Shaking Intensity), 3.7=5 (Geological Hazards);.and Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Neil
O.Anderson &Associates, Octobers, 2012.
Geology and Soils Setting
The City of Petaluma lies within„a seismically active region. It is in.California Building Code (CBC) Seismic
Zone 4, and as such new development is required to 'meet the most stringent CBC standards. Geologic
hazards within the City of Petaluma are largely related to seismic;ground shaking and associated effects such
as liquefaction, ground failure, and seismically induced landslides: Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma
are capable of generating large earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking. The
Rodgers Creek Fault is;located less than 5 miles to the northeast. Although branches of the Rodgers Creek
closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence of activity
during the last 11,000 years; which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity. Expansive soils and
soil erosion are also of concern within the,City of Petaluma.
— i
Expansive soil materials occur in the"substrate of the days and clayey loams:in the City and represent a
potential geologic hazard. Without proper geotechnical considerations; buildings, utilities and roads can be
damaged by expansive soils due to the gradual cracking,;settling; and weakening of older buildings. These
effects create safety concerns and risk of financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils,
the City's Building Code, Chapter 18, requires that each construction site, intended for human occupancy,
that is suspected of containing expansive soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the
hazard. As such Neil O. Anderson&Associates prepared a site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation on October
5, 2012. Findings and recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical report are further discussed
below:
Geology and Soils Impact Discussion:
3.6(a. i.). No Impact. The project'site is,not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no
known active faults traverse the site Therefore, the risk of ground rupture within the limits of the site is
considered to be low. The proposed project will have no impacts resulting from hazards associated with an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
3.6(a. ii). Less Than Significant Impact. As is the case throughout-the City's UGB, development of the
subject project has the potential to;expose people and structures;to-substantial s adverse effects from strong
seismic ground shaking. The project,site.is'located within zone IX:Violent-of the Mercalli Intensity Shaking
Severity Level. In the event of a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, the site and the City of Petaluma could
experience severe groundshaking that could;da'rnage buildings, structures, infrastructure and result in the risk
of loss of life or property. The closestactive fault with a Maximum Moment magnitude of 7.0 and a slip rate of 9
millimeters per year is the Rodgers Creek Fault, which is located a distance of 6.6 kilometers from the project
site.
Conformance with standards set forth in the Building Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (the California
Building Code 3.7-20 Chapter 3: Setting,,Impacts, and Mitigation Measures [CBC]) and the California Public
Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 (the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) will assure that potential
impacts from seismic shaking are less than significant. Based on review of the project site and Section 1613,
"Earthquake Load," the CBC parameters fora Site Class D shall be utilized to assure that potential impacts
from ground shaking are less thanisignifcant. In accordance with Section 1803.5.12.2 of the CBC, a ground
acceleration of 0.414g (Sps/2.5) should,be:anticipated. Adherence to these design standards will assure that
the Maria Drive Apartments would not expose.a substantial number of People or structures to adverse effects,
including the risk of'loss, injury, or death;resulting from strong seismic groundshaking. Therefore, the project
will have a less than significant impactdue to hazards resulting from seismicactivity.
3.6(a.iii). Less ThanrSignificant.impact With Mitigation. According to the Geotechnical report prepared by
Neil O. Anderson and Associates; and dated October5', 2012, the project site and surrounding area have a
feet below then urface asliquefaction
well fas the type hazards. This is in part due to
present on the project site. The soils encountered shallow as 8.51 the
'field investigation consisted of highly,plastic fat clays that extended^to a depth of 4 to 5.5'feet,below the existing
,ground surface.The,upper soils were,generally underlain by 3 to 4 feet of slightly cemented, sandy lean clays;
which in turn was underlain by stiff'sandy lean clay to the maximum depth explored. The project will require
building permit review and through that process, implementation of design,elements necessary to address
design to accommodate seismic hazards will be incorporated: Such improvement will be specified in
construction level geotechnical analysis are likely to include removal and/or re-compaction of foundation soils,
dewatering of subsurface soils, and seismic design requirements for structures as specified in the CBC.
Conformance with CBC standards and GEO-1 below, will assure that hazards associated with are reduced to
less than significant.levels. Therefore, with.Mitigation potential impacts to onsite residences due to the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction will be reduced to less than significant.
3.6(a. iv). No Impact: The project site is located on a relatively flat portion of the City. There are no hillsides
onsite.or in the project vicinity. There will be no impacts to onsite residences due to the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides.
4-29
Page29 of.62
June+27,,2013
3:6(b). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As reported in'the'Geotechnical Report, a geologic
map of the area indicates that the surface soils are described as Holocene Age, Alluvium Deposits consisting of
poorly sorted stream and basin deposits, clay to boulder size. The subject property is currently developed with
existing structures (which will be demolished) and other associated site improvements such as paved parking
and landscaping. Accordingly, the project site has been previously graded and topsoils removed or
. substantially altered. The site would be developed with new buildings, paving, walkways, and landscaping. The
project will not result in a substantial loss of topsoil beyond what has already occurred onsite. Construction
activities have the potential to result in erosion, if not properly controlled. Soil erosion will be controlled during
construction activities through best management practices and adherence to the SWPPP as described below
under the Hydrology discussion. With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-6 below, which requires an
Erosion Control Plan, impacts due to erosion and sedimentation would be reduced to levels below significance.
Therefore, the project will not generate substantial erosion or loss of topsoil and impacts due to geology and
soils will be less than significant.
3.6(c). Less than Significant. The'projectsite is general flat with no slopes or apparent soil migration onsite.
There are no signs of soil creep or lateral spreading onsite or in the project vicinity. The subject project is not
located in an area that is particularly susceptible to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse.
Lateral spreading can be induced by vibration of near-horizontal alluvial soil'layers adjacent to an exposed
face. Lurching is an action, which produces cracks or fissures parallel to streams or banks when the
earthquake motion is at right angles to them. The potential for lateral spreading and lurching at the site is low.
Other than liquefaction, as described above, the project site does not contain a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Therefore the project would have less than
significant impacts due to soils and geology of the project site.
3.6(d). Less than Significant Impact with:Mitigation. The soil investigation found that the near surface soils
contain a high clay content and may exhibit high expansion potential. The actual amount of shrink and swell
potential is dependent on a number of factors including the moisture content, percentage of clay in onsite
soils, and drainage pattern. The primary geotechnical concern is the presence of expansive clay soils and the
secondary concern is demolition oftthe existing structures. The'report concludes that the site is suitable for
construction of the proposed apartment complex; however, all of the recommendations presented in the
Geotechnical Investigation should be incorporated into the design and.construction to mitigate the potential
for soils and foundation problems. The recommendations shall be implemented through mitigation measures
GEO-1 through GEO-8 below.
The Geotechnical Investigation recommends that demolition remove building slabs, foundations, and flatwork.
Loose soils should be removed, the resulting excavation scarified to a depth of 12 inches, and moisture
conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density to ASTM D1557, modifier
protector density. Utilities greater than 2 inches in diameter should also be removed.
While there are several options to mitigate expansive soils, the Geotechnical Investigation recommends that
proposed buildings be founded on spread footings. Moisture conditioning and 18 inches of non-expansive fill
and/or lime treatment may be necessary to account for the expansive potential of onsite.soils. In addition,
over excavation may be required. Adequate draining of onsite soils will be provided via site grading and/or
drainage inlets. The City Engineer will require grading, slab and foundation design to adhere to the report
specifications
Potential impacts associated with expansive soils will be reduced to less than significant levels through
standard building code compliance and adherence to the required mitigation measures set forth below. These
measures will assure that new development will not create a substantial risk to life or property. With
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below potential impacts to risk of life and property due to
expansive soils will be reduced to less than significant levels.
3.6(e). No impact. The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system that would
convey effluent to the Ellis Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. There are no onsite septic tanks
proposed as part of the Maria Drive Apartment Project. Therefore, there would be no impacts due to the
disposal of wastewater,
Mitigation Measures:
4-30
,Page'30:of62
June27,2013
GEO-1. Prior to.Submittal of Improvement Plans;the applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical report that.
identifies performance of supplemental exploration defines"the:amount'of expansive or weak soils to be
removed from the amount and make up of engineered;fill toabe replaced, and specific recommendations
for private and public improvements.
GEO-2. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations, and structural
components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained'in the geotechnical report (as
updated to comply with GEO-1), as approved by the City Engineer andlor Chief Building Official.
Foundation and structural design for'buildings shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for
seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
GEO-3. The applicant shall obtain.a geotechnical engineer to review the:finalproject;plans and specifications to
determine if they are consistent with the recommendations as outlined in the report and observe
grading, compaction, and foundation excavations to verify that conditions:are as anticipated and to
modify recommendations if warranted: A qualified geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement
plans and certify the design as conforming to geotechnical report specifications. A qualified
geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to
acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the improvements have
been constructed in accordance'with geotechnical report specifications.
GEO-4. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for.conformance.with the geotechnical report
specifications (as updated by GEO-1 above) by the Public Works Department and the Chief Building
Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Additional soils information may be required by
the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with the Code.
GEO-5. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in
accordance with the City:of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Tide 20, Chapter 20.04 of the
Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31
of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
GEO-6.The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional
engineer as an integral part.of'the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be
subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and Public Works Department, prior to issuance
of a grading permit The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during
excavation for foundations,,and other grading operations at the site to,prevent discharge of,sediment
and contaminants into tha drainage system. The Erosion.and Sediment Control Plan shall include that
the material and equipment for implementation of erosion control' measures shall be on-site by
October 1st.
GEO 7i;All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety.
Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject'-to
review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All'work`shall
be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all `applicable code
requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
GEO-8.All public and private improvements shall_be'subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the
approved improvement plans, prior to their acceptance by the City.
4-31
Page31 of 62
June.27,2013
3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact
P J Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ❑ ® ❑
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Sources: BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Greenhouse Gas Setting`. Greenhouse gas emissions are a cumulative issue in that project-level
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions do not directly produce local or regional impacts, but may contribute
cumulatively to an impact on global climate change. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of
GHGs associated with construction activities and operation. GHG emissions are typically a result of the
combustion of fossil fuels and/or industrial and agricultural processes.
To address GHG's at the State level, the California legislature; passed. Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which
requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels:by`2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been
adopted, which seeks to curb GHGs,by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle.miles traveled.
The City of Petaluma has also taken steps to address GHG emissions within City limits. The City adopted
Resolutions 2002-117 and 2005-1.18 (both incorporated herein by .reference), which calls for the City's
participation in.the Cities for Climate Project effort and established"GHG emission reduction targets of 25%
below 1990 level by 2015 for community emissions and 20% below -2000 levels by 2010 for municipal
operations, respectively. In addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in
partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P-
27. General Plan Policy 2-P-90 which calls for the City to''work.with regional and other,agencies to create a
new rail transit station near Corona Road with high-intensity, transit-oriented development. . ." is also being
pursued. The light rail effort is estimated to 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.
2-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than
surrounding uses.
;InNovember,2010; the City adopted an,update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the
mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). All new development within the City of Petaluma must
comply with these standards.As such new"development is expected to be more energy efficient, use less
resources and emit fewer GHGs.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Impact.Discussion:
3.7(a). Less Than Significant Impact:: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions impacts are evaluated for this
project using the 2010 CAP and BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA significance thresholds. In addition, the following
discussion also evaluates compliance, of, the proposed project.with AB 32 GHG reduction measures, and
General Plan 2025 measures designed to reduce GHG emissions.
The,BAAQMD^Guidelines use'a three-tiered,approach for setting a significance threshold for the project-level
contributions to cumulative GHG impacts. Based on the BAAQMD Guidelines, a project is considered less-
than-significant if it either:
4-3
Page-32 of 62
June 27,2013
a) Complies with a legislatively adopted GHG Reduction Strategy which meet's or exceeds one of the
following three,options:
Reduces emissions to 1990'levels by 2020,
ii. Reduces emissions 15% below baseline (2008 or earlier) emission level by 2020, or
Meets the plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e/service population/year;
6) Emits a total of less than 1,100 metric tons(MT) CO2e per year; or
c) Emits less than 4.6 MT/service population/year. Metric tons per capita for service population per year;
service population includes residents and any employees.
The 2010 BAAQMD guidelines define a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy as one that has
followed an approved protocol, has been adopted through the CEQA process by the local jurisdiction (or
similar adopted policies, equivalent), and includes enforceable measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020,. or 15% below a 2008 or earlier baseline with a plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT
CO2d/service/population/year. These reductions are designed to meet AB.32,goals. The plan can be set out
in one adopted document such as a Climate Action Plan, or consist of a compilation of the jurisdiction's
planning documents, adopted ordinances and other measures which together will result in GHG reductions to
the required levels. As noted in the General Plan 2025, Revised Draft EIR, Vol. 5.A, Appendix G-1,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the combination of state and local measures which could be quantitatively
evaluated as of November 2007 provided an estimated 8% reduction from the 2005 General Plan GHG
baseline. Additional work would be needed to identify and adopt other measures to achieve additional
reductions before the General Plan 2025 (plus added measures)' would be considered a "qualified" GHG
reduction strategy by BAAQMD.
Projects proposed in areas where a qualified BAAQMD GHG Reduction Strategy has not been adopted
should be reviewed against a screening threshold of 1,100 MT carbon dioxide equivalents per year(CO2e/yr).
This threshold generally corresponds to the project sizes set out in Table 3-1 of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, as discussed above.. Residential .projects that are over the screening threshold are not
considered significant if their overall GHG efficiency is less than 6.7 MT CO2e/yr/capita.
The screening size for GHG emissions is 78 dwelling units for an apartment complex. The proposed project
Size is above the screening threshold since 144 unit are proposed..As such, a GHG analysis was conducted
by Illingworth & Rodkin (dated October 22, 2012) for the Maria Drive Apartment Complex. The California
Emissions Estimator Model Version 2011.1.1 was used to predict net GHG emissions from construction and
operation of the site assuming full-build-out of the project. CaIEEMOD provides emissions for transportation,
areas sources, electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, electricity usage associated with water usage
and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport.
Construction Emissions
GHG emissions:associated with construction were estimated to be 488 MT CO2. These are the emissions
from on-site oPeration'of construction equipment, hauling truck trips, vendor truck trips, and worker trips. The
BAAQMD does not haye an adopted Threshold of Significance for construction-related GHG emissions.
Rather, BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions
during construction. Best management practices are specific uner AQ-1 above.
Operational Emissions
The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to predict annual
emissions associated with operation of the fully-developed. site under the proposed project. In 2015, net
annual emissions resulting from the proposed project,are predicted to be 639 MT of CO2e. These emissions
would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr. Table 1 shows the project's annual GHG
emissions at operation.
4-33
Page,33 of 62
June'27,2013
Table 1
Annual Project,GHG Emissions;in Metric Tons
Sou rce'Category Unmitigated-Emissions
Area 2
Energy Consumption 177
-- - -- - — Mobile 409
Solid Waste Generation 30'
Water Usage 21
Total 639
BAAQMD Threshold 1,100
MT CO2e/year
The project's operational emissions of GHG are below the BAAQMD established threshold of significance.
Therefore, impacts to air quality resulting from GHG emission would be less than significant.
Consistency with GHG Regulation and General Plan 2025 Measures
Petaluma's General Plan 2025 and its EIR contain a quantified estimate of emissions within the City through
General Plan build-out, evaluate state and local programs designed to reduce emissions and include an
extensive series of policies, programs and implementation measures;designed to reduce GHG emissions. The
applicant is required to comply with the CalGreen Building standards, which is beyond the energy efficiency
requirements set forth under Title 24. Therefore, potential impacts due to the generation and emission of
greenhouse gases would be less than significantunder project implementation.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
•
4-34
Page 34 of 62
June 27,2013
3.8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant. with Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe-
environment through the routine•transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to-the.public or the
environment through reasonably'foreseeabje upset
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 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 compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.:5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑
result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not beertadopted,
within two miles of a public airport of public use ❑ ❑ ❑
airport, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI
for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere .
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose:people or structures to a significant risk
of loss injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where 'midlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Sources: 2025'GeneralPlan and EIR.
Hazardous Material Setting:
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 the Planning
and Zoning Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous-waste and
substances sites list (Cortese List): There are no Cortese sites within the.City of Petaluma, including the
project site. Hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste
Management Agency through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management-Plan.
4-35
'Page 35 of 62
June'27;.2013
Hazards/Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion:
3:8(a-c). Less than Significant None of the project activities are expected to involve significant hazardous
materials. No storage.of chemical or hazardous'materials is anticipated at this site. Except during construction
where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel,. the project does not involve hazardous
substances. During construction, the applicantwill comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations
related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. Pursuant
to GP 8-P-38 and as set forth in HYDRO-1 below, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will
include specific Best Management Practice's (BMP's) related to hazardous materials will be implemented during
construction. For construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site, pursuant
to city fire code ordinances, the applicant must file a declaration form v✓ith the Fire Marshal's office and shall
obtain a hazardous materials storage permit. These standard requirements will assure that impacts related to
the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and waste are less than significant.
3.8(d). No Impact. The projectsite is not located within an area that is identified on a hazardous materials list
of sites. There are no signs of spills or leaks.on the project site and no indication that hazardous materials or
substances are present on site soils or in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will have no
impacts due to the development of a site included on a list of known hazardous materials.
3.8(e-f). No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and would therefore not
expose people residing or working in the project area to any safety hazard. The project is notin the vicinity of a
private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Petaluma Municipal Airport located approximately one mile north of the
project site. There would be no impacts to construction workers or new residents due to hazard associated with
an airport or private airstrip.
3.8(g). No Impact. None of the propose site.improvements are expected to impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Project
development will retain emergency vehicle access to the site during all phases, of construction. At project
buildout, the site provides two points of access and accommodates emergency vehicle turning radius. The
project will not affect the existing emergency access on project area streets. Therefore, the project will have no
impacts due to conflict with an emergency response plan.
3.8(h). No Impact. The project site:is in the city center in a suburban area and not adjacent to wild lands. The
project site is surrounded by existing urban development in the core of the City of Petaluma. There are no
wildlands onsite or in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project will have no impacts due to the risk of hazards
associated with wildland fires.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
4-36
Page'36 of 62
June:27,2013
3i9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER'QUALITY
• Less.Than
Potentially Significant Less than, No
Significant with
WOUId'the project: Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ® n ❑
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere 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 rate of pre-existing, nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits havewbeen granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing'drainage pattern on the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a màhnër that would result ❑ ❑ ® ❑
in substantial erosion or siltation'oh-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the
site or area; including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or substantially'increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned';storrnwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of ❑ ® ❑ ❑
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing 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?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑
,that.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 result.of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)'Inundation'by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sources: "Preliminary-Storm Water-MiigationPlan';" prepared by:Civil Design Consultants, Inc., October2012; and
2025 General Plan and EIR..
Hydrology and Water Quality Setting:
The Petaluma River is-the primary watercourse within the City of`Petaluma and the Petaluma watershed (an
area of approximately 46,square miles). The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast
direction 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
4-37
Page 37 of 62
Jae 27,2013
continued dredging services rom,'the 'USAGE; there must be an "economically justifiable" tonnage of
commercial',products moved,on the riven-as determinedby the USAGE.
The Project is not in the immediate proximity to the Petaluma River, butts`adjacent to Washington Creek
Creep, which'is a small tributary stream that,drains to the Petaluma River. Capri—Greek Washington
Creek runs from`the northeast to southwest immediately east north of the proposed project site The creek
bisects suburban residential development and -serves as public open space = = • --• - •--
The Regional WatcrQuality'ControlBoard (RWQCB) does not consider Capri creek a major surface water.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates`the discharge of-pollutants to waters of the US. The National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. (NPDES) General Permit Requirements apply to grading, grubbing,
and other ground disturbance activities. 'Construdtion activities on.morethan.one acre are subject to NPDES
permitting requirements including, the preparation of a Storm Wafer.Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Low Impact Development (LID) requirements,establish limitations on the storm water runoff emanating from
development sites. New development including the subject Project, is required to mimic pre-developed
conditions, protect water quality„ and retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite. Achieving these
conditions generally avoids the need for upsizing of storm drain systems. As further described below, the
subject project proposed to retain all 'excess runoff onsite and incorporates design measures to limit
impervious sources and allow for filtration, thereby reducing runoff and pollutants.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Discussion:
3.9(a). Less Than Significant With Mitigation: The project is immediately adjacent the East Washington
Creek. Development of the project site will include demolition and ground disturbance, which could result in soil
erosion and runoff if not properly developed. Civil Design Consultants, Inc,prepared aPreliminary Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (PSWMP) for the Maria Drive Apartments Project in.October.2012. The SWMP identified Best
Management.Practices to be implemented onsite in order to mitigate p011aants and provide onsite retention. As
set forth therein, the subject project will implement Bio-Filters, Tree Pods and provide retention for the 85th
percentile 24-hour storm. Storinwaterretention onsite is addressed through a robusttree-planting plan, the use
of pervious material along pedestrian paths, and downspouts froth roofgutters'thatdrains to landscaped areas.
The project will collect overland flow and route it to a series of proposed bio-filters before entering the
underground drainage system. This pre-treatment design feature not only removes pollutants, but also limits
channel-forming discharges by capturing and slowly releasing'storm flows from the project site. The bio-filters
are proposed at various locations throughout the,projectsite, providing treatment for each of the site tributaries.
These onsite improvements have been designed to capture sediment reduce runoff, and limit potential impacts
to water quality associated with site.development. At operation the project's impacts to water quality will be less
than significant.
However, construction activities have-the potential to result in soil erosion and runoff during site grading, which
could result in impacts to water quality. Best Management Practices implemented during construction can
substantially-reducerunoff and impacts to water quality and storm water discharge. In order to assure that
standards for stormwater runoff are achieved and in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit the City requires
that sites greater than.one acre prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
throughout all construction activities. Any-sediments or pollutants generated by construction activities will be
contained'through mitigation measure HYDRO-1 listed below. In addition, as.further described below under
3.9(e), HYDRO-2 through HYDRO6 will provide mitigation to assure compliance with water quality standards.
Implementation of the mitigation measures below will assure that potential impacts to water quality and waste
discharge requirements are reduced to levels below significance.
3:9(b). No Impact: The .City has adequate water supply resources to accommodate development of the
Maria Drive Apartments Project without depleting, degrading or altering groundwater supplies or interfering
substantially with groundwater recharge. The subject project would not result in the towering of the aquifer or
the local groundwater table:The project's,water demands are consistent with water'demands evaluated in the
2010 UWMP, which found sufficient water supplies are available to meet existing and planned future
development within the UGB. The project will,not use groundwater, as all domestic water supplies will be obtain
via surface water provided by Sonoma County?Water Agency (SCWA). Nor will the project interfere substantially
4-38
,Page 38 of.62
June 2t,2013
with groundwater recharge. As described herein, the project will retain the existing drainage pattern onsite and
will facilitate 'percolation through the•use of Tree Pods and pervious surfaces, and downspouts that drain to
landscaping. Therefore, groundwater reserves;will not be impacted by the proposed development.
3.9(c-d). Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not alter the course of a stream or river or result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. In accordance with LID; the'existing drainage pattern of the site will,
not be substantially altered. No alteration of a drainage swale, stream; or river will occur. During construction
the contractor will be required to adhere to City of Petaluma standards and regulation regarding storm water
management and erosion controls measures. A storm water detention basin/bio swale is proposed within Lot 4
to detain a 10-year storm event as well as,treavrunoff. The basin/swale will be designed to control runoff such
that downstream erosion and siltation is less than significant.
The north portion of the site is tributary to an existing creek outfall to Washington Creek. The remainder of the
site is tributary to an existing catch basin located iat the most southerly point of the site at Maria Drive. From
there the storm drain system consist of a series of pipes that flow in a southwesterly direction to Washington
Creek. The proposed project will not change the existing drainage patterns. Below is a plan of the "Tributary
Area"which shows the proposed grading pattern for the project along with the drainage tributary areas.
il
1_10 11 r I�l Lis, it iWlitti■ n us .:111/2 —\. 13
i n II 1 _pUS ` , t 1 .y
�I r---h.,,,.1 rf1 I
P f { f : ill
_
7 Y
� `� �� 1 t i,ia e
m
''.',,� 0' `� ''/ icy <
0
The proposed:grading for the site will control all onsite storm water runoff and convey the runoff into a piped
storm drain system and detention basin/bio-swale system. No lot-to-lot drainage is proposed. Surface runoff
shall be collected, detained and treated within the project, and then conveyed to an existing public storm drain
.system. There would be little change in drainage patterns, and with the proposed drainage controls, no
potentially significant sources of pollution'would be generated by the project site. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact on the drainage pattern.
3.9(e). Less Than Significant with Mitigation: The project,will result in an increase of impervious surfaces
relative to the existing condition, which has a potential to impact storm drain facilities. Currently 38.5% of the
subject site is pervious. As proposed, 26% of the site would be pervious. Thus, relative to the existing condition
the proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, which has the potential to result in
increased runoff that could impact storm drain facilities. In order to ensure that-potential impacts associated with
increased runoff are reduced to levels below significance, the applicant shall imlement mitigation measures
HYDRO-2 through HYDRO-6, which require onsite stormwater detention consistent with the existing condition
(i.e. no increased run-off relative to the pre-project condition), a mechanism to ensure that long term
rnaintenance'and funding for onsite stormwater facilities, requires that all inlets and catch basins be labeled with
text and graphics noting that storm water facilities drain to ocean; and reinforces the requirement to pay
4-39
Page 39 of 62
June'27,.2013
•
,development impacts fees forStorm Drainage (These fund are dedicated'•to"the:niaintenance and expansion of
- - the regional Storm Drain system). With implementation of mitigation measures'HYDRO-2 through HYDRO-6
below, potential impacts to drainage facilities and..additional sources Of pollution will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
- 3.9(f). No Impact. No other water quality degradations:are expected to occurfrom the project development.
As mentioned above, implementation of the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will
•
assure that there are no other impacts to water quality due to the subject project.
3:9(g-h). No Impact: The project is not located in a Flood Zone. According to FEMA Flood Panel Map
06079C1001E (effective date December 2, 2008) as well as the draft updated:Flood Map Panels dated June
3, 2013, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area The project site is located in Zone X
-other flood areas. These are areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual 'chance floodplain. As such the
project would not place structures within a zone subject to a flooding hazard. Thus, no structures developed as
Part of the subject project would impede or redirectflows. Therefore,the Maria Drive Apartments Project would
have no impacts due to the.hazardsassociated with flooding.
3.9(i).. Less Than Significant. The project site is located adjacent to ,East Washington Creek, which is
contained,by levees on either side. Flowswithin this creek are low'volurrie and Unlikely to result in a levee failure
that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuy or; death involving flooding. The
nearest unit is set back approximately 100 feet from East'Washington Creek, and 60 feet from the northerly
property line, which is consistentwith>the set back requirements established in IZO. Building set backs from
the adjacent creek and existing and proposed storm drain facilitieswill assure that any potential impacts from
flooding due to levee failures are less than significant. Therefore, the project would-have less than significant
impacts from flooding, including inundation'areas associated with the failure of a levee or dam.
3.9W. No Impact. The project.site is not located within an area that could be affected by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. There are no substantial water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the project site There will be no
impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow resulting from'project implementation.
Mitigation Measures:
HYDRO-1. The project shall prepare a SWPPP prior to the issuance•of;grading'permits. The SWPPP shall
be prepared pursuant to the requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), and implemented throughout project construction and operation. The Applicant shall
complete and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and appropriate filing fee to the SWRCB. The
applicant shall filaa Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The
SWPPP shall be submitted for review, and approval by Public Works prior to approval of
improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the
'improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall
complywith San Francisco bay Area Regional Water Quality.Control Board requirements.
HYDRO-2. Irraccordance with City of Petaluma General.Plan 2025 Policy, 8-P#36, the.project.shall'include an
on-site storm water detention system to limit post-construction storm water peak flows leaving the
site to not exceed pre=project peak+flows by detaining peak storm Water runoff from the 100-year,
24 hour storm event. Final'storrir,water calculations,shall be designed in accordance with City of
Petaluma and Sonoma County WaterAgency requirements and shall be provided with the project
construction drawings, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer.
HYDRO-3. The developer shall be responsible for funding, through•the project cost recovery account, all
City required storm waterquality inspections. The-;;project conditions, covenants and restrictions
. shall establish and fund a mechanism to ensure long term maintenance, inspection and repair as
needed of the storm water detention system and post construction storm water treatment
measures and best managementpractices. The systems shall be inspected at least annually,
prior to the onset of the rainy season, by a Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of
California, to ensure the draina9e systems are performing as designed and required in project
approvals. The Civil Engineer shall prepare a signed and sealed report of the inspection
including findings regarding the condition of the storm water detention and treatment systems,
4-40
Page 40 of 62
�.1 27',.2013
photo documentation, any necessary proposed modifications and a statement.indicating that the
system is operating as designed and required by project approvals.The annual report shall be
submitted to the City/of Petaluma Planning' Departrnenband, Departinenv of Public Works and
Utilities no laterthan'October 1.5`h of each year.
- HYDRO-4. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan
requirements.
HYDRO-5. All storm drain inlets and catch basins will be stenciled with prohibitive language (such as: "NO
DUMPING-DRAINS TO'OCEAN) and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping.
HYDRO-6. The applicant shall pay the applicable City's.Storm Drainage-.Impact Fees calculated at the time
of building permit,issuance;and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to
final inspection of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Sources: 2025 General Plan LandUseand EIR:Figure 3.1-2 Planning Subareas:
Land Use and Planning Setting:
The City's land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary include residential, commercial, 'industrial,
agricultural, open.space'and public lands. Approximately 44% of the UGB lands are designated for residential
development.
Petaluma's General.Plan.2025
Policies contained in the Petaluma General Plan that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect and those that apply to this project include the following:
Land Use, Growth Management, &the Built Environment
1-P-1 Promote:a rangerof land use at densities and'intensities to serve the community needs within the
Urban Growth Boundary'(UGB)..
t-P-2 Use land.efficiently by promoting infilt development, at equal or higher density and intensity than
surrounding uses.
The subject project is located within the eastern/portion of the Washington Core subarea, which.is dominated
by'Community Commercial development'and surrounded by residential land uses.
4-41
Page 41 of 62
Juhe'27,2013
- - Land Use and.Planninq Impact Discussion.
•
3.10(a). No Impact: The project will not divide an established community. The project site is currently
developed with an existing medical/office complex (constructed in the mid 70's) and associated
improvements such as landscaping and parking lot improvements, which will be demolished. Across Maria
Drive to the east of the subject property is an existing 224.unit apartment complex, Addison Ranch (a.k:a.;
Greenbriar Apartments) on approximately 9.76 acres (General Plan designation - Medium Density Residential
8.1-18.0hu/ac and zoned PUD). To the west and south, is the Washington Square Shopping Center (zoned
Community Commercial). To the north is a public path that follows along East Washington Creek and beyond
is a. single-family residential neighborhood ,(zoned R1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low
Density residential 2.6-8.0 hu/ac). Southeast of the subject property is an existing little league baseball field
and an existing elementary school (McDowell Elementary School).
The project proposes a residential development on a currently under utilized lot that is situated between an
existing commercial retail center and:an established neighborhood. The project will not divide the community,
rather as an infill.project it will provide an appropriate transition Of land uses between the high traffic
commercial center and the residential neighborhoods beyond. The project will have no impact in regards to
dividing an established community.
3.10(b). Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes requests for amendments to both the
2025 General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. With these changes to land use and zoning, the
proposed density and design of the Maria Drive Apartment project would be in conformance with the applicable
land use plan, policy, and regulations..
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan froth the current land use designation of
Mixed Use (maximum density allowed 30 hu/ac) to High Density Residential (18.1 —30.0 hu/ac). The project
would allow for the development of high density residential at approximately 24:6 dwelling units per acre,
which is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential land use.that.allows 18.1 — 30.0 hu/ac..The
High Density Residential classification would permit a full range of housing types, but is intended for multi-
family housing in specific areas where higher density is considered appropriate. The applicant is also
requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone. property to R-5, which is consistent with and implements
the proposed High Density Residential land useclassification of the.General Plan. The R5 zoning district is
applied to areas intended for the most urban housing types at densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per
acre, but where lower density housing is considered conforming.
The project is consistent with the General Plan land use policies as it is 'an .infill (redevelopment of an
underutilized parcel), transit-oriented project at urban densities. Street trees and a thorough landscape plan .
are also proposed. Compliance with the emission reduction measures specified by items 4-P-15D and 4-P-16
will be achieved as these are standard conditions of project approval. The proposed project as conditioned
will conform to the requirements of the City of Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project has been
designed asta sustainable;community with'many resource and energy conservation measures. Examples,of
some of the measures include, low water landscaping, an on-site drainage system-which includes the filtering
of storm water prior to release of the water into the public storm drain system, etc. Therefore, the subject
project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation and impacts to land use and
planning would be less than significant.
3.10(c). No Impact. There is neither habitat conservation nor a natural community conservation plan that apply
to the project site. Therefore, the project will have no impact to any conservation plan or natural community
plan.
-Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES
4-42
Page42 of 62 ,
June 27,2013
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with' - Significant
Would the project: Impact Mitigation p act
_ Impact Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
Mineral resource that would be of value to the b ❑ ❑
region and the residents of•the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
other land use plan?
•
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR:.
Mineral Resources Impact Discussion:
3.11(a-b). No Impact: The.subject property is currently developed with an existing medical/office complex,
landscaping and paved parking areas°all of which will be demolished for the proposed new apartment complex.
Soil studies conducted as part of'theggeotechnical investigation did notreveal any valuable mineral resources.
There are no known mineral resources on•site or in the project vibinity that would be impacted by project
development.
The project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any plans.
Therefore, the project would not.result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. The
project would have no impacts to mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
4-43
Page 43 of,62
—
June_27',':2013
3.12. NOISE
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
fO eCf result in: Impact Mitigation Impact
Significant with Significant
Would the Impact
project
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
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 levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase.in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ® ❑ ❑
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has;notbeen adopted,
within two miles of a public airport, or public use
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 working in the project area to excessive noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels?
Sources: 2025 General Plan arid'EIR; and "Noise Impact Study," prepared'.byRosenGoldberg Der& Lewitz,
Inc.,onOctober 23, 2012.
Noise Setting:
Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains,and,industrial activities
such as mechanical equipment;,and refrigeration units. Freight train service through, Petaluma is currently
irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART service
will contribute to noise levels within the UGB.
Petaluma.General Plan, indicates that multi-family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable in
noise environments of 65 dB CNEL/Ld, or less, conditional acceptable (fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning normally-suffice) up to 70 dB CNEULdf, and normally unacceptable between 70+ dB CNEL/Ldn
and 75 dB CNEULdf. The General Plan states that, noise environments over 75 dB CNEULd„ are clearly
unacceptable: Multi-family housing in California is subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in the State
Building Code(Chapter 12): The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEULdn. Where
exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEULdf, a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the
noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design to meet the noise limits.
4-44
Page 44 of 62
;June''27;2013
Per Section 21.040.A.3.a of the. City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, noise generating construction
activities are limited.,to the hours of-T:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on`weekdays•and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on
Weekends and holidays. For daily`operational,noise, the Implementing"Zoning Ordinance:(Section.21.040 4 A)
generally establishes,an`.nourly average level of dBA-as the maximum that may be generated on one-land
use that,would'be affecting'another'land use, and the allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient
noise-levels and in no case shall the maximum.allowed.threshold exceed 75dB after adjustments are made.
The project site is bounded by residential land use to the north and east, beyond Maria Drive, and the
Washington Square Shopping Center to-the.the.south and west. The shopping center buildings are oriented so
that the rears of the buildings face the project site and the customer parking lot is on the other side of the
buildings from the project site The project site,is nearest to the loading and service areas of the shopping
center. The site is situated approximately 0,5 miles north of the US 101 and is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise
contour generated by the high way. The site is also located approximately one mile south of the Petaluma
Municipal Airport and is outside of the noise contour lines associated with air traffic.
Noise Impact Discussion:
3.12(a). Less Than Significant with Mitigation: To assess noise levels onsite and determine potential
impacts to future residences, a project specific noise impact study was prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der &
Lewitz, Inc., on October 23, 2012. The existing noise environment was measures-at two locations for long-term
noise levels (LT-1 and LT-2) and attwo locations (ST-1 and ST-2)for short-term (15 minute) noise levels. The
noise locations were chosen to represent the noise exposure at the setback of the proposed residential uses
nearest to the major noise sources. Figure.6:below shows the location of noise.measurements.
Figure 6: Noise Monitoring Locations
t�
rV ? 53
N . P '' -,1-1-tic.. r""S tsL----"_ . gi g ‘ Ira
Er.
ha'altrartraj,10 tc‘...L.,12_,-?, ' „1-3.C--_,-....' ,3`-‘-;Ot 0 '0 ,.la R.
-N )Nsici, 4
.mom. i
'TON SQUARE -*
' Twit :,,_
-z1;,ING CENx4...
5 ? l e
,:T 0 L GU
:4'g
The noise level evaluation determined that-the greatest contributor to the ambient noise levels onsite were due
to thenoise generated by the distant highway 101. The shopping center loading and service activities occurred
interinittently.and generated noise levels of 60 dBA at Location LT-1 and 61 dBA at Location LT-2, respectively.
The Murphy Little League Field, located about 215 feet southeast of the project site, also contributes to the
noise environment onsite.
4-45
Page"45,of 62
June 27,2013
Although noiseameasurements.were not conducted:during the little leagueseason,`anotherfield (Garfield Park,
in Napa) was used as a:proxy.to simulate noise and is'assumed to generate similar noise levels during use.
Based on noise measurements associated with ball field use, the average noise level generated'would be 60
dBA and 62 dBA at ST-1 and ST-2 respectively. The noise levels emanating from Murphy Field during use
would be audible at the nearest.residences`with acalculated increase of less than 1 dBA. Therefore the existing
noise environment in the project vicinity'would•not expose future residences to excessive noise level beyond
established standards.
The Petaluma General plan EIR shows existing and future (year 2025),noise levels for US 101. According to •
this data jt is calculated that noise levels at the project site could increase by up.to 2 dBA due to increased
noise from distant traffic. With these future increases in.traffic volumes;.the CNEL onsite could increase to 62 to
64 dBA.
The'existin 9 and future CNEL dBA ndise levels;onsite are projected to be,below the normally acceptable exterior
noise standard of 65 dB CNEULdn or less for multi-family residential as established by the Petaluma General
Plan. The proposed project would not'expose new residences to excessive exterior noise standards due to the
current'or future ambient noise environment. Therefore, impacts from excessive exterior noise levels on new
residents would be less than significant.
As mentioned above, the interior noise limit'is a maximum level of 45 dBA CNEULdn. Where exterior noise
levels exceed 60 dBA CNEULdn, a report must be submitted with the building. describing the noise control
Measures that have been incorporated,ioto'thedesign:to meet the noise limits.;Sinceithe exterior CNEL is up to
64 dBA, the required exterior-to-interior,noise reduction is up to 19 dBA. This San normally be accomplished with
conventional construction, butwith closed:windows. In order to assure thatthe interior noise standard of 45 dBA
is achieved a detailed acoustical.analysis shall be conducted to identify required'window sound ratings, if any.
The analysis shall also identify which units>will.require an alternati'ei ventilation system because the windows
needtobe in the closed position to meet the indoor noise standard. Therefore, the project shall be required to
adhere to this requirement and incorporate necessary control measure to reduce the'interior noise levels to level
below 45 dBA. With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-2 set forth below, the projects interior noise
standard will be reduced to levels below significance.
3.12(b); Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project has the potential to generate excessive noise
levels during construction including ,groundborn vibration. Noise levels associated with construction are
temporarily intrusive during certain types of construction activities such demolition and the operation of
construction equipment. Due to the proximity of the project to existing residences construction noises
generated by`project-development may occasionally result in temporary'impacts'to the noise environment.
These excessive noise levels will occur•only daring'active construction activities and`will end once the project
is•operational. In order to reduce potential'impacts to level below significant construction activities shall be
restricted to certain times of the day.:Project specific requirementson'when construction can occur are more
restrictive than those'identified ih the IZO and are intended'to mitigate construction noise impacts on nearby
residences: With implementation of the mitigation measure set forth in NOI-1 below, excessive noise:levels
generated during,construction activities'willbe reducedto.levelsbelow significance.
At project operation the onsite land use and associated noise environment will be typical of multi-family
residential development and subject to the City's noise.exposure standards. Operation of the Maria Drive
Apartment Project will have less thansignificant.impactsto the existing noise'environment.
• 3.12(c). Less than Significant. The Maria Drive Apartments Project will not introduce a substantial
permanent increase in the ambienfnoise environment. The project will,increase traffic trips along Maria Drive
due to the intensification of the'subject property. As reported in the Noise Study, this level of increase will not
have a substantial impact on the ambient noise environment and changes in noise level would be barely
perceptible. Onsite activities at operation of the subject project would.be typical of a multi-family residential
development..and would include noise generated by children.at play, operation of HVAC equipment, and car
door/garage doors opening and closing. These new noises do not constitute a substantial increase in the
noise environment and impacts to existing residences in the project vicinity would be less than significant.
4-46
,Page 46 ,of.62
..June'27,2013
3:12(d). Less than Significant with Mitigation:. Project construction;activities:following"demolition, anticipated
to be ongoing or occasional (as:the units are constructed) over one to two or more years, would include some
grading, paving of the driveways and parking areas,construction of utilities,;and construction of the.multi-family
homes, garages/carports; community room and. pool, etc. Construction noises ate temporary and can be
Occasionally intrusive. As described herein;.mitigation measures in NO1-1 restrict the hours of construction to
7;00 to 6:00 Monday through:F.riday and interior-only work on Saturdays froth 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all federal, state, and local 'holidays. These hours are more
restrictive than the City standard, due to.the existing residential land uses in the project vicinity. Implementation
of the mitigation measures in N01-1 set forth below would reduce the temporary and periodic noise impact from
construction activities to less than significant levels.
3.12(e-f). Less than Significant The project site is located approximately°one mile south of the Petaluma
Municipal Airport. In accordance to the Petaluma General Plan, annual operations(takeoffs and landings)at the
airport were estimated at approximately 145 flights;per day: The projected increase in airport operations can be
expected to increase noise levels for those land uses adjacent to the airport to the levels indicated in Figure 10-1
of the Petaluma General Plan (Noise Contours) It is likely that the increase in air traffic will affect existing
residences; however, all new residential developments within the 55 to 65 CNEL contour are subject to an
outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of at least 25-30 decibels. Aviation easements and fair disclosure
agreements are required of new dwellings between,55 and 65 CNEL Figure 10-1 of the Petaluma General Plan
(Noise Contours) indicates that the project site is outside of the noise contours generated by the Petaluma
Municipal Airport. Therefore, new residences'on the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels
generated by the airport and impacts would be less than significant.
•
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1. Due to the surrounding 'residential development and potentially intrusive noise generated by
construction activities, construction hours shall be restricted the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00pm Monday
through Friday and interior-only work may be conducted on•Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and all federal, state, and local holidays.
NOI-2. The project shall comply with interior noise standards of 45 dBA. To assure that interior noise
standards are achieved plans submitted for development permit shall include a detailed acoustical
analysis that identifies required window sound ratings, if any The analysis shall also identify which
units will require an alternative ventilation system because the windows need to be in the closed
position to meet the indoor noise standard per the State of California and the City of Petaluma
requirement that interior noise levels be reduced to a CNEL of 45 dBA,or less in habitable rooms.
•
4-47
•
Rage,47 of 62
•'June 27,2013
3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact
p 1 Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) .Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of n ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
•
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement n ❑ ❑
housing elsewhere?
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element.
Population and Housing Setting
The 2025 General Plan proposes development of approximately 6,000 additional residential units and a
buildout population of approximately 72,700. This represents an annual growth rate of nearly 1.2% per year.
The project would add 144 market rate dwelling units.
General Plan Policies: Housing
11-P-1 Promote residential development,within the Urban Growth Boundary.
11-P-1 Encourage the development of housing on underutilized land.
11-P-3 Encourage a mix of housing design types.
11-P-6 Make the maximum use of resources available for the provision of housing affordable to lower
income households.
11-P-15 Promote the provisions of disabled-accessible units, and housing of mentally and physically
disabled.
11-P-17 Discourage discriminatory housing:practices.
11-P-20 Promote the use of energy conservation features in the design of residential development.
Population and Housing Impact Discussion:
3:13(a). Less`than'Significant. The project site is developed, in the City's urban core, and is served by
existing infrastructure. Replacement of the existing medical office complex development with the project's 144
residential units is not considered to be substantial, resulting in a"small increase in the population to the area.
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment frorn_the Mixed. Use land use designation to high
Density Residential (18.1 -30.0hu/ac) however, the Mixed Use land use designation does allow up to a
maximum 30 hu/ac. The proposed project at 144 units is at a density of 24.6 hu/ac; well within the density limit
of the Mixed Use designation. The addition of 144 units was considered in the General Plan 2025 analysis and
does not result in unforeseen impact to infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3.13(b-c). No Impact. The.project site is currently an office complex; of which approximately 50%of the tenant
spaces are currently vacant. There are no existing housing or residences on the project site. The proposed
project will not displace any existing.housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Therefore, there would be no impacts to population and housing due to displacing people or necessitating the
construction of replacement housing.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
4-48
Page 48 of 62
June 27,2013
'3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Less,Than
Potentially ::Significant Less than No
Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
Sources: 2025 General Planand'EIR..
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. Impact fees are used to 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.
Public Services Impact Discussion:
3:14(a-b). Less than.Significant. The projectsite is located within ah existing neighborhood that is currently
well served bypublicservices. Additional fire and/or police service calls.may occur as a result of the project. In
order to accommodate this potential increase in service demand,the applicant:shall pay all development impact
fees applicable to a multi-family residential:Project, including fire suppression facilities and law enforcement:
facilitie's.'The paynient of these impact fees will assure that any impacts offset the increase in fire and police;
protection services. Therefore,impacts'tofire and police protection serviceswill'be less than significant.
3.14(c). Less than Significant: The project will be subject to the payment of statutory school impact fees. The
Maria Drive Apartrhent Project:Will_nofresult in adverse physical impacts associated'with providing
new or physically altered school facilities. The project site is located within Petaluma. Elementary School
District and is closest to the McDowell Elementary School. The General Plan projects that the Petaluma City
School District (elementary) will exceed capacity .tic/ 175 students at General. Plan buildout. The proposed
project will contribute to the student "enrollment at of the district. Payment of impact fees will help to offset
potential impacts to elementary schools. The Petaluma Joint Union High School District (high school) will
experience a decrease in enrollments by General Plan Buildout due to a shift in the population demographics.
Based on current capacities itis expected thatsufficient facilities are in place to accommodate any increased
enrollment associated with development of the subject project. With payment of impact fees, the Maria Drive
Apartment Project will have less than significant impacts to schools.
4-49
Page 49 of 62
June.27"2013
3.14(d). Less than Significant: As a standard,condition of project approval„ the applicant, shall pay all
development fees applicable to a multi=family residential project;, ,including parkland acquisition, park land
development and open space:acquisition impact fees to mitigate impacts of the project on parks and open
space. The City has adopted a citywide parks standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1;000 residents. In addition
to onsite recreation, which will contain a courtyard, pool, tot-lot and picnic area the existing Washington
Creek Trail is located immediately adjacent of the project site Furthermore the City's General Plan identifies
sufficient space for future parks necessary to accommodate population growth. The subject project does not
constitute a substantial growth in population and existing park facilities are expected to be sufficient to meet
active and passive recreational demands of residents. A substantial adverse impact to park facilities is not
expected to occur from implementation of the subject project. Therefore impacts to parks and recreational
amenities will be less than significant.
3.14(e). No Impact. The Project will. not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with any other
public facilities. The proposed project area is located within a well established neighborhood and is well
served by existing public utilities.The project will hot generate a substantial increase in demands that warrant
the expansion or construction of new public:facilities. Any additional public services will be acquired through
use of impact fees that will be levied: As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all
development fees applicable ito a multi-family residential project, including public facilities, library, community
center and aquatic center development impact fees to mitigate impacts of the project on other community and
public facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None required:
3.15. RECREATION
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less.than No
Significant with Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse ❑ ❑ ❑
'physical effecton the environment?
Sources'2025`Geheral.Plan:'Figure.6-1 Parks and Open Space;.and'EIR..
Recreation Setting:
The public parks and recreational opportunities within the UGB accommodate a wide range of uses and
encompass nearly 1,400 acres. Activities offered at parks and open spaces include both active and passive
recreation. In addition to the proposed project amenities for the.residents; there is the nearby bike/pedestrian
trail along Washington Creek and the little league baseball field/park. Park land,development and open space
acquisition impact fees are required and help to mitigate any potential impacts of the project on parks and
open space.
Recreation Impact Discussion:
3.15(a). No Impact. As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all development
impact fees applicable to a .multi-family residential project, including parkland acquisition, park land
development, open space acquisitioniimpact;fees.
4-50
Page 50 of 62
June 27,2013
3.15(b). No Impact. The project does inot create new recreational,facilities;which will have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. The new;,development proposal will consist of 144•units and includes on-
site amenities such as a community, building (approximately 3,500 sq: ft), swimming;pool/hot tub, picnic area
and playground area.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Less'Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant:. with Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Mitigation Impact
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 ❑ D. ® ❑
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation systern;:including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle.paths, andmass'transit?
b) Conflict with an. applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand 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 change in location ❑ ❑ ❑
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g.; sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ® ❑ ❑
or incompatible uses.(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate;emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
c rotherwise decrease the performance or safety of such ❑ ® ❑ ❑
facilities?
Sources: 2025'General Plan and EIR; GP Figure 5-1; "Traffic Impact Study For The Maria Drive Apartment
Complex,"prepared by W-Trans, May 28, 2013.
Transportation and Circulation Setting:
The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as-the primary route between San Francisco and
Marin and Sonoma Counties. U.S. 101 accommodates over vehicles-per, day within Petaluma. The
circulation system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including,
arterials, collectors, connectors,and local streets.
The major arterials'serving the,project site are South McDowell:Boulevard and East Washington Street, which
provide access to Maria Drive, from which the project site is accessed. The major intersection closest to the
project site is the intersection of South McDowell and East Washington.Street. This intersection experience
Level of Services (LOS) D during the am and pm peak hour. Under general plan buildout condition LOS at
these intersection will deteriorate to LOS D and E. Future LOS at this intersection is identified as significant
and unavoidable in the City's General Plan EIR.
4-51
Page.5f.of 62
June 27,2013
The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry-standards and indicate that a,traffic study is
warranted if.a project is anticipated to,create either 500 trips per day or.50:trips per'peak hour,If a project falls
within 10% of these thresholds the City may exercise discretion,in whether or not to require a project specific
traffic study: The proposed Maria Drive Apartments Project is estimated to generate approximately 958 daily
trips and remove 565 daily trips from demolition of the existing office complex. A traffic impact study was
prepared by W-trans to evaluate traffic impacts associated with project development.
General Plan Policies: Mobility
5-P-10: Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that ensures
efficient traffic flow and supports multi=modal mobility goals; LOS should be maintained at Level D or
better for motor vehicles dueto traffic from any development project.
5-P-19: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and pedestrian friendly in design. •
5-P-20: Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not interfere with existing and
proposed bicycle facilities.
5-P-22: Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods and require well connected
pedestrian network linking new and existing development to adjacent land uses.
,5-P-43: Support efforts for transit oriented development around the. Petaluma Depot and along the
Washington Street, Petaluma Boulevard, McDowell Boulevard, Lakeville Street, and other transit
corridors.
Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion:
16(a-b). Less Than Significant Impact. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by W-Trans for the Maria Drive
Apartment Complex (updated June 14, 2013) reviewed onsite circulation and access and evaluated the
project's traffic impacts on the, surrounding circulation network including six intersections in the project
vicinity; 1) East Washington Street/US 101 South Ramps; 2) East'Washington Street/US 101 North Ramps;
3) East Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard; 4) East Washington Street/Maria Drive; 5) Main Project
Driveway/Maria Drive; and 6) South McDowell Boulevard/Maria Drive.
The project-specific Traffic Impact Study reviewed collision rates, trip generation and evaluated the project's
contribution to the existing, baseline, and future year traffic conditions. As described below, all project area
intersections operate acceptably, and are expected to continue to do so under baseline and projected future
conditions. The addition of project-generated traffic would not be substantial, nor would it adversely impact
LOS or result in a conflict due to congestion. With the Maria Drive Apartments Project all study intersections
will continue to operate acceptably during the near-term and long term modeling periods.
Maria Drive Apartment Trip Generation
The proposed project will remove trips generated by the existing office complex and introduce new trips
generated by Maria Drive Apartment residences. The net daily traffic trips represent the project's contribution
to project area roadways. As seen in Table 3 below, the existing land use generates 565 daily trips and the
proposed project is expected to generate an average of 958 trips per day, including 73 trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 89 .trips during the p.m. peak hour. As seen in Table 3 below, the net trip generation is
projected to be 393 new daily trips, including 51 during the morning peak-hour and 63 during the evening
peak hour.'These new trips represent the increase in trafficdue to the project relative to existing and baseline
conditions.
4-52
Page 52 of 62
June 27,2013
Table 2
Trip Generation Summary-Existing & Baseline Conditions Only
Land Use Units Daily Rate AM Peak.Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed Apartments
Apartments 144 du 6.65 958 0.51 73 15 58 0.62 89 58 31
Demolished Existing Use
Surveyed Trip Generation -565. -22 -12 -10 -26 -13 13
Net 393 51 3 48 63 45 18
As seen in Table 4 below, when the standard trip generation potential of the 16,000 square foot office is
applied to account for the assumptions contained in the City's traffic model, the daily trips would be 176,
which is much less than the surveyed condition. As such, the proposed project would contribute a greater
share of new trips, a net total 782 new daily trips, compared to the survey condition. These new trips
represent the increase in traffic due to the project under future yearconditions. The project's impact to LOS
at project area intersections, due to future year conditions are described'below.
Table 3
Trip GenerationSummary-Future Conditions.Only
Land Use Units Daily Rate AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Proposed Apartments
Apartments 144 du 6.65 958 0.51 73 15 58 0.62 89 58 31
Demolished Existing Use
Office Building 11.01 -176 1.55 -25 -22 -3 -24 -4 20
Net 782 48 7 55 65 54 11
Existing Traffic/Circulation
Other than the East Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard intersection, study area intersections currently
operate at level of service (LOS) C or above during am and pm peak hour traffic. The intersection of East
Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard currently operates at LOS D during am and pm peak hour traffic.
Accordingly, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. While acceptable,
LOS D results in noticeable congestion and queuing delays. In order to improve traffic flow and circulation,
improvements are currently underway'to modify the northbound onramp to highway 101 at East Washington
Street. These improvements are expected to result in improved operations at two project area intersections:
East Washington Street/US 101 North Ramps and East Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard.
The table below shows that the existing,plus project condition would hot increase level of service for any
project area intersection beyond the existing condition without the project.
Table'4
Summary of Existing & Existing Plus project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations
Study Intersection Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
Approach AM'Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Washington St/US101 SB 27.2 C 26.4 C .27.6 C 26.7 C
2. E.Washington St/US 101 NB 8.7 A 14.9 .B 8:6 A 15.2 B
3. E. Washington St/McDowell Blvd 39.0 D 36.4 D 36:7 D 36.7 D
4. E. Washington St/Maria Dr 17.0 B 20.4 C 17.2 B 20.5 C
5. Maria Dr/Project Driveway 8.5 A 9.0 A 8.8 A 9.5 A
6. S. McDowell Blvd/Maria Dr 12.1 B 13.8 B 12.5 B 13.9 B
4-53
Page 53 of 62
June 27,2013
With the addition of project=related traffic, am. delay at the East Washington,Street intersections with U.S.
101 Northbound and McDowell Boulevard decreases during the a.m. peak` hour While this is counter-
intuitive, this condition occurs when a°project adds trips to movements.that are currently'underutilized or have
delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and,lower
overall average delay. Thus, project trips are expected make use,of excess capacity at these intersections,
so drivers will experience little, if any, change in conditions,as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the
with-project condition would have less•than significant impacts to the existing level of service at project area
intersections.
Baseline Traffic/Circulation
The Project's effect on planning,area intersections was evaluated to assess potential impacts to LOS and
circulation on the roadway network. Baseline..conditions include existing traffic in addition to the added traffic
resulting from currently approved,but',yet to be constructed projects,pursuant to the City's Major Project List
(updated August 2012). All study area,intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or above
for the baseline condition.
• The baseline and baseline plus project+condition;LOS at project area intersection are presented in the table
below. Under the baseline plus project.condition n'all project area intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service D or greater, except for the intersection of East Washington and McDowell
Boulevard. Staff has previously reviewed and considered LOS E at this intersection adopted overriding
.considerations to approve operations at LOS E. for this intersection. The proposed Rainier connector is
identified as a long-range solution to improve LOS along the Washington Street corridor. Furthermore, the
project's contribution to delays at this intersection are minimal, less than onelsecond per vehicle. Thus, the
project's effect on traffic and circulation would not result in a substantial impact to LOS and impacts would be
less than significant.
Table 5
Summary of Baseline:& Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations
Study Intersection Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project
Approach AM Peak PM Peak. AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. E. Washington St/US101 SB' 36:0 C 54.4 D 33.6 C 53.1 D
2. E. Washington St/US 101•NB -12:7 B 17.5 B; 13.8 B 19.7 B
3. E. Washington St/McDowell Blvd 36A D 68.0 E 37.1 D 69.0 E
4. E. Washington St/Maria Dr .20.7' C 20.6 C 20.7 C 21.0 C
5. Maria Dr/Project Driveway 8.7 A 9.2 A 8:8 A 9.6 A
6. S. McDowell Blvd/Maria Dr '12.4 B • 14.1 B 12,7 B 14.9 B
Future Traffic/Circulation
To,assess traffic and circulation in future years, a horizon year analysis was also evaluated. The+future year
analysis included baseline conditions in,addition to traffic generated by the East Washington Place.and Deer
Creek'Village developments. Future year infrastructure improvement projects were also considered including,
the Rainier Avenue Interchange and the 'proposed protected left turn phasing, at East Washington
Street/Maria Drive. Under the future traffic conditions all study-area intersections are projected to operate at
LOS D or above during a.m. and p.m. peak'hour traffic.
The future and future plus project condition LOS at project area intersections. are presented in the table
below. Under the future plus: project condition, all project area intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service D or greater for both the am and "prt peak hour traffic. Thus, the project would
have;a less than significant impact on long-term traffic and circulation through horizon year 2035.
4-54
,Page54 of 62
June 27,2013
Table.6
Summary of Future & Future_ProjectrPeak Hour Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Study Intersection Future Conditions. Future plus Project
Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
t E. Washington SUUS101 SB 33:3 C 28.5 C 33.1 C 28.9 D
2. E. Washington'St/US.101'NB, 8.1 A 12.8 .B 9.2 A 13.1 B
3. E. Washington.St/McDowell::Blvd 32:5 C 45.8 D 32.8 C 46.3 D
4. E. Washington St/Maria Dr 27:8 C 36.1 D 27.8 C 37.0 D
5. Maria Dr/Project Driveway 10.1 B 12.1 B 10.5 B 13.4 B
6. S. McDowell Blvd/Maria Dr 14.4 B 17.0 B 14.7 B 17.1 B
Traffic Impact Summary
The project will not cause traffic levels to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard (D or below) established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways. Project area intersections:are projected.to operate at acceptable levels of service under the with
project condition for both the near-term'and long-term. Traffic volumes generated by the subject project will
not have a significant impact on the existing intersection of Maria Drive and Park Lane nor warrant a traffic
signal. Level of services for 'planning; area intersections will not be noticeably affected by the proposed
project. The project will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system-.'Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to traffic and
circulation.
The project's circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works & Utilities
Department (Engineering & Traffic Division) and the Fire Marshal. Asa standard condition of project approval,
the applicant shall pay all development impact fees. These fees will contribute'to improvements to project area
roadways and assure that the project's fair share of increased traffic and use of the circulation system has been
accounted for. Therefore, the project's impact to traffic and circulation will be less than significant.
3.16(c). No Impact. The project will not result'in an increase in traffic in a manner that changes the air traffic
pattern. Nor will the project introduce a safety concern related to,air traffic pattern due to the location of
facilities. The project is located over`a mile south of the Petaluma Municipal,Airport and does not contain any
elements that would affect the air traffic pattern. Therefore, the project'would have no circulation impact that
affect air traffic.
316(d). Less Than Significant lmpaOt with Mitigation. Access into the project site is provided from two
places along Maria Drive, which is identified as'a connector in the 2025 General Plan. The primary arterials
used to access Maria Drive in the project vicinity.are McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street. The
.main entryway into the projectsite will be developed as the fourth leg to the current tee intersection at Maria
Drive and Park Lane. Traffic,at this intersection is currently controlled by a three-way stop and will be
controlled,by a,feur-way stop at project operation.
Aturn lane warrant analysis'was conducted to evaluate the need for turning pockets within Maria Drive at the
proposed project driveways. Sufficient capacity.was determined to be available along Maria.Drive to provide
safe access to the site without the need for dedicated turning pockets. Neither left-turn nor right-turn lanes are
warranted at the Maria Drive Apartment driveways.
Site distance at the entrance to the proposed Maria Drive Apartments was evaluated based on criteria
contained in the Highway Design?Manual developed by Caltrans. Pursuant to design criteria set forth therein,
a stopping sight distance of 150 feet is recommended for a 25 mile per hour speed limit. The available sight
distance at the proposed primary and secondary site access.points exceed 200 feet. Therefore clear lines of
sight would be available at both of the project driveways.
The proposed project's monument sign to be located south of the main project driveway would obstruct a
driver's view to the south. To provide clear sight lines, it is required that this monument sign be set back at
least ten feet from the edge of the roadway. In order to assure that there are no conflict with visibility,
4-55
•;Page55;of 62.
:June 27,:2013
Mitigation measure CIRC-1 shall be;iinplemented, which requires thatt e monument sign be located south of
the main project driveway ima'positibn that does-not obstructa driver's viewto the south.
In order to ensure that any potential hazard associated with internal,circulation are reduced to less than
significant levels, mitigation measure CIRC-2 shall be implemented, which requires traffic calming measures.
New features introduced onsite including,landscaping, signage, and parking locations will be developed in a
manner that does not present a design hazard. Proposed landscaping will be developed in a manner that
maintains'visibility at site access points'. Landscaping adjacent to theproject.driveways will be restricted to
ground cover that does exceed one foot in height. The existing restrictions'on parking on the west side of
Maria Drive along the project'"frontage.Will remain unchanged. Red curbs will be re-painted to clearly depict
parking restrictions.. Therefore, with implementation of CIRC-1 and CIRC-2 the proposed project will not
increase hazards due to design features (e.g.,,sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment) and impacts will be reduced'to less than significant"levels.
3.16(e). No Impact. The project's internal circulation plan has been "reviewed and meets all standard
conditions imposed by the Petaluma Public.Works•and Fire Departments:,Site circulation was determined to
be adequate, including sufficient internal street widths to allow for fire truck turn around. The project will have
no,impact to emergency access..
3.16(f). No Impact. For multi-family dwelling, the Implementing,Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 11- Table 11.1)
requires 1 parking space, which may be covered or uncovered, for each bedroom, studio, or efficiency unit.
In no case shall a project provide an overall parking ratio of less than '1.5 spaces per unit. The proposed
multi-family residential project as proposed includes a, total 'of 252' bedrooms therefore meeting the
requirement of 252 parking spaces (1 'per' bedroom). The project as proposed'provides 252 parking spaces
including, 15 garage spaces, 134 covered/carport.spaces,. 98 "standard spaces and 5 handicap accessible
spaces. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with the parking requirements established 'by the IZO
and there would be no impacts due to parking.
3.16(g). Less Than Significant±with:Mitigation: As an infill'project within the City's Urban Core, the project
site is currently well served by pedestrian; bicycle, and public transit facilities. The project site is in proximity
to an elementary school, parks, the Washington:Creek Multi-use trail, and shopping. As proposed, the project
will provide connectivity to these existing:amenities. The project shall be required to comply with mitigation
measures CIRC-3 and CIRC-4 below to assure consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Implementation of CIRC-3 and CIRC-4'will reduce potential impacts to less than significance levels and avoid
conflicts with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Pedestrian.Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities in.the,project vicinity"include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb
ramps. Adjacent to the project site continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of Maria Drive.
Crosswalks with pedestrian signal phasing are provided at all nearby signalized intersections. Marked
crosswalks at,Maria Drive also exist approximately 150 feet north of the project driveway at the Washington
Creek trail crossing and at the all-way stop-controlled intersection of Maria Drive and Park Lane.
Onsite pedestrian amenities will tie into the existing pedestrian network in the project vicinity. The project will
retain the existing sidewalk along Maria Dnveatthe project frontage. In order to accommodate the.increased
pedestrian activity, and assure the safety of school aged children crossing Maria Drive, yellow striped
crosswalks are required'to be,added to the and south leg of the Mana Drive and Park Lane intersection.
With this mitigation measure, CIRC-3 set forth below, potential impacts to pedestrians and pedestrian facilities
will be less than significant.
Bicycle Facilities
The project proposes onsite bicycle,amenities including bicycle racks to. accommodate 144 bike spaces
located throughout the subject development. As proposed, the bicycle racks provide for safe, secure and
convenient bike parking and storage.
In the project area, intermittent Class II bike lanes exist on Washington Street and McDowell
Boulevard. There is an existing off'road, Class I multi-use path along the Washington Creek, which copn§t;i
Page 56 of 62 L� 7(,
June 27,2013
with Maria Drive near the proposed project site. Although Maria Drive does not-currently contain dedicated
bike lanes and bicyclists share the roadway and/or ride on sidewalks, Maria Drive.:is dedicated as a Class III
Bike Route on the 2008 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. As a Class III bike route, signage informs motorists of
the shared use roadway with cyclists. In accordance with BPP'Policy 1 Program C, Policy 2, CIRC-3 requires
that the project shall install proper Class ill bicycle route signage:along the projects frontage to Maria Drive.
With implementation of CIRC-4 potential conflicts with signage along this Class III bike route will be reduced
to levels below significance.
Existing bicycle facilities including dedicated bike lanes and shared roads provide adequate access for
existing and future cyclists. The project`would not alter Maria Drive along the site frontage and there would be
no interference with the Bicycle and Pedestrian.Plan's long-term objective to dedicate Maria Drive as a Class
III Bike Route. Therefore with implementation of CIRC-4 impacts to bicycle facilities would be less than
significant.
Transit Facilities
Petaluma Transit provides public transportation throughout the City via dedicated bus stops and planned
routes. Route 11 provides service along,East Washington Street to downtown, including a stop along Maria
Drive at the project frontage. The EastSide Transit Center, located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the
project site provides nearby access to a transit hub. The existing bus stop'along the projects frontage and
the,regional transit center are both within comfortable walking distance of the project site. Transit routes have
adequate capacity to accommodate project-generated transit trips. Therefore, the project's impacts to public
transit will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
CIRC-1. The proposed monument sign at the extension of Park Lane.and Maria Drive shall be set back from
the access driveway'approximately 10 feet to assure sufficient line.of sight.
CIRC-2. Traffic calming measures shall be employed to encourage low traveling vehicles on internal
circulation including, crosswalks at corners, speed bumps,and colored pavement to visually identify
pedestrian crossings.
CIRC-3. The intersection of MariaDriveand Park Lane shall be improved with yellow stripping crosswalks to
further enhance pedestrian safety at the project access driveway and assure safe crossing to the
McDowell Elementary.School to the southeast.
CIRC-4. The project applicant shall be responsible for the cost associated with the installation of signage
along the frontage of the property at Maria Drive noting that'Maria:Drive is a Class III Bike route.
4-57
Page 57,of 62
June 27,2013
3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: •
Less lThan
Potentially. Significant Less than No
Would the project' Significant with Significant Impact
p J Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality'Control Board?
b) 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?
c) 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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ❑
the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the ❑ ❑ IZI
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
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
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Sources:2025 GP and EIR;,WaterResource and Conservation 2010 UWMP;;,and Sonoma County Water
Agency2010 UWMP.
'Utilities and Service Systems Settings:
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; and others. As an infill project, the subject site is well served
by existing public utilities and will not require substantial infrastructure costa or enhancement to serve the
proposed Project.
Water Service System
The City's water supply is sourced from the Russian River Water System and supplemented with local
groundwater. Water from.the Russian River Water System'is obtained via the Petaluma Aqueduct through a
contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City's Water Resource and Conservation
Department (WR&C) provides, municipal water service to approximately 60,000 customers and is therefore
must comply with the Urban Water Management Plan Act, which requires;thepreparation of an Urban Water
Management,Plan (UWMP) every five years. The most recent UWMP prepared for the WR&C was completed
for'the 2010 cycle and was adopted on June 6, 2011.
4-58
Page 58 of 62
June 27,.2013
The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updates information from .General Plan 2025
background and environmental documents and extended the'term of water demand analysis through 2035.
The 2010 UWMP was determined to be consistent with the General Plan 2025. The UWMP includes a water
supply/demand analysis based on population trends and land uses set forth in the 2025 General Plan, the
'City's existing water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water
recycling and water conservation programs.
SCWA adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown & Caldwell June 2011) on June 21, 2011.
The SCWA holds water right permits for the diversion of surface water,from the Russian River with a limit of
75,000 acre-feet per year. Instream flow^requirements have also been established to protect fish and wildlife
species (Decisions 1610) and recreation. Based on regional water supply availability, the SCWA expects to
able to increase annual water deliveries to Petaluma from approximately 7,200 acre-feet in 2010 to 11,400
acre-feet by 2035. SCWA
Based on the evaluation of future Russian River supply including, minimum instream flow requirements,
SCWA expects to obtain water rights approvals necessary to increase its total diversions above 75,000 ac-
ft/yr by 2027 and to 80,000 ac-ft/yr by 2035. This assumption,is based on the'mostilikely outcome of decisions
by regulatory agencies and implementation of the Restructured Agreement(Executed in 2006) and proposed
improvements to the water delivery'system.
To assure that the City of Petaluma has sufficient water supplies to meet increased water demand, the
General Plan requires routine monitoring of water supplies against actual use and evaluation for each new
development project(GP Policy 8-P-4).
Wastewater Treatment
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility: treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and
unincorporated Sonoma County community'of Pengrove. The collection system is comprised of more than
190 miles of underground piping and:`nine (9) pump stations. The Facility s'treatment capacity is about 6.7
million gallons per day (average dry tweather flow). The facility treats approximately 5 million gallons per day.
As such there is sufficient capacity to treat additional wastewater. During the summer, recycled water is
introduced to the City's recycled water system and is used for irrigation:of-800'acres of agricultural lands, two
golf courses, and a vineyard. In the winter, secondary treated wastewater is conveyed to the Petaluma River.
Storm Drains
Within the City of Petaluma storm drains'.conveyrunoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks,
and buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and.ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This
water is untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents; oils, fuels
and sediment. The City has implemented a storm drain labeling program to provide a visual reminder that
storm drains are for rain water only The.city's StormwaterManagement and Pollution Control Ordinance, set
forth,in Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal Code, establishes the standard requirements and controls on
the storm drain system:: All existing and proposed development must adhere to the City's Stormwater
Management and Pollution Control Ordinance.
Utilities and Service:Systems'ImpactDiscussion:
3.17(a-b). No Impact: The Project will not cause or exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board or require the expansion of existing or construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities.
3.17(c). No Impacts: The Project'will,not.result in significant environmental impacts due to the expansion of
existing storm water drainage facilities or construction of new facilities. Onsite grading will be conducted in a
manner that mimics the storm flows of pre-developed conditions. As described. above under the Hydrology
and Water Quality discussion, the project's contribution of runoff to storm drains in the vicinity will be minimal
and impacts to storm drain capacity less than significant.
4-59
Page 59 of 62
June 27,2013
3.17(d). Less Than Significant,Impacts: In evaluating thersufficiency &Water supplies to meet existing
water demands in addition'to water demand generated:by the proposed,project, is available for the proposed
project, the City has compared General Plan 2025 projected'.water demand to actual use through December
2012. The results of that comparison find that potable water demand is well within the available SCWA
supply, both for this project, and for cumulative demand through 2035 as set forth in the 2010 UWMP.
3.17(e). No Impact: Under the current mixed-use land use designation onsite a maximum buildout density of
up to 30 dwelling unit per acre was evaluated under the General Plan. The Maria Drive Apartments project
proposed a density of 24.6 dwelling units per acre. As.such, the project's contribution to wastewater flows
were anticipated in the General Plan and have been.considered`for,operating capacity of the water treatment
plant. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to the adequacy or capacity of wastewater treatment
facilities.
3:17(f). No Impact: The Projectwill'contribute to the,generation of solid waste within the UGB. Solid waste
disposal facilities are owned and operated by the Sonoma CourityDepartmeht of Transportation and Public
Works. The project's level of contribution is minimal and considered as part of the GP EIR impact analysis.
Therefore, the project will have no impact,to the disposal of solidwaste.
3.17(g). No Impact: The proposed project will adhere to all required regulation regarding the disposal of solid
waste. Construction related waste will be minimized through the development of a construction waste
management plan. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to solid waste. The proposed project will
adhere to all required regulation regarding the disposal of solid waste: Policy 4-P-21 requires waste reduction
in compliance with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP): Construction related
waste will be reduced through the development of a construction waste management plan.
The City is currently under contract with Petaluma Refuse and Recycling for solid waste disposal and
recycling services. This company provides canisters for waste, green (plant waste) materials, and recycling.
Solid waste is picked up andtrucked to the Sonoma County landfill sites The project would be supplied with
the same solid waste and recycling opportunities through the County's existing waste management system
via the City's solid waste service provider: Although the project would generate additional solid waste, it is not
expected to exceed landfill capacity and is not expected to result in violations of federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to solid waste.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
4-60
Page 60 of 62
June'27-'2013
3';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: •
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant, with Significant Impact.
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
,Incorporated
a) 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, 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
majorperiods'of California history'orprehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" 'means that the
incremental effects ot a project 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ 0
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Mandatory findings Discussion:
3.18(a). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project is located within the UGB and is
considered as part of the development,plan:set;forth in the General:Plan'and analyzed in the EIR. The project
is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and goals, policies' and programs. With implementation of
mitigation measures set forth above in Sections 3.1, 3.3, 3:4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 3.12, and 3.16 the projects
potential impacts would be reduced to levels below significance. As such the project will not degrade the
quality'oftheenvironment, reduce habitat, or affect cultural resources. Therefore,.the project will have less
than significant impacts due to degradation Of the environment.
3.18(b). Less Than Significant: The project will contribute to the cumulative impacts identified in the City's
GP EIR. However, the project contribution is limited and incorporates design features that reduce cumulative
impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore the project's'cumulative impacts will be less than significant.
3.18(c). No Impact: The project will have no substantial adverse impacts to environmental resources. There
are no direct or indirect effects that-would adversely impact human beings onsite or in the project vicinity.
Therefore the project will have no to substantial'adverse environmental effects.
4-61
Page'61 of 62
June 27,2013
•
4. 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.S. Mobility General Plan.Chapter 11. Housing
General Plan Chapter6., Recreation, Implementing Zoning Ordinance/
Music, Parks, & the Arts Maps
Other Sources of Information
Petaluma UWMP I Published geological maps
SCWA UWMP General Plan'2025 DR
FEMA Flood Insurance.Rate Maps
Technical Appendices: The following resources were prepared in order to further identify project specific
parameters and all are incorporated,herein by reference. Copies of these technical documents are available
for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, in the Community
Development Department.
A. "Tree Report for 35 Maria.Drive"prepared by Robert Props:of'Propos Tree &Landscaping, September
21, 2012.
B. "Traffic Impact Study for the Maria Drive Apartment Complex, prepared by W-Trans, December 12,
2012 and updated June 14, 2013.
C. "Geotechnical 'Investigation: Maria Drive Apartments," prepared by Neil O. Anderson & Associates,
October 5, 2012.
D. "Environmental Noise Study for Maria Drive Apartments," prepared by Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz,
Inc., October 23, 2012.
E. "Preliminary Storm Water Mitigation Plan: Maria Drive Apartments," prepared by Civil Design
Consultants, Inc., October 2012.
F. "Health Risk Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for 35 Maria Drive," prepared by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc:, October 22, 2012.
2074409
4-62
Page 62 of 62
June 27;2013