HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2003-104 N.C.S. 06/02/2003resolution No.2O03-104N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR
THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan encompasses approximately 400
acres bounded by Lakeville Street (east and north), Petaluma Boulevard and the Petaluma
River (west) and Highway 101 (south) and provides for the potential development of
more than 1,600 new dwelling units and nearly 3 million square feet of new commercial
and industrial space; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et .seq.) with respect
to land development approval within the City limits; and,
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the City of Petaluma
Environmental Review Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the City determined that. the proposed Specific Plan had the
potential to result in significant environmental effects. As a result the City decided to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and a Notice of Preparation was published and
distributed fora 30-day review period on November 6, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),
dated March 2003. The City observed a 45-day public review period for the document
and held public hearings with the Planning Commission and the Historic and Cultural
Preservation Committee (Historic SPARC) on March 25 and March 27, 2003,
respectively; and,
WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received by public agencies,
utilities, organizations, special interest groups and person who reviewed the DEIR, and
has prepared a Final EIR responses to comments received during the 45-day public
review period; and,
WHEREAS, said comments received on the DEIR, and a list of individuals,
groups, organizations, and agencies commenting on the DEIR have been included in the
Final EIR for said project, as required by Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. In
addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to
outline procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the custodian of record of proceedings for this project is the
Community Development Director; .and,
Resolution No. 2003-104 N,C.S.
W>FIEREAS, in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, a
Mitigation Monitoring and .Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to outline
procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the CEQA
guidelines require that the decision-making agency balance, as applicable, the economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining. whether to approve a project. If these benefits
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be
considered "acceptable." The decision-making agency must state. in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the
record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial
evidence in the record; and,
WHEREAS, on April 21, and May 5, 2003, the City Council held duly noticed
public hearings on the February 2003 Final Draft of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
accepting all written and verbal reports and testimony. As part of this hearing process,
the City Council has considered the Draft and Final EIR, recommendations by the
Planning Commission, Historic SPARC and/or City staff, and comments received during
the review process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations in accordance with the requirements of
the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the conclusions of the Final EIR for the Central
Petaluma Specific Plan:
EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The City Council finds as follows:
a) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, which feasibly could obtain most of the basic
objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives, and that the Final EIR for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan analyzed
four alternatives to the proposed Central Petaluma Specific Plan: (1) No Project
Alternative, (2) Existing General Plan Alternative, (3) 1999 Draft Specific Plan
Alternative and (4) Mitigated Project Alternative.
b) The No Project Alternative, Existing General Plan Alternative, 1999 Draft Specific
Plan Alternative, as analyzed in the Final EIR, are hereby determined to either be
infeasible or would not achieve the basic objectives of the project.
City Council hereby finds and determines that the "Mitigated Project Alternative," which
is the project as originally proposed, but with incorporation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR, is the environmentally superior alternative.
Reso. No. 2003-104 N.C.S. Page 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council finds as follows:
1. All of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR have been or can be
mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, with the exception of the following
impacts:
® Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-3 (US 101 SB ramps/East Washington)
® Transportation and. Circulation Impact 6-4 (Lakeville/Caulfield)
® Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-7 (Lakeville/D Street)
® Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-13 (US 101)
® Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-14 (Roundabouts)
® Air Quality Impact 11-2 (Long-Term Regional Emissions)
2. Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-3 identifies that the Level of Service during
the PM peak hour at the intersection of the southbound ramps of US Highway 101
and East Washington Street will deteriorate to less than acceptable conditions under
Project Scenario 1, as described on page 6-18 of the FEIR.
a) This impact will occur as a result of the level of development proposed in the
Specific Plan, as well as the implementation of the proposed "road diets," the new
local streets and roadway improvements called for by the plan, and the proposed
elimination of the "Southern Crossing." It is also based on the assumption that
none of the proposed transportation improvements called for by the 1987-2005
Petaluma General Plan, including improving the Washington Street over crossing
and a new cross-town connector/Hwy 101 interchange.
b) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 6-3, which calls for the construction
of dual right turn lanes at the southbound ramp and dual left turn lanes on the
westbound approach to US 101 on Washington Street. However, according to
Table 6.6, these improvements will result in improved traffic operations, but not
acceptable Level of Service conditions, whether or not the Specific Plan is
adopted.
3. Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-4 identifies that under all cumulative
scenarios, the intersection at Lakeville Street and Caulfield Lane would operate at
unacceptable Level of Service conditions.
c) This impact would occur with or without the development and circulation
recommendations anticipated by the Specific Plan.
d) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 6-4, which calls for providing an
exclusive right-turn lane for the southbound approach on Lakeville Street and
dual right-turn lanes for the westbound approach on Caulfield Lane. However,
according to Table 6.6, these improvements will result in improved traffic
Reso. No. 2003-104 N.C.S. Page 3
operations, but not acceptable Level of Service conditions, whether or not the
Specific Plan is adopted.
4. Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-7 identifies that under all cumulative
scenarios, the intersection at Lakeville Street and D Street would operate at
unacceptable Level of Service conditions.
e) This impact would occur with or without the development and circulation
recommendations anticipated by the Specific Plan.
f) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 6-7, which calls for providing an
exclusive right-turn lane for westbound approach on D Street. However,
according to Table 6.6, these improvements will result in improved traffic
operations, but not acceptable Level of Service conditions, whether or not the
Specific Plan is adopted.
5. Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-13 identifies that under all cumulative
scenarios, the US Highway 101 between Washington Street and Old Redwood
Highway would operate at unacceptable Level of Service conditions.
g) This impact would occur with or without the development and circulation
recommendations anticipated by the Specific Plan.
h) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 6-13, which calls for widening
Highway 101 to eight lanes. However, this mitigation measure has been
determined to be prohibitively expensive and infeasible.
6. Transportation and Circulation Impact 6-14 identifies that under Project Scenario 1,
the two proposed roundabouts (Washington and Copeland and D Street and Petaluma
Blvd.) would result in unacceptable Level of Service operations at these two
intersections.
i) This impact will occur as a result of the level of development proposed in the
Specific Plan, as well as the implementation of the proposed "road diets", the new
local streets and roadway improvements called for by the plan, and the proposed
elimination of the "Southern Crossing." It is .also based on the assumption that
none of the proposed transportation improvements called for by the 1987-2005
Petaluma General Plan, including improving the Washington Street over crossing
and a new cross-town connector/Hwy 101 interchange.
j) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 6-14, which calls for a more
thorough project specific traffic analysis of the configuration and alignment
options that would accompany the design and implementation of the two
roundabout proposals. However, because that level of analysis was not done as
part of the Final EIR, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Reso. No. 2003-104 N.C.S. Page 4
7. Air Quality Impact 11-2 identifies that the long-term cumulative impact of
development in accordance with the Specific Plan will provide some reduction of
regional air quality impacts, but not to a less than significant level.
k) This impact would occur with or without the development and circulation
recommendations anticipated by the Specific Plan.
1) The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure 11-12, which calls for the
application of various emission control strategies, where applicable, to reduce
overall traffic generation. However, while it will assist in reducing project-related
and cumulative impacts on regional air quality emission levels, no other feasible
mitigation measures are available to further reduce regulated emission levels,
whether or not the Specific Plan is adopted.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that each of the overriding considerations
set forth below constitutes separate and independent grounds ..for finding that the benefits
of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the project and is an
overriding consideration warranting approval of the project. These matters are supported.
by substantial evidence in the record that includes but is not limited to the Final EIR, staff
reports and analyses, oral and written testimony, and other documents referenced in this
Statement of Overriding Consideration and its adopting resolution. The principal benefits
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The Specific Plan will provide the development potential for more than 1,600 new
dwelling units and nearly 3,000,000 square feet of new commercial and industrial
space that will reinforce the principles of infill development as expressed by the
voter-adopted Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The Specific Plan will result in improvements to the roadway network that supports
the vision of a vibrant, walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment by changing the
character of existing major .streets (Lakeville and Petaluma Blvd.); making block
perimeters more compact and walkable; installing roundabouts at Washington and
Copeland and D Street and Petaluma Blvd. to calm traffic and mark the entry in the
downtown; and ensuring street-level design and mix of uses that establish Central
Petaluma as a destination for residents and visitors, alike.
3. The Specific Plan will result in the development and redevelopment of vacant and
underutilized land within the Specific Plan area that presently are not in productive
use and improve the cohesiveness of the downtown area.
4. The Specific Plan will increase the potential for expanded retail development, new
employment and entertainment activities, while preserving the City's traditional river
dependent and agricultural support industries.
Reso. No. 2003-104 N.C.S. Page 5
5. The Specific Plan potentially will increase the number of persons who both work and
live in Petaluma.
6. The Specific Plan will result in the successful implementation of the Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan and the Petaluma Bicycle Plan, as well as support
public transit opportunities that will ultimately create effective alternatives to the use
of private automobiles, thereby reducing the demand for parking and related air
quality impacts.
7. The Specific Plan will be economically beneficial to the City of Petaluma by: a}
generating retail sales taxes from new retail and other commercial uses; b) generating
significant property taxes by encouraging new, more intensive development and
redevelopment; and c) generating significant tax increment revenue for the
Redevelopment Agency.
8. The Specific Plan will provide direction for the implementation of public
improvements including but not limited to new or upgraded public utilities, streets,
parking structures, bicycle and pedestrian ways and streetscapes.
9. The Specific Plan will result in the development of attractive buildings and site
layouts that are consistent and compatible with surrounding historic developments
and that are attractive and inviting to users and passersby.
10. The Specific Plan will result in a greater awareness of potentially historic resources
within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area and recommends policies to protect
and adaptively reuse those resources where reasonable and feasible.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, and outlines procedures for
implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: 1 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of theo~ity of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting
on the .........2 .............. day of ........June......................................, 20.03, by the
following vote: •••••••••• • •••••••••••••
ity Attorney
AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Harris, Vice Mayor O'Brien
NOES: Moynihan
ABSENT: .one Abstain: Healy, Torliatt
ATTEST: ................................ ............................................
ity Cler
Council File ...................................
Res. No........2003;104 N.C.S.
MITIGATION IViONITORIIVG CHECI{LIST--CENTRAL PETALUIVIA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
The environmental mitigation measures. listed in the second columri below have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Draft Centra(Petaluma Specific Plan in orderto mitigate identified
environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with,,and that City and state,m'onitoring requirements have been fulfilled with respect to
Public Resources Code Section 21-081.6.
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of impl. Monitgting and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verificatign'Entity Requirements
LAND USE
Impact 4-1 : PotentiafSpecific Plan Mitigation 4-1: Implement all mitigations See all See all other See all other See-all other
Conflicts with Applicable Petaluma identified in sections 7 through 15 of this other mitigations listed mitigations listed mitigations listed
General Plan, Roligies Adopted for the EIR. Implementation of these various mitigations herein. herein. herein.
Purpose of Avoiding. or Mitigating an .measures will ensure thaf Specific Rlan listed
Environm"ental EffecE The.d"raft<Specific implementation will occur in a manner herein.
Plan inclGdes p'olicies,sfahda~ds, ahd consistent with all identified'Fetaluma
guidelines designed to ensure .that plan- General Plan'1987=200Spolicies adopted to
permitted~developmenttakes+;placeima. avoid'ormitigateehvironmentaleffects,
manner consisfent_with adopted:Petaluma ihereby~reducing this impact to arless-than-
Genetal Plan 198T,20051and use policies significant', level, with ,the. following
addpted fior the purpose.of avdiding or exception g.
reducing an envirinmental effect:
N'evertheless;'impact;analysis findings in this the anticipated Specific P-Ian growth
EIRindicate thatt$pecific Plan-permitted scenario would resultih significant
development could resu)t in significant impacts unavoidable operational imp""acts do two
qn the envronmeht; including: (2)city intersections (Impacts 6-7 and
6-14) and U.S. 101 (Impact 6-13);
s ig'riificanf adJerse"transportatiorrand
circulation impacts (Impacts 6-1 tfirough 6- the anticipated Specific Plan growth
13); scenario and associated traffic
increases would result in a significant.
significant adverse impacts on,culturaland unavoidable to hg-term regiona6air
histo"ric resdurces (Impacts 7-1 and 7-2); emissions impact (Impact 112); and
the anticipated Specific Plan growth
. significant visual impacts (Impacts 9-1 scenario and associated potential,
through 9-5); effects oh historiaresources could
res iiit,ih a. sig nifican t unavoidable.
. [significant noise impacts (Impacts 10-1 impact on historic resources (Im,pact l-
and 10-2); 2).
. significant air quality impacts (impacts 11-
1-and 11.-2);,
• significant-water quality'mpacts (Impact
12-1 );
t~
bA
a
t~
U
z
7
O
c~
O
0
N
O
z
O
~.
'Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
Page.1 May 30, 2003 WP9:016331FEIRlMMCHT:633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verifica4ion,Entity Requirements
. significant soil stability and river bank
erosion impacts (Impacts 13-1 through 13-
4); and
. significantbiological resources (tree loss,
special status plant species and
jurisdictional wetland) impacts (Impacts
1b-1 through ]'5'-3).
These,potentialeffects, if not mitigated, would
be inconsistent-with a number of Petaluma
General Plan, 1985-2005 policies adopted for
the purpose.of avoiding ormitigating an
eriJironmental effect (see section 4:2'herein),
and tFierefore would constitute a significant
adirecse_land :use impact.
Impact 4'2`.' Potentialsfor'Adverse Land Mitigation 4:2: D.uring'City"review of City Fully consider City During
:.Use Co mpatibilify,impa'cts. In addition'to indNidiial~projects within the Specific Plan during development development
the kinds of•beneficial land' use effects cited area, emphasize tFie need to ayoitl review (incl. design' review (incl.
atiove, some.Spec'rfic Plan-facilitated land use significant new land us'ecoriflicts between review) process for design review)
changes could be incompatible with existing new residential or non.-residential individual' for future
central area land uses. Given the proximity of development and existing nuisance-.prone development individual
some existing and planned residential uses; to commercial and industrjal usest During applications development
existing and planned cdmmercial and these review procedures and the formulation applications
industrial uses, project-assisted, intensificatioh df conditions of;approval, require
could introduce sign'rficant new land use assurances. of"adequate site planning and
conflicts (e.g:, traffic, visual, light,:noise, architecfural design measures, including
parking, odor and other conflicts). Such architectutal measures (noise:insulatidn,
project-induced effects would represent screen walls, etc_ ),within mixed-use.
potentially significant adverse land use structures, adequate to ayoid such
compatibility impacts. ~ significant nuisance conflicts, such as:
(1) adequate land use separation, scale
.transition, and noise buffering;
(2) creative siting of buildings to avoid
conflicts;
(3):adequate yiewpr'dtedtidn;
(4) adequate protections againstlight, glare,
and shadow impacts;
Legends-Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
00
b~i0
G>a
v]
U
z
0
m
0
0
cV
O
z
0
a~i
W
'.Page 2 May: 30, 2003 lNP9.D16331FElRIMMCHT.633
.MONITORING- VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATIQN MEASURE lmpl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring, a"nd Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification En_fity Requirements
(5) adequate odor control;
(6) adequateroffstreet parkirig provisions;
(7) adequate truck loading and routing
provisions;
(8) adequate land use'incompaHbility
advisoryand acknowledgment
requirements;..andlor
(9) other common measures warranted to
avoid such land use conflicts.
Implementation of these measures to the
satisfaction of the City's Site Plan and
ArchifecturalReview Committee (SPARC)
would be expected to redLce such potential
land use compatibility impacts to a less-
Yhan-significant'I evel.
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND
EMPLOYMENT
Impact 5-1: Population and Housing Mitigation 5-1: Implement all,mi(gation See all. See allrother See all other See all other
'Growth, Impacts. The proposed. Specific measures identified in Chapters.6 through other mitigations listed mitigations listed mitigations listed
Plahwould accommodate a netiad'ditional 14 ofahis EIR. As explained in those mitigations herein. herein: herein.
increment of up to 1,617 residential units in the chapters, implementation of'the identified listed
central area. The 1,617 additional;unitswould mitigatioh-measures would reduce these hereih.
represent an increase of roughly 50 percentin impacts qo less than significantlevels,
the ABAG-projected cdywide 2000=2020 with the following exceptions:
household and population growth increment,
-and an approximately 7 percehN:increase in the growth incrementcould'result in
the ABAG-projected year 2020 citywide significant unavoidable adverse '
population .total (from. the' currently projected operational impacts on u,p to three local
total of:23,360 households without the_Specific intersections-and freeway onramps
Plan`to app~ozimately 24;977 householtlswith dependingon the;trafficscena~io '
the Specific;Plan). The Specific Plan would. choseh (see Chaptei-'.6, Impacts 6-3, 6-
therefore:directfy ihduce siiHstaritial-hqusehold 7 acid 8-1'2); and a segment of U.S. 101.
and^,popiila'tion growth„wFiich would represent (Impact 6-13);
a significant impact on°Petaluma pgpulation
and:housng conditions. As~desc(ilied in
_ _ the. growth incrementwould resulfin
_
Chaptersa6 through 14 of'tFiis Ell2, these significant unavoidable' adverse long-
Specific Plan-related Household and term regional air emissions impacts;
Legends Applicant= individual project applicants,,City=City of Petaluma
a~
bA
a
t~
U
z
0
cn
0
0
N
O
z
O
R~+
W
Page:3 May 30, 2003 lNP9.016331FElRIMMCH7.633
MONITORING. VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL') Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
population increases would result in and
associated potentially significant physical
(environmental) impacts, including the growth incremeht,would result in
significant. transportation; public services and sgnificant`unavoidable impacts to
utilities;'visual, noise; air quality, storm historic resources.
drairiage; flood control, gedtechnical, and
hazardous materials exposure impacts.
TRANSPORTA'TIONRND CIRCULATfON
Impact 6-1: Cumulative Plus Project Mitigation 6-1. Mitigation shall include City Include in City's City When,needed
Impact on the US 101 Northbound Ramps reassigning the northbound off-ramp right- streetsystem between now
Redwood Highway Intersection. Under turn .movement (which is currently stop- improvement and 2020.
Cumulative. TJo F,roji:ct conditions; this controlled). to a "free" northbound right-turn program.
intersection: js expected to deteriorate from lane (i.e., a righhturn lane thatiwould notbe
LOS C fo LOS E.during the:AM peak hour ahd controlled`tiy the traffic signal) and
to;LOS D',.during tfie PM peak hour. Under associated receiving lane. The level of
Cumulative Plus Projecf.conditions.(both service analysiscond.ucted forthis EIR
scenarios); the intersection is expected to indicates that this improvement would
operate unacceptably at LOS F and LOS E in provideacceptatile operations (LOS B or
the.AM and PM peak hours, respectively: The betfeQ during both peak Hours under the
addition of'projeditraffic is expected'to Cumulative No Project and:lhe Cumulative
increase the average delay aYthe intersection Blus Project scenarios. Implementation of
by"25.1 second§'under Project.Scenario 1 and this measure would-reduce#his potential
20.1 seconds underPrdject Scenario 2. This impact to aless-than-significant_leyel:
effect woulii represent a potentially ,
significant impact. Forfinalization ofsuch freeway ramp
improvements, Caltrans defines a'process
of anayzing alternatives, selecting a
preferred;afternative; and<desighing
interchange improvements. This process
involves Caltrans production of Project
Study Reports (PSR); Project Reports (PR);
and Environmental Documents (ED), each
of which hasspecific requirements forthe
level of design detail and types of
transportation analysis. Queuing analysis
and more detailed signal system operations
analysis'wou.ld be completed as part of
these. studies: These analyses may result
in.refinements to'the specific mitigations
identified in this EIR.
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City =City of Petaluma
O
N
s~
U
z
~t
O
M
O
O
cJ
O
z
O
ai
Page 4 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT.'633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
Impact 6-2: Cumulative PIus.Project Mitigation 6-2. Mitigation forthis impact City Include'in:City's City When needed
Impact on the US 101 Southbound Rampsl shall include reassigning the southbound street system between now
Redwood Highway Intersection. Under off-ramp right-turn. movement (which is improvement and 2020.
Cumulative Nd project conditions, the currently stop-cont~olled)to a "free" program.
intersection. is expected to maintain:As current southbound rjght-ttirn larie (i.e., a right turn
levefof service (LOS C)-during the PM peak lane that would riot be confrolled by the
hour. Under Cumulative-Plus Project 'traffic sighaq and associated'receiving lane.
conditions {both scenarios), the intersection is The level'of service analysis conducted for
expecteii`to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D this EIR indicates that this improvement
during the PM peak hour. The addition of would. provide. acceptable operations (LOS
piroject'trafficis expected to increase the C) during the PM peak hour under the
average delay of the intersection by 4.0 Cumulative Plus Project scenarios.
secorids under Project Scenario 1 and 3.5 Implementation ofthis measure would
seconds under Project Scenario 2. This effect reduceahis pptential'impact to a less-than-
wquld, represent a pofentiallysignificant significant level. In addtion,;the
impact, implementation of this measure would
improve-,,operations', buf,nbtao;acceptable
• conditions,:from LOS E to LOS D imthe,AM
peak hour under the cumulative plus project
scenarios.
• Forfinalization ofsuch freeway. ramp
improvements, Caftrans defines a: process
of analyzing''alternatives, selecting a
pYeferred'atterhative, and designing
interchange imprbvements. This process ,
involves Caltrans production of Rroject
Study Reports (PSR),,Project Reports (PR),
and Environmental Documerits (ED), eacfi
' of which has specific requirements forttie
levefbf design detail ahd types of
transportation analysis. Queuing analysis
and more detailed signal system operations
analysis would be completed as part of
these studiesr These analyses. may result..
in, refinements tq'(he specific mitigatiohs
identified inthis'.EIR.
lm'pacf:~6-3: Cumiilative.Plus Project Mitigation 6-3. Mitigation. for this impact City Include in City's City When'heeded
Impactron the;US 109 :Southbound Rampsl shalfinclude providing dual right-tum lanes streeksystem between now
.East Washington Street Intersection. at the southbound ramp and, dual lefts on improvement aril 2020.
lJnder Cumulative"No Project conditions, the the westbound approach on Washington program.
intersection is expected 4o maintain its current Street. The level of service analysis -
level of service (LOS G) during the PM peak conducted for this EIR indicates that this
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
bA
w
v]
U
z
0
c+i
O
O
N
O
z
0
ai
,D
W
Page'5 May.30, 2003 lNP9:016331FE1RIMMCHTr,633
.MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature. Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity .Requirements
hour. The intersection is expected to improvement would provide acceptable
deteriorate from LOS C fo LOS E under operations during the PM peak hour under
P~ojectScenario 1 and'LOS; D under Project both project scenarios. 'Implementatioh of
Scenario 2 during the PM peak hour. The these measures would reduce tfiispotential.
additiori of project traffic is expected to impact to aless-than-significant level.
.increase.. the average delay at the intersection Similarly, these implementations would
by29.5 seconds under Project Scenario 1 and provide acceptable-operations (LOS C) in
'13:8 seconds under Project Scenario 2. This the AM peak,hourunder Cumulative Pius
effect would. represent a potentially Project Scenarjo 2. However, these
significanEmpact, improvemenis would improve traffic
operations, but not to acceptable conditions,
under Cumulative Plus. P'rojectScenario 1.
Therefore,:this would constitute a
significant unavoidabl'e',impact.
Forfinalization of"such freeway ramp
imprdvements, Galfrans defines a process
of analyzing alternatives, selecting a
preferred alternative, and desjgning
interchange improvements. This process
invdlvesCaltrans productiori of,Project
Study Reports {PS R)„Project Reports (PR),
and Emironmentat Documents (ED), each
of which has°specific requirements for the
level of design detail and types of
transportation analysis, Queuing analysis
and more detailed signal system operations
analysis would be•com131e4ed as part of
these studies. These analyses. may result.
in'.refiriemenfs td'tlie specificdmitigations
idehtified ih this-EIR.,
Impact'-6-4:: Cumulative Plus Project. Mitigation 6-4. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City's City N/hen needed
Impact on the;Lakevilla StreeUCaulfield shall include providing an exclusive right- street system between.riow
Lane Intersection: Under:all cumulative turn. lane foothe southbound approach on improvement and 2020.
sceriarios', the-intersection is expected to Lak'eJilleBfreet and'dual right-tum lanesfior program.
operate unacceptably:(LOS E or F) during the westbound approach on Caulfield Lane.
both,the AM and, FM peak hours. In addition Theaevel of service analysis conducted for
to project traffic, the expected changes in thisElf2'indjcates that these improvements "
travel patterns and introduction of new would. improve operations, but:not to ,
roadways within the study aiea.are,ezpected ,acceptable conditions from LOS,Eto LOS E
to increase the delay:by' more than. 80 and:D in the AM and PM.,peak ho"uis,. '
seconds. This effectwould represent a respectively, under Cumulative No Project
.potentially significant impact.. conditions. However, under the cumulative
Legend: Applicant = individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
bq
P:
to
U
z
O
.--~
M
O
0
N
O
z
0
~i
Page,6 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT~633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. .Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
plus project scenarios, these improvements
will improve the average, delay at the
intersection,,but maintain unacceptable.
operations at LOS F duringboth peak hours.
Therefore, this would constitite a
significant unavoidable impact for
Scenarios 1 and 2.
Impact 6-5: Cumulative Plus Project Mitigation 6-5. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City's City When needed
Impact on the Lakeville Stceet~Baywood shall include providing dual right-tum lanes street system between now
Drive Intersection. Under Cumulative No and dual-left-turn lanes on the westbound improvement and 2020.
Projec(conditions, the intersection is expected and eastbound,approaches on Baywood program.
to deteriorate from:LOS D to LOS F during the Drive,-respectively: The level,ofservice
PM peak hour. Under Cumulative Plus Project analysis conducted forthis EIR indicates -
cohditions (both scenarios:), the;intersection is that these improvements would not provide
expected to operate at LOS F during, the PM acceptable operations (LOS C); but woulo
peak hour. Since the additiorrof project traffic improve operations to LOS; E during the PM
is expected to increase the average delay by peak hour under all Cumulative scenarios.
more than five(second5;at the iritersection In addition, providing an exclusive right-turn •
underYhe Cumulative Plus Projectscenarios, lane for the northbound approach on
this'effectworil8 represent a potentially Lakeville Drive would improve oper@tions to
significant impact. LOS D under all Cumulativeacenarios.
Since these measures would improve
projected conditions: under the No Project
scehario, implementatioh of; his measure
would ,reduce this potential impact to a,less-
than-significant level.
Impact 6=6e'Cumulative Plus°Project, Mitigation 6-6. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City's City ~ When needed
Impact on the Lakeville Sfreet~East shall`ihclutle providing an,exclusive right- streeYsysfi4m tietween now
Washington Street Intersectjon:. Lnder tu[h lane"forthe eastbound approach on E. improvement a_nd 2020.
Cumulative No Project conditions, the Washington Sheet. The level of.sewice program.
intersection is expected to maintaiir.current analysis conducted.forthis EIR indicates
operations (LO,S C) during the PM peak hour: that this improvemenYwould proviife
Unifier Cumulative Plus Projectconditions acceptable operations(LOS C) underthe
(bothacenarios),the intersection is expected Cumulative Plus Project scenarios.
to deteriorate from LOS Cto LOS D d'utingahe Implementation of this me asuie would
PM peak hour. The addition of:project traffic is reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
ezpecfedto,inciease the average'delay by significanfleve7.
11.4 secontls ur9derProject Scenario 1 and
27.-1 seconds unifier Project Scenario 2. This
effeia:would represent a potentially
signjficanfimpact,
Legend: Applicant= individualproject applicants, City=City ofpetaluma
M
a~
an
~,
V]
U,
z
0
m
O
0
N
O
z
0
a~
~i
Q
,n
W
Page 7 May 30, 20t)3 WP9:016331FEIRIMMCHT._(i33
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION,MEASURE Impl. Type•of-lm pl. Mohitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action. Verification Entity Requirements
Impact 6-7'. Cumulative Plus Project Mitigation 6-Z. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City's City When needed
Impact on the Lakeville Street~D Street shall include providing an exclusive right- streejsystem between now
Intersection. Unde~,Cumulative No Project turn lane for the westbound approach on D improvement and 2020.
conditions, the.ihtersection is expected to Street... The level of'service analysis program.
improve current operations from LOS E to conducted for this E1R indicates that this
LOS~D during the PM peak hour: Under improvement would not provide acceptable
Cumulative Plus'Project conditions (both operations (LOS C), .but would improve
scena~iosj,.the intersection is expected to operations from LOS F to LOS E under the
operate unacceptably (LOS F) during the PM Cumulative Plus Project scen8rios. Since
peak hour. Since tFie addition of project traffic this mRigation measure would not improve
would substantially increase the average traffic operations to an acceptable LOS C,
delay at_the+intersection under the Cumulative this impact would be considered significant
Rlus P,rojectscenarjos, this effecfwould and unav_ oidable:
represent a'potentiallyaignificant'impact.
Impact 6-8:.Cumulative PIus,Project Mitigation 6-8. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City`s City When needed
Impact on the Copeland-Street~Easf shall:include'tFie in'sfallation of a tFaffic signal street system 'between now
Wash.iogton Street Intersection. Under and proper timing coordination with its improvement and 2020.
Cumulative No Project conditions; the adjacent signalized ntersectionsy The traffic program.
ihtersection would continue to'operate volume at the intersection satisfies the
unacceptably (LOS Fj during' he PM peak Caltrahs Peak-HourWarranffora traffic
Hour. UnderCumulative Plus Project (both signal installation., An' adddional
scenarios), the ihtersection is expected to improvemeht'include"s providing an
operate unacceptably (LOS F) during the PM exclusive "free" rigHY-fum movement and,
peak hour. Since the additiomof project traffic receiving lane for the northbound approach
would increase the average delay by more ~ on Copeland Street. The level of service
than five seconds. at the intersection under the analysis conducted for this EIR indicates
Cumulative Plus Project scehanos, this effect thattFiese improvements would provide
would represent a potenfiallysignificant` acceptable operations.(LOS A) under' Fie
impact. Cumulatjve No.,Project and tfie,~Cumulative
Plus Projectscenario5. 'Implementation of ,
.this measure .would reduce this potential "
impact to aless-than-s ignificagt,level..'
Impact 6-9: Cumulative Plus Project Mitigation'6-9. Mitigation fortfiis impact City .Include in City's City N/Hen heeded
Impact onahe Petaluma Boulevard Streetf sfiall include;providing,ez"elusive right=turn stieetsystem 6etween'riow '
EasE Washington Street Intersection. lanes+for the east-and westbound improvement and 2020.
Under Cumulative No Projectcondjtions„the approaches on Easj,Washington Street. The program.
intersection would continue to operate; level of'service analysis. conducted fprfhis
unacceptably (LOS p.) during the PM peak EIR'indicates that these improvements:
hour. Uhler Cumulative Plus Project would not provide acceptable operations
conditions, tlSeintersectioR is expected to (LOS C), but would improve operatiohs from
operate at LOS E' under Project Scenario 1 LOS E to LOS D underProject Scenario 1. '
and LOS D under Project Scenario 2. The Although traffic conditions would remain of
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
~l-
a~
bA
~.
v~
U
z
O
M
O
0
N
O
z
O
~r
Page 8 May 30,,2003 ~ WP9:016331FEIRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPRQVAL.) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
addition ofproject-traffic would increase the an unacceptable. LOS D, the same as under
average delay by 16.9 seconds at the Cumulative No Project conditions, the
intersection under the ProjectScenario 1. addition of project trafficunder neitherof the
This effect would represent a potentially two project scenarios would increase
significant impact. intersection delays by more than 5seconds.
Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this potential. impact to a less-.
than-s ign ifican t leve 1.
Impact>6=10: Cumulative Plus Project Mitigation 6-10. Mitigation for this impact City Include in City's City When needed
Impaction the LibertyStreet~East shall include the installatidn of a traffic signal street system betweeh.now
Washington:Streetintersection. Under and propertiming coordination with its improvement and 2020.
Cumulative No;ProjecYdonditions, the adjacentsighalized intersections. The traffic program.
ihtersectiori"would contihue.to operate volume;at the°intersection satisfies the
unacceptably (LOS Fj during°the PM peak Caltrans Peak-Hour`Volume Warrant for a
:hour. Under Cumulative Plus Project (bdth traffic.s_gnal installation. An additional
scenarios), the intersection is expected to improvement-.includes providing an
operate unacceptably (LOS F) during the,PM exclusive rght-turn lane'forthe northbound
peak Hour, Since tare addition of,project raffid approach on. Liberty Sfreet. The aevel of _ '
would increase the average delay at the service arii3lysis conducted for this EIR
intersection liy more tFiat(fives secohds under indicates thatthe§e improvements would
ttie Cumulative PlusProjectscenarios, this provide acceptable operations (LOS C)
effect would represent a potentjally under the Cumulative No Project and the
significanNimpac['. Cu mutative Plus Projectscenarios.
Implementation of this measure: would
reduce this pdtential impadt to a less-than-
significant levek
Impact.6-1-1' Cumulative.Plus Project .Mitigation 6-11. Mitigation for his impact., City Include in C,ity's City When needed
Impact on,the,Petaluma Boulevard~D shall incWde providing an exclusive right-. streetsysfem between now
Street~lntersection. UnderGumulative No turn lane forthesouthbound approach om improvement and 2020. ,
Project'conditions; the intersection is expected Petaluma,Boulevard. The level,of service program.
to'improye frdm'LOS E to LOS. D during the analysis conducted for'tliis EIR:ihdicates
PM peak hour. Under Cumulative Plus'Project thafthis improvement would not provide
conditions,, the.intersectiomisexpectedto acceptableoperations(LOSC),butwould -
operate at LOS E`under Project Scenario 2 improve operations from LOS E to LOS D
during the PM peak hour: The addition of under ProjectScenario 2. Altlidugh traffic
.project traffic would increase the average conditions would remain at an uhacceptable '
delayat the intersection by 14.6'seconds LOS D, the same,as under Cumulative N'o
uhder Project.Scenario 2. This effect would Project conditions,Yhe addition ofproject
[epresenta potentialtysignificant impact. traffic under either of'the two project
scenarios would not increase intersection
delays by more than 5 secohds~ Therefore,
implementation of this measure would
Legend: Applicant=individual project applicants, City= Gityof Petaluma
v7
a~
bA
a.
U
z
O
r%~
0
0
cJ
O
z
O
a~
LY.
Page 9 .May 30, 2003 lNP9.016331FElRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OE APPROVAL) Entity .Action Verification Entity Requirements
reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant`level.
Impact 6-12: Cumulative PIus.Project Mitigation 6-12., Mitigation for this Scenario City Include in City's City When needed
.Impact on the Petaluma. Bou levard~l Street 1-(elated impactahall include. removal of the street system between now
Intersection. Under Cumulative IJo Project exclusive lefttum lane, for the northbound improvement and 2020.
.conditions, the intersection is expected to approach on Petaluma Boulevard and signal program.
operate acdepteby attOS B during the PM re-timing to allow all movements at this
peak hdur: Undei Cumulative Plus Project intersection to be permitted. The level of
conditions„the intersection is expected to service enalysisrconducted f6rthis EIR
deteriorate from LOS B to LOS F under indicates that this improvement would ,
Project-Scenario T during the PM peak hour. improve operations from LOS F to LOS A
The addition'of;project traffic .would increase under Project Scenario 1. Therefore,
the average>delay atahe intersection by 102.5 implementation ofthis measure would.
seconds under PrdjectiScenario 1. 'Under reduce'tFiis potential impact to a less-than-
Scene~id 2, the intersection is expected to significarihlevel.
.maintain acceptable;operations (LOS`B). This
effect would represent a potentially
significant:impact; Under Project Scenario
2,,the intersection is:ezpected to,mainfain
acceptable gperations (LOS'Bj,'which would
.not represent a significant impact.
Impact 613: Cumulative: Plus Project Mitigation 6-13: Mitigations for fftis impact City Include in City's City When needed
Impact on U.S: 101. Under Cumulative No would be:prohibitively expensive (i.e., street system between now
Project conditions, U.S. 101 is expected to widening the freeway to eigFit lanes) or improvement and 2020.
gperate unacceptably (LOS E) on tfie segment would require conversion ofNOV lanes io program.
of U.S. 101. between'Washipgton §treet:and mixed use travel in orderto create additional
Redwood Highway during the.PM peak hour.. vehicle,capacity. Therefore, this impact
Under'Cumulative.Plus.Pirojectconditions, the. 'would be significa"nt and unavoidable.
same segment is expected to deteriorate from
LOS E to LOS F under both Project Scenarios
during the~PM peak hour. Since-the addition
of p roject traffic would .reach fh a volu me
capacity oh the freeway system under both
Project Scenarios,•tliis~effecfwould represent
a potentiallj sjgn'ificant impact. '
Impact 614`. Cumulative Plus Project Mjtjgation 6-14. Mitigation shall be ~ City Include in City's City When needed
(Scenario 1) Roundaboutlmpact. Under the determined through analysis of various lane street system between now
Cumulative Plus Project Scenario 1,'a configurations and>alignments-at the improvement and 2020.
roundabout is proposed at the Copeland Copeland Street/East Washington Street program.
StreeUEast Washington Streetand Petaluma and Petaluma Boulevard/D Street
Boulevard/D Street intersections. The level of intersections. Because the effectiveness of
Legend: Applicant=individual project-applicants,City=City of Petaluma
a~
an
a
U
z
O
M
O
0
N
0
z
O
a~'i
Page 10 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification'.Entity Requirements
service analysis conducted for this EIR future mitigations has not been determined,
indicates thafa roundaboutat:eRher location the effect of roundabouts at these
would provitle unacceptable operations (LOS intersections would represent a significant,
F) untle Scenario 1.. This effectwould unavoidable impact.
poferitially r@present a significant impact.
CUC.TURAL AND-HIS TOR IC
RESOURCES
Impact 7-1: Disturbance of Archaeological Mitigation 7-1: During the City's normal City and Fully consider City During prelim.
Resources. New central area development ' project-specific environmental review (Initial individual during prelim. environ. review
and redevelopment permitted and endouraged Study) process for,alPfuture, discretionary, project envirgn. review (i.e., during Initial
by the Specific Plan could disturb existing publid improvement and private applicants (i:e., ducing Initial Study
unrecorded sensitive' aFchaeoldgical development prdjects in the, Specific•.Plan Stutly preparation).: preparation).
resources in the:Specific Plan area. This area, the City shall determine the possible
possibility represents a potentially presence. of, and"the'pofential"impacts of'the
significant°impact. action on, archaeological resources, The.
individual prgjectsponsor should be
required to contact the Niirthwest
Infdrmation Center (NWIC).of the California
Histdrical Resources Information~System
(CHRIS) to determine.whethero-theparticular
project is Iocafed irra" sensitive_area.
Future:d evelopme nt prgjects thaf the-CHRIS
determines may be located jri asensjtive
area--i.e., on br adjoining an'identified
archaeological-site dr having lie poteritial•to
contain an archaeological site--shall
proceed only after the proj'ectsponsor
contracts with'a qualified;archaeologist,to
conduct a determination in regard to cultural
values remaining on the~site ahd warranted
mitigation measures.
In.general, to make an adequate
determination, the archaeologisLshould
conducYa preliminary field inspection to: (1)
• assess the'amount of"visible:ground-
§urface, (2) identify Ibcatiohs of visible
ground-surface, (3) determihe the nature
and extent of previous impacts,.and (4)
assess the nature and extent of potential
impacts: Such field inspection may
demonstrate the need for some form of
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of",Petaluma
n
a~
bA
a
zn
U
z
O
cn
O
O
N
O
z
O
i
~i
Q
W
Page 11 May 30, 2003 WP 9:016331FEIRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. • Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
additional subsurface testing (e.g.,
excayation_by auger, shovel, or backhoe
unit). Alternatively; onsite monitoring of
subsurface activities (i.e., during grading or
'trenching) maybe needed.
If'a significant archaeological resource is '
identified through this field inspection
process; the City and project proponent
shaltseek to void damaging effects to the
resiurce. Preservation in place to maintain
the relationship between the artifact(s).,and
the. arch_aeological_ context is the preferred
manner of mitigating. impactsto an
archaeologicabsite. Preservatsori maybe
accomplished byi
Planning constcuctionko avoid the
archaeological_site;
Incorporating thesde witftin a park,
greenspace, or other open space
element;
o Covering the site-with a layer of
chemically stable soil; or
Deeding"the site into,a permanent
'conservation easement:.
' When'in-place mitigation;isdetermined'by
the Cityto be infeasible, a data recovery '
plan, which makes provisions for adequate
recovery of the scientifically consequential
information about the site, shall be prepared
and adopted prior to any additional
ezcavationbeirig undertaken. Such studies
must be submitted to the.Galifornia
NistoricaLResources Regional Informati_q_n
Center (i e., the N W_IC at Sonom a State
University);. if Native'American artifacts are
indicated, tlie,studies'rmust`also be
submitted'to the Native American Heiifage
Commissidn. Identified cultural resources
Legend;, Applicant =individual project applicants, City =City of Petaluma
00
a~
qq
a
U
z
O
.-~
M
O
O
N
Rage ]2 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT:633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPAG7 RELATED MITIGATION. MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITIOtJ OE APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
should tie recorded oh form DPR 523 (A-L)
(archaeological sites). Mitigation measures
recommended by these-two groups and
required by the City's hall be undertaken, if
necessary, prior to resumption of
construction activities.
A data recovery plan and data recovery
shall not be required if the Ciry determines
that testing or studies already completetl
have adequately recovered the necessary
data, provided that the data have already
been documerited in another`E1R:and are
available forreview at the California
His_forcal Resource Regional Information
Center,[CEQA Guidelines section
151 26:4 (b)),:
In the;eventthat subsurface cultural
'resources a"re otherwise encountereii duping
approved ground-disturliing activities for a
:Specific, Plan area construction activity,
work in the immediate vicinity shall be
stopped and a qualified archaeologist
retained to evaluate tfie finds following the
procedures described above.
If human remains are fourid, special rules
set forth in State Hea_tth and Safety Code
section 7050.5'and CEQA Guidelines.
section t 5126':4(b) shall apply.
Implementation of this measure would ,
reduce this impact to a less-than-
significantleveL
Impact 7-2: Destruction/Degradation of Mitigation 7-2: Generally, for any future City and Fully consider City DuYing prelim.
Historic Resources. The Specific Plan discretionary action,wilFiin the Specific Plan ihdividiial during prelim. en4iFon. review
(Historic Preservation chapter) contains area thaYthe City determines through tfie project environ. review (i:e., during Initial '
policies for recognizing fi_istpric resources, CEQA-required'Ihitial"Study. review process applicants (i,e., during Initial Study
expanding the existing Petaluma Historic may cause a "substantial adverse change" Study: preparation). 'preparation).
Commercial~District; creating two additional in one ormore potentially significant historic
local historic districts, and:conducting resources.in the~Specific Plan area„the City
additional Historical research.. Nevertheless, and.applicantshall incorpdrate mitigation
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
a~
bA
U
z
0
M
O
O
N
O
z
0
a`~'i
~,
Q
W
Page f3 May;30, 2003 WP 9.016331FEIRIMMCH.F:(i33
IDENTIFIED IMPACT
future. development projects that are otherwise
consistentwith'the proposed Specific Plan
may cause a substantial adverse change in
either:
(a) a resource listed in, or determined by the
State Historical Resources C.dmmission to
be eligible for listing,in the California
Register dfHistoric Resources;
(6) A resource'ihcluded in a future local
register of Historic.resources, as defined in
PubigR'esources Code section 5020.1(k),
or°identified as significant ih,a future
historical resources survey',meeting'the
requirements of Public Resources Code
section 5024:]'(8); or
(c) An object, building, structure,sRe, or place
which the City determines to be;historically
significant, supported by substantial
evidence.
Affected resources could include one=or more
of the 66 potentially significant-properties or
one or two potentially significant;additional
areas identified in the October 2001 Carey
Co. historic resources evaluation, or additional
resources not.yet identified.
Substantial adverse changes that,may occur
ihclude physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, oralteration of one or more historic
resources, such that the resource and/orlhe
historic districtimwhidh it is located is
°''materially'iinpaired." 'The; significance of an
fiisto~ic resdurce is considered fo be
"materiallyimpaired" when a project
demolishes or materially alters the physical
characteristics that justify, the determination of
its significance [CEQA Guidelines section
15064:5(ti)]. Such an adverse.change•to a
CEQA-defined hi§foric resource would.
constitute a significant impact.
RELATED MITIGATION;MEASURE
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL)
measures in an effortto.reduce the impact
to ales-than-signifjcant.level under
CEQA and, CEQA guidelines: Where the
impact canhotbe successfully mitigated to a
less-thah-significant level, then a
supplemental environmental impact report
for the applicable project shall be required.
Such supplemental environmental report
shall, unless otherwise required by CEQA or
the CEQA guidelines, be limited to an
analysis of the project's impacts on historic
resources. [See generally CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4(b).~
MONITORING
Impl; Type of Impl. Monitoring and
Entity Action' Verification Ent
VERIFICATION
Timing Signature Date
Requirements
O
N
yon
t~
,Legend: Applicant =individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
U
z
O
•--~
M
O
0
N
0
z
0
m
a~
Y
W
Page`14 May 30; 2003 WPg,01(331FE1RIMMCHT:633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring a"nd Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
VISUAL FACTORS
Impact-9-1: Water Street Area Visual Mitigation 9-1: Specific Plan-facilitated. City and Fully consider City During
Impacts (Turning Basin and'North River development along Water Street shall be individual during development development
Subareas).: In the Turning Basin and North subject to stririgent design review by the project review (incl. design review (incl.
River sulia~eas„Specific Plan-facilitated City's Site'Plan and'Architectural Review applicants review) process for. design review)
development and intensification consistent Committee (SPARC), based on: (1) the individual for future
with proposed draft Specific Plan land use current SPARC Design Guidelines, and development individual
policies:could^adverselyaffect the valued (2) an amendment to the:current SPARC applications development
visual character of water along tfie wesTSide Design Guideliriesto incorporate the applications
of the r'Ner. This possible. effect represents a following additionafsdevelopmentcriteria
potentialty'significant impact: specifically identified`in the new Petaluma
"Smart Gode" zpning prdinance outlined in
AppendxA.ofthe draft.Central".Petaluma
Specific Plan:',Smart,Code zoning map
(Se'ction 2.10), Smart CodeBuikling
Standards Tattle (Section 4:1'0), BuikJing
Placement (Sectiorr4.30), Frontage Types
(Section 4:40); Civic Spaces (Section 4.50)
and Landscape Standards (Section 4:60),
as well as the Architectural Character
narrative in the Community Design Chapter
(Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan).
In addition, future new buildings on this
waterfront should be set back from the
riverfront and nporporete design
approaches consistent with the; City's
adopted,River Access and, Enhancement
Plan andtfie-,reoommended;design
approach for Area 2 in Chapter 4 of the
Specific Plan. Designs should incorporate -
ele.ments such:as bay windows and porches
. that relate to the riverand ehcourage amore
positive relationship between indoor and
publicoutdoorspaces.
Adoption and effecfiv,e implementation of
_ these design standards and guidelines
would; mitigate this'impacfito a less-than-
significant lekel. .
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants; City= City of Petaluma
N
a~
on
a
t~
U
z
O
r%i
O
O
N
O
z
0
ai
~i
Page 15 May.30, 2003 lNP9;016331FE1RIMMCHF:633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
Impact 9-2:' East Washington. Street Mitigation 9-2: Implement Mitigation 9-1, City and Revise SPARC City Revise SPARC
Corridor Visual Impacts (North River and adding the approach outlined for Area 3 in individual Design Guidelines Design
Turning Basin Subareas). In the North River. Chapter4 of the current Draft Central project as indicated in Guidelines
and Turning ;Basin subareas, development Petaluma Specific Plan to the current applicants. Mitigation 9-2. subsequent to
and iritensification consistent with proposed SPARC Design Guidelines. Adoption and ~ Specific Plan
d~afYSpegfic Plan land use ,policies could effective implementation of this design Fully consider adoption.
adyersely'affectthe valued visual aspects of standard would mitigate this impact to a during: development
the East 1N ashington Street corridor. This less-than-significant level. review (incl. design Fully consider
possible effect represents a potentially review) process for .these revised
significant'impact. ~ individual SPARC
development Guidelines
applications. during
development
review (incl.
designreview)
.for future
individual
development
applications.
Impact 9'-3: Turning Basin;Subarea Visual .Mitigation 9-3:: Implement Mitigation 9-1, City.and Revise SPA'RG City Revise SPARC
Impacts: In the Turning Basin subarea, adding the design approach outlined for 'individual Design Guidelines Design
,Specific,.Plan-facilitated development and Area 5 in`Ch'apter•4 of;the Community project as indicated in Guidelines
intensification.cdnsistentwith proposed draft Design element ofi-the pioposeddraft applicants. Mitigation 9-2. subsequentto
SpecificPdanaand use policies could Central Petaluma Specific Plan to,.the Specific Plan
:adversely, affect the valued visual character of current SPARC'Design Guidelines. Fully consider adoption.
`th.e area around the Petaluma River Turning Adoption an8 effective implementation of during development
Basin. Ttiis.:possible effect represents a ;these designatandards would mitigate tiffs revew{incl: design Fully consider
potentiallysignificant.impact. impact to aless-than-significant level. review.) prgcess fo_r these revised
individual SPARC
development Guidelines
applications. during
development
•review (incl.
design review)
for future
individual
development
applications.
.Impact 9=4: Riverfrorit Warehouse,.Subarea 'Mitigation 9-4: Further visual impact City and Eully consider City. During final
Visual Impacts. In the Riverfront Warehouse assessment should be undertaken upon indvidual ~ visual..simulations development
District, development and intensification submission of specific. development. project andlor-shadow review (incl.
.consistent with the land use policies of the proposals tot the Riverfront Warehouse applicants. analysis results.. design review)
Legend: Applicant= individualprojecYapplicants,City= City ofPetaluma
tV
tV
a~
bA
a
U
z
O
c%i
O
0
N
O
z.
O
Q
W
Page 16 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMlNCH.T.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring and Timing Signature ~ Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification,Entity Requirements
adopted and anticipated Petaluma General District. In addition to the project design phase.
Plan and the Draft Central Petaluma Specific documents and materials currently required
Plan coild;adverselyaffecL-the valued visual for the City's SPARC review process, visual
character'of the Rivertront Warehouse District; simulations and/or shadow analysis shall be
including possible replacement of:existing required where significant.new buildings or
visually distinctive warehouse;structures, changes in land uses are proposed within
introductidn iif incompatible new building this subarea.
scales and parking facilities and possible
disrujifion of valued existing views to the river Also, implement Mitigation 9=1, adding the
and surrounding landscape. This possible recommended design approach specifically
effect represents a potentiallysignificapt identified for Area 11 in Chapter 4 ofthe
impact. Draft Central Petaluma SpecificPlan to the
current SPARC Design Guidelines in order
to specifically address the need'to protect
and enhance the unique visual`characterof
this subarea and faster a visually coherent
district;of buildings, streets and open spaces '
in the subarea.
In adddion, the SPARC Design Guidelines
should be amended to incorporate the
following Specific Plan-identified urban
design objectives:
.First Street should be improved' as a '
landscaped corridor; with limited curb
nuts in order to create a continudy of
street'tree!landscaping and streetscape
elements. Perpendicularordiagonal
parkingshould`be encouraged on one
side of the street, until'such time that
the rail tracks are in active use.
Surface parking lots should be
landscaped. to achieve a 50 percent
canopy coverage of paved area's at
.maturity.
Surface parkinglots should be limited in
size along the river side of First Street.
.Building forms and :landscape styles
should recall the diverse and eclectic '
characteroftFiissubafea. This would
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
M
N
a>
bA
ca
P.
U
z
~t
O
cn
O
O
N
O
z
0
ai
Page 17 May 30, 2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT,633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE. Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(COND,ITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
result in a variety of differentbuilding
materiafs,;from wood fume buildings bf.
a fine Victorian scale ahd detail to boltl'
forms and sheet metal wa~ehoiises
along the.nVerfront. While the richness
of local building traditions should be
reflected, innovations in building
technologies and design are
encouraged to achieve greater
efficiency and foster cre'ativdy.
Along ahe river, structures should
. emulate forms remihiscen4 of the
existing river warehouses:, Large-
volume buildings. should be encouraged
witFi `repeating roof, patterns and a tigfit-
knit pattern along"tFie fiver edge. Front
yard setbacks should be discouraged, '
except to accommodate continuous
landscaping along the street and a
continuous walkway. along the. river.
Adoption and effective implementation of
these design standards and guidelines will
reduce this impact to.a (ess-than-
significant level.
Impact'9-5: Lower Reach Subarea Visual Mitigation 9-5; Specific Plan-facilitated City Revise SPARC City Revise SPARE
Impacts:. Ircthe Lower Reach subarea, developmenfalong the; MCNear Channel in Design Guidelines Design
Specific Plan-facilitated development and the'LowerReach subarea,5fiall be"subject as indicated ih Guidelines
intensificatidn could adversely affect tFie'visual to stringent de sign :review by the City'sSite Mitigation 9-2. subsequent to
envi~onm"grit-of existing-and proposed park .Plan and: Architectural Review Commission Specific Plan
uses on the McNearPeninsula. This possible. (SPAf26,), based on: (i)~ihe current SPARC Fiilly consider adoption.
effecirepreserifs a poten.tiallysignificant Design Guidelines, and (2) an amendment during development
impact. to the currentSPAR'C Design-Guidelines o ~ '.review (incl. design F-ully consider
incorporate the following;adtltional review) process for these revised
guidelines specifically ident'rfied in the individual SPARC'
Community Design element of the proposed 'development Guiiielines
draft Central,Petaluma Specific. Plan: applications. ~ during:
development
Draft Specific Plan Community Design rey,iew (incl.
Policy 4. f Provide for a major band ot` des_ign review.)
waterfront open space. (in the Lower for;fufu}e
Reach subarea). individual
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= Cityof Petaluma
N
a>
taA
a
U
z
V
O
cn
0
0
N
O
z
0
(x
Page 18 May 30, 2003 WP9~016331FEIRI'A%fINCHT.fi33
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
Draft Specific Plan Community Design development
Policy 4.2: Establish a continuous applications.
circuit of open space.
• Draft Specific Plan Community Design
Policy 4.3: Establish a linear open
space corridor adjacent to the rail
tracks.
Adoption and effective implementation of
these design standards would mitigate this
impact to a.less-than-significant level.
NOISE
Impact 1:0-t,; Exposure of Future Attached. Mitigation 1Q-1't Require all SpecificPian- City and Fully consider City During final.
Residehtial'USes to Environmehtal Noise. facilitated attached re sidential'projects individual acoustical development
Buildout uhderthe,proposed Specific Plan proposed for locations:adjacert':to major project assessment results review (incl.
land. use,policiesamay result in exposure of centra(area roadways (i. e., Petaluma applicants and associated design review)
existing and/or new Specific Plan area Boulevard, Lakeville Street, East project design phase.
residents°to envi,~pnmental, roadway and. Washington+Sfreet; and D Street) or a)dng measures.
railroad noise levels ;considered greater than the NWP railroad corridor to prepare ah
"condition ally acceptable" or "normally acdustical assessmenf by a qualified
acceptable!' under-existing City' standards., a acoustical consultaht,.and require.
condition that woiiltl:be corsidered a implementation of recommended measures
potentially significant impact: necessary to comply with City of Petaluma
and state~noise,standards. Any attached
residential developments would be subject
to.the requiremerits;set`forth in Title 24, Part'
ILof the.State Building Code. Tfie,State
.Building"Code requires that he design for
the multi'-family building must include the
noise control treatments necessary to
reduce enyironmenfalnoise to an L,~ of 45
dBA or less inside habitable rooms within
these projects. 'The acoustical report;
indluding warranted noise abatement
specifications, shalt be submitted algng with
the Building Plans during the Building. Permit
process. Noise contrdl treatments that
would normally b"egsuffcient;given`ttie
identified Ievels:ofSpecific Plan area noise
exposures iriclude.sound-ratedwindiiws
and doors, and forced-air mechanical
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
rat
a~
bA
a
v~
U
z
O
i
crt
0
0
cV
0
z
O
a~i
~r
Page 19 May 30,.2003 WP9:016331FElRIMMCF1T.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE ImpL Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
ventilation (or air coriddioning) so windows
may be kept closed at the discretion of the
building occupants. Implementation ofahese
measures would reduce the potential for
impacts to new attached residential
development due to noise and land use '
incompatibilities to.a less-than-significant
level.
Impact 10=2:• Specific Plan-Facilitated Mitigation 10-2. Require proponents of
Construction Noise. Construction activities
_. discretionary private developments
can generatebonsiderable noise levels. (including pudding demolition, grading;.
Central Area,cdnstruction activities fadilitated building modification and rehabilitation, new
by the Specific~Pian.could include site grading building construction and other construction
and preparation, building demolition, building activities) and public construction prdjects in
modification and rehabilitation, construction of She Specific Plan area to implement the.
newbuildings; installation of; utilities, the following mitigatidn measures during the
paying of roadway§; and construction of .construction period:
parking structures. The noise effects of`these
future construction activities would depend (1) Construction Scheduling. Limit noise- Applicants Require as City Require with final
updn the amount of activity, the'type of generating construdtion activities td condition of final approval
construction equipment used,.and the noise daytime, weekday Hours (7:00 AM'to approval for (condition of final
control-measures utilized. Typical maximum 6:00 PM), and 9:OO.AM to 5:00 PM;on individual approval for
noise levels at busy construction sites range weekends and holidays. development individual
from 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet projects development
from the source. These noise levels drop-off (2) Construction Equipment Mufflers and Applicants City projects). '
at a rate ofabout 6 dBA:per doubling of Maintenance. Properly muffle and
distance between the source and receiver. maintain all construction equipment
Residential and other ndi§e-sensitive uses powered'by internal combustion
located adjacent toproject-facilitated engines.
construction activities could therefore be
exposed`to noise;leyels thafwould interfere (3) Idling.Prohibtions. ,Prohibit Applicants .City
with normal activities. This would constitute a unnecessary idling of internaJ_ '
potentially'significant,impact; combustion engines.
(4') Eq"uipmenfLocations and Shielding. Applicants City
Locate all stationary noise-generating
construction,equipment, such as air
compressors, as;far as practical from
existing. nearby noise-sensitive .
receptors. Typically this would'be near '
the center of ttie site and behind
existing buildings wherever possible so
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
N
a~
oq
a
rri
U
z
O
M
O
0
N
O
z
0
ai
Q
W
Page:20 May 30,2003 WP9.016331FEIRIMMCH.T.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type.. of Impl. Monitoring and• Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
that the buildings can act;as noise
barriers to'stiield such equipment.
(5) QuiefEquipmenfSelection. Select .Applicants City
quiet construction equipment,
particularly air compressors, whenever
possible. (Fit motorized equipment with
proper mufflers ih good working order.)
• (6) Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Applicants City ,
' Designate a project construction
supervisor as "Noise Disturbance
Coordinator" w,ho would be responsible
for respdntling:to ariylocal complaints
atSout`constniction noise. Thee
D isfii~rba nc a C'oo rd i h atd r w ou ld
determine the cause-ofthe noise
comp'laint(e.g., starting,foo early, bad'
muffler) and ihstiEute reasonable
measures 4o correct fhe problem.
Conspicuously post atelephone
number for the'Disturbance Coordinator
at the constructon site and submit the
name:and telephone number pf he
Disturbance Coordinatorto the Gityof
Petaluma building divisan:and police
deparfinent> '
(7) Notification: Notify nearby residents City Standard City City Priorto final City
.(within 300'feet) in writing.of the notification action.
demolition and construction schedule. process.
.Implementation of';these measures will
reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
A'IR QUALITY
Impact 11 -1: Construction-Related Air Mitigation 11-7: Forall discretionary City'and .Require as City Require with final
Quality Impacts. Construction adtivities grading,:demdlitiori, or constriction activity applicants condition offinat: approval
permitted and/orfacilitated bythe proposed. in the Specific Plan ;area,•regiire approval for (condition of final
SpecificPlan>would generate construction implementation of-the following-,dust control individual approval{or
period exhaust emissions and fugitive dust ':measures by*construction contractors, development individual
that could noticeablyaffect;.local air quality. where applicable,-during all construction projects development '
Legends Applicant =individual project applicants, City= City of,,Petaluma
t~
N
a~
an
a
V]
U
z
~t
O
i
M
O
0
N
0
z
0
P;
Page 21 May 30, 2003 WP 9:016331FEIRIMMCHTc633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl.. Type. of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Yerification~Entity Requirements
This would represent a potentially phases: projects).
significant impact. ,
• Water all active construction areas at
least twice daily.
Pave, apply-water threeiimes daily, or
apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads,.parkingareas
and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with watersweepers) all
paved ,access roads, parkirig areas and
staging:a~eas atcohstruction'sites.
• Sweep<streets daily (with .water
sweepers) if visible soil material is '
,carried onto adjacent public streets.
Hydroseed orapply (nontoxic) soil -
stabil¢erssto iriactive construction
a reas,(previously graded areas inactive.
for ten days or more):
. _ Enclose; cover, water twice daily or
apply(nontozic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (digit, sand, etc.).
• Limit.traffid speeds on unpavetl roatls
to 15 mph.
• Install sandbags; or other erosion
control measures,to preyeritsilt runoff
topublic roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas _
as quickly as pgssible.
Implementation'of these measures would.
reduce the impact-of the project to a'less-
than-sighificant'level.
Impact 11.2: Long-Term. Regional Mitigation 11-2: Apply the following City Apply where City Require where
Emissions Increases. Future traffic emissions co ntro(strategies where applicable in form applicable with
increases under the "with Specific Plan" applicable to Specific Plan-facilitated of conditions of final- fihal approval.
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
00
N
a~
bA
ctY
a
U
z
0
M
O
O
N
O
z
0
P~.
Q
W
Bage'22 May 30, 2003 lNP9.016331FElRIMMCHT,633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type.of Impl. 'Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action 'Verification Entity Requirements
scenario would generate .regional emissions discretionary residential and approval.
increases w,hichwould exceed the applicable commercial/industrial development activities
thresholds of significance forYeactive organic within the Specific Plan area in order to
gases (ROG), nitrous oxide (NOZ) and. reduce overall traffic generation:
particulate (PM,o). This effect is considered to -
be a significantproject and cumulative Where practical, future-development
impact. proposals shall include physical '
improvements, such as sidewalk
improvements, landscaping and the
installation of bus shelters and bicycle
parking, thatwould act-as incentives for
pedestrian, bicycle and transitmodes of
travel.
• New•or modified roadways should
include bicycle lanes where reasonable
and feasible.
• Where ,practical, employment-intensive
development proposals (office; retail,
manufacturing) shall ,include measures
to en courage use of public tra'iisit,
rideshaiing, van pooling, use of
bicycles, and walking as welllas to
mnimze_single passengermotor
vehicle use.
• Office land uses would generate the
majority of'total project=Trips and home-
to-work commute trips thafare:most
amenable to Transportation Systems
Mansgement(TSM)strategies: As a
condition of approval, all office
development projects within the
Specific Plan area of 10,000 square
feet (approximately 25 employees) or
greater shalPimplementa
Transportation Systems Management
" (T$M) program, including vehicle use'
reduction strategigs such as tFie
following:
- Secure and weather-protected bicycle
parking for employees,
Legend:, Applicant = individual project applicants, City= City of Petaluma
a1
N
a~
bA
v]
U
Z
O
M
0
O
cv
O
z
a
a~i
CL~
Page 23 May 30, 2003 WP 9: 016331FEIRIMMCH;T:633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. 'Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITIpN'OF'A'FPROYAL) Entity Action. Verification Entity Reggirements
- - Preferential parking for carpoollvanpool
vehicles,
- Parking cash-out program for
employees (nondriving employees
receiJe ttanspottation allowance.
equivalent to the. value,of subsidized
parking), and/or
- Shower and' locker provisions for
employees bicycling or walking to work.
• Adopt policies and .programs-that-will
implement "smart;growth" sttafegies of
the Smart Growth 'Strategy/Regional -
Livability Footprint Project`bejng
developed by the Associatioh:of Bay
Area Govetnmentsand otfier~egional
agericies.
Implementation of these measures would
assist in reducing the project-related and
cumulative impacts on long-term regiorial
ROG, NO, and PM,o emissions levels, but
'may not reduce this impact to:aless than
significantlevel., Since no other feasible
- measures are avai{atile,iherprojedtond'
cumulative effects on ROG„NOZ and PM,o
emissions levels would represent a
significant unavoidable impact:
STORIIi1.D'RAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL,
AIJD `.WATER ,QUALITY
Itnpact12-4: Erosion, Sedimentation and Mitigation,12-1': Requite the applicantfot .City and Apply where City Requite.,where -
lJrtian Runoff'Pollufants. As„a tesult of each future Specific Plan-fadilitated applicants applicable ih form applicable with
Spedific Plan-facilita'fed additional urban disdretionary developrnent o,comply where 6f conditions. of final 'final approval:
developmenf'in the proposed Specifc Plan apglicable:with all state, regional end City.' approval.
area, soil disturbance-associa_ted with grading water quality.proyisions and where required
activities during cpnstruction, urban pollutants under adopted~$an,Francisco B'ay Regional
generated from new impervious surfaces, Water Quality ContYol Board,(RWQC,B)
incteased vefiicularuse, and possible regulations: (a),file:withthe RWQCB a -
increases in herbicide, pesticide., and fertilize[ Notice of.lntent fo comply with tFie -
Legend: Applicant=individual project applicants, City=City of Petaluma
O
M
GJ
bA
a
to
U
z
a
i
M
O
O
N
O
z
0
Q
,.o
W
Page 2'4 May 30,.2003 lNP9.016331FElRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITIgN'OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification Entity Requirements
use (landsdaping) could combine to Statewide General Permitfor Construction
significanty degrade the quality,of Petaluma Activities, (b) prepare and,implement.a
River receiving waters. This combihation of project-specific Stomiwater Pollution
factors represents a potentially significant Prevention Plan (including an erosion
impact. control plan)ifgrading ts'invdlved,
(c) implement a' monitoring, inspection, and
documentation program to assure the
effectiveness=ofcontrol measures,.{d) obtain
or comply with existing General Stonnwater
Discharge Permd(s) for Industrial Activities,
where applicable, and (e) comply with the
NPD ES Phase. II Non-Pdint'Discharge
program. Implementation of these
requiremeritswduld reduce tfiis impact to a
less-than-significant-level:
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Impact 13-1: Ground Settlement Impacts. Mitigation 13'-1: Require and review City and Apply where .City Require where
New settlement may occur'if,additional.fill geoldgic reports prior to decisions on any applicants applicable in form applicable with
and/or'buildings loads are added to areas with SpecificPlan-related discretionary of conditionsof final final approval.
fill over Bay mud, This possible-Specific Plan- developmentof improvements. in the approval.
facilitated effect represents a potentially Specific Plan area which may subject
significant impact. persons or property toasignificant ground
settlement and/oreaYthquake-induced
ground failure risk. The geologic report shall
describe poteritial,hazardsavd identify
engineering s,pecificationsnecessary to
reduce all ground failure risks to an
acceptable level: Where appropriate,
require a.geotechnical engineer or
' engineering'geologist's certification that
ground failure risks have 6eern.reduced to
an acceptable level. Implementation of'this
measure would reduce the-impact o a less-
than-significant level.
Impact 1,3-2: Earthquake;lnduced Ground Mitigation 132: Implement: Mitigation 13-1. City and .Apply where City Require where
Failure Impacts. L'igiiefaction.of loose, Implementation•of'this measure would applicants applicable in form applicable with
saturated; cohesionless soil.caused by ground reduce tfie impact to a less-than- of conditions of'final final approval.
shaking could cause settlemerifrand loss of significant level. approval.
strength,.and lateral spreading could occur
near the river or the channel, resulting ih
Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City = City of Petaluma
M
a~
Cq
a
v~
U
z
O
i
m
O
O
N
O
z
O
ai
~i
d
W
Page 25 May 30, 2003 ~ WP 9:016331FEIRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED:MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of Impl. Monitoring and Timing Signature Date
(CONDITLO,N OF APPROVAL) Entity Action. Verification Entity, Requirements
damage to project related .improvements. This
is a potentially significant impact.
Impact 18-3: Riverbank Erosion. Erosidn of Mitigation 13-3: Implement Mitigation 13-1. City and. Apply where City Require where
the riverbanks°could occur where the slopes Implementation of this me asuPe would applicants applicable in form applicable with
are not protected by properly designed and reduce ttie impact to a less-than- of conditions of final fihal approval.
installed rip-.Pap and/or slope.. protection, significant level. approval.
resulting ih. possible damage to Specific Plan-
facilitated improvements. This possibility
represents a,potentially significant impact.
Impact'13-4 `. Expansive Soil Impacts. The Mitigation 13-4: Require and review City and Apply where City Require where
existing fill may be expansive. Expansive geologic reports prior to decisions on any applicants applicable inform applicable with
soils shrink .and swell witFrchange in moisture Specific.Plan-facilitated discretionary of conditions of`final final approval.
content. This phenomenon could cause developmenfor improvements in the approval:
settlement and/or Heaving thaYmay clack floor Specific Plan area that may subject property
slabs, sidewalks and lightly loaded structures. to significant stiYink-swell (expansive soil)
This is a potentially significant impact. induced damage. Tfie geotechnical report
.shall describe the potential for expansive
soil hazards and identifydhe engineering
specifications necessary'to reduce
expansive soil impacts to an acceptable
level; where appropriate, require
geotechnical erigineer or engineering
geologists certification that expansive soil
risks have been adequately Deduced td an
acceptable level: The identified engineering
measures could include, but,are noTlimi4ed
to:, removalrof the material, lime treatment of
the expansi4eaoil, expansive soil, capping
the,ezpahsive.soil'with nonezpansive,
thickened ahd/oP post terisioned floorslabs, ,
and deepened foundationsvthat gaihaupport
before the expansive soil orcut off'the
movement of moisture below buildings.
Implementation of'fhis measure would
reduce the impact to a less-than-
significantlevel.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact t5-1: Loss of He-Rage and/or Mitigation 15-1 i PPior to or as a condition City and Apply where City Require where
Landmark Trees. New developmerit of-fihalization of plans foP indi4.idual, applicants applicable inform applicable with
.consistent with the proposed Specific Plan discPetionary development projects along of conditions of final final approval.
:Legend: Applicant= individual project applicants, City=^City of Petaluma
N
M
a~
on
c~
a
U
z
d'
O_
M
O
O
N
O
z
0
a~'i
C~,
d
W
Page 26 May 30~ 2003 lNP9.016331FElRIMMCNT..633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoring anti` Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL), Entity Action. Venfication Entity Requirements
may resulfin the removal of city ,designated Copeland'Street that may impact one or- approval.
heritage and/or landmark trees.. This more of the five landmark eucalyptus trees
possibility represents a potentially along Copeland Street, a detailed
significant impact. assessment of the trees shall be conducted
by a certified arborist to determine their
appropriateness for preservation and any
hazard they may pose to humans. The
assessment shall specify development
setbacks, and methods to reduce4he
hazard of limb drop should be-defined, if the
trees are considered suitable far
preservation. If'it is determihed that the
'frees pose oo gteat a tli~eat'to Human
safety, apermit-for their removaLshall be ~ -
obtaineii pursuant to Section 8:28.100<of the
Heritage and,Landmark Trees Ordinance of
the City.
Impact 15-2: Loss: of Special'Status,PlanC Mitigation 15-2: If'disturbance to suitable City and Apply where ,City Require where '
Species. New development consistent:witli habitat is.:proposed as pa~,fof an individual applicants applicable in form applicable with
the proposed Specific Plan, on or withih.50 develdpmenfor improvement projectwithin of conditions of final final approval.
feet of the banks of the Petaluma River, may the.Specific Plan area and within 50 feef.of approval.
resulfin a substantial adverse effect, either the banks ofthe Petaluma River, systematic
directly+orindirectly, through habitat surveys,shall be conducted priorto
modification, on one or more special'status, finalization of such projects ih order to
species. Tfiis'possibilityis considered to be a determine definitively whether any special-
potentially significant impact. status plaht,species occur on the affected
banks of thecPetaluma River. Such surveys
shall tie conducted bya qualified botanist
• fol~owing;;applicable guidelines of the •
California Department'of Fish and Game •
and/or U.S'. Fishand Wildlife Service to
provides'conclusive determination on.
presenceior absence. If any ,populations
with legal^protective status are encountered,
an,appropriate mitigation plan shall be
dev_,eloped in consultation with, and meeting
the: mitigation crReria df, these jurisdictional
agencies.
Implementation of this measure would
• ensurg,protecton of possible populations of .
River-related special-status plant species in
Legend: Applicant=individual project applicants,-.City=City of Petaluma
M
M
on
a
C/]
U
z
O
i
M
O
O
(V
O
z
O
N
~i
Q
.~
W
Page 27 May 30,-2003. WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT.633
MONITORING VERIFICATION
IDENTIFIED IMPACT RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Impl. Type of lm pl. Monitoringfand Timing Signature Date
(CONDITION OF APPROVAL) Entity Action Verification.'Entity Requirements
the.Spedific Plan Area, mitigating potential
impacts to aless-than-signHicantlevel.
Impact 15-3: JurisdictionaLWetland Mitigation 15-3: Alldevelopment which City and Apply where City Require where
Impacts. Specific,Plan-facilitated would irivolve modificatioris to potential applicants applicable in form applicable with
development consistent with the proposed wetlands and other waters of the U.S., of conditions of final. final approval.
Specific;Plan could affect potential including the banks of the Petaluma River, approval.
jurisdictional wetland-habitat. This possibility the Pomeroy property and the McNear
represents a potentially significant impact. Peninsula, shall be coordinated with
representatives of the .California Department
of Fish and Game and the U:S.,Army Corps '
of. Engiheers, as required by federal and
state law, to ensure thafany'required
mitigation protocols and. associated
individual project design modifications are
incorporated into proposed improvement
plans during the iriitjal stages ofproject
review. Implementation.of this measure will
ensure that potential impacts on wetland
resources are minimized, and this potential
impact is reduced to.a less-than-
significant level.
Cegentl: Applicant= individual project applicants, City= City ofPetaluma
v
M
by
~4
U
z
O
M
O
O
N
O
N
f~i
W
Page 28 May 30, 200,3 ~ WP9.016331FEIRIMMCHT.633