HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 2/3/2014 4g-enact/ Ite vw#5 .A
`SALtt
Z85e
DATE: February 3, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor.and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Riverfront Mixed-Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
• Receive public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
• Provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
• Direct staff to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
CEQA OVERVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a system of checks and balances that
informs land use development and management decisions in California. All development permit
applications subject to public agency discretionary action require environmental review under
CEQA. An environmental impact report (EIR) is a detailed report'prepared pursuant to CEQA
that analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, identifies alternatives,
and discusses ways to reduce or avoid possible significant environmental impacts.
Pursuant to the City's Environmental Review Guidelines, all projects requiring an EIR shall be
referred to the- City Council for certification of the adequacy of the EIR and a final
determination. The Planning Commission shall first consider the draft EIR and any comments
received and may make'recommendations to the City Council on the adequacy of the EIR and
the appropriate findings. The City Council may request additional information or clarification
prior to or concurrent with their recommendations. Prior_to'.a decision on the project, the City
Council shall certify the adequacy of Final EIR by resolution.
BACKGROUND
The Riverfront site has been the subject of several development applications since 2001..Past
development scenarios,attempted to address the limited,street access by providing additional
access by way'of a new southern crossing bridge over the Petaluma River. Ultimately, these
Agenda Revie
City Attorney Finance Finance Director City Mana &
development plans were financially infeasible due to the:expected'cost of the bridge, which is
estimated to cost between $40 and $60 million. A subsequent development application for
predominately residential land uses did not gain staff support; as it did not provide for a
sufficient mix of uses or public amenities on the site,,and was eventually withdrawn. The current
proposal is the result of discussions with staff about the mix and'intensity of uses that were
considered consistent with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and addressed the constraints of
the site in terms of access and location.
Final approval of the existing at-grade railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane near Hopper Street
was an important step for the proposed project. The City Council certified the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for permanent PUC approval of the Caulfield Lane
crossing on December 19, 2011. The PUC provided final approval of the Caulfield Lane crossing
on July 11, 2013.
The Riverfront project had been under preliminary planning review since 2009 with a formal
application filed on February 8, 2011. The Tentative Map application for the project was deemed
complete in February 2013. The project has been designed utilizing the current Urban Standards
for Zones T-4, T-5 and T-6 from the existing 2003 SmartCode. A new Station Area Master Plan
and a Revised SmartCode were-adopted by the City Council on June 17, 2013. Because the
Tentative Subdivision Map was deemed complete prior to-the June 2013 adoption of the Revised
SmartCode and pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act Section 66474.2(c), the Tentative
Subdivision Map will continue to be processed under the 2003 SmartCode.
On June 17, 2013 the City Council approved revisions to the SmartCode, which were approved
in the second reading on July 1, 2013 and went into effect on July 3.1, 2013. At the June 17th
hearing,,the City Council approved language providing a hybrid approach to the existing and
amended SmartCodes for the Riverfront Project as Section 2 below:
Section 2. Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Amended Smart Code; provided.
however; that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Amended Smart Code, Section 4 of
the Amended SmartCode, entitled Urban Standards, will not apply to applications for projects
within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area that are subject to the Subdivision Map Act
(California Government Code §66410 and following) and that are complete pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act prior to the effective date of the Amended Smart Code, until the earlier of:
six(6) years following the effective date of the Amended Smart Code, or until all buildings of
such projects that require certificates of occupancy are completed and issued,certificates of
occupancy. All other applications for projects within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan will be
subject to all provisions in the Amended Smart Code upon the effective date of the Amended
Smart Code, subject to applicable law.
The above provision is limited to the Riverfront Project as currently proposed, as it is the only
complete applicationwithin the plan area. If the subdivision map is not approved, or the project
is not built out within six years of adoption of the Amended SmartCode, any future project
proposal at this location will be processed under the Amended SmartCode.
The City Council reviewed the Fiscal and'Economic Impact Analysis for the Riverfront project
on May 6, 2013. The FEI'A demonstrates that the project would have a net positive fiscal impact
to the City. Assuming full build out, the net fiscal impact is estimated to be a total annual
increase of$616,000 for combined fund revenues.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to provide comments and receive public
testimony on the DEIR on January 14, 2014. A general consensus of the Commission had the
following comments on the DEIR:
• Provide a more detailed acoustical analysis with additional detail on the noise modeling
that was conducted including the timing of noise monitoring and the locations (mid-day
in 2005 sufficient to•capture.peak hour and height of measurements given that new
structures will be two'stories) and identify the specific noise attenuation measures that
will be used to achieve interior noise standards onsite, including specifically the
townhomes in the northeast. Commissioners expressed a desire to clearly understand how
mitigation measures such as limits on windows or requirement for inoperable windows
may impact architectural design later in the process;
• The noise attenuation measures should be explicit about their level of performance;
• Loss of wetlands should be mitigated onsite through the creation of additional wetland as
part of the River Park Element;
• Expand discussion about Sea Level Rise and the potential affects to the project site due to
proximity to the Petaluma River; and
• Consider the effects of sea level:rise such as intrusion of groundwater and any changes to
underlying geology from elevated groundwater levels.
Additional comments from individual Commissioners include the following:
• Explore energy improvements to reduce impacts associated with Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Expand discussion on regional connectivity for non-vehicle modes of transit to ensure
adequate and safe pathways for pedestrians and cyclists;
• Consider looking at a different alternative scenario to move townhomes and leave playing
field in place;
• Clarify the project's use of groundwater and water resources; and
• Restrict,hours of construction, specifically the 7:00 am start time, to limit impacts on
residential uses.
Oral comments were received.from four members of the general public at the hearing. All of the
public speakers were associated with the construction workers unions and each expressed
concerns about the adequacy of the DEIR. Specific issues identified by the commenters included.
exposure to hazardous materials onsite during construction, proper protection to worker health,
sea level rise, appropriate payment of traffic impacts fees, bay mud and liquefaction risks, and
parking capacity. Concern was also expressed regarding the need for more detailed analysis on
the design of the boathouse.
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists.of a mixed-use•development on an approximately 35.7-acre site (39.5 acres
included the Riverfront Park). As proposed, a total of 18.81 acres will be developed with a mix
of residential,hotel, commercial and office uses, with approximately 12.87 acres for right-of-
way dedication and 3.97 acresrfor'civicspaces. The project proposes future development of a
mix of residential and commercial land uses, including 90,000 square feet of commercial space
(30,000 square feet of retail and 60,000 square feet of office), a 120-room hotel, approximately
4.0 acres of parks, a system of multi-use trails and the dedication of a parcel to the City for the
Petaluma Small Craft Center for the development of a community boathouse adjacent to the
Petaluma River. The proposed residential uses include 134 single-family residential lots, 39
townhomes, including 4 live/work ants, and up to 100 rental apartment on the second and third
floor of the mixed use buildings surrounding the central green. Thus, the proposed project would
allow for a maximum project build out of 273 residential units. Please also see Figure 1-3,
Proposed Land Uses on page 7-3 of the DEIR.
Land Uses
Detached single-family residential lots would occupy the majority of the southern portion of the
site adjacent to the Petaluma River. Medium-density townhome development would be located
in the northeastern corner of the site. The hotel and office complex would be located in the
northwestern portion of the site, and would be separated,from the single-family residential area
by an active park and sports-field. lathe central portion of the site, a Central Green urban park
would be encircled by.mixed uses•(commercial and apartments) and project streets. A parcel in
the southeast corner of the site"will.be dedicated to the City for the Petaluma Small Craft Center
(PSCC) for construction of a community boathouse for small craft access to the Petaluma River.
The single-family lots average approximately 4,000 square feet and are arranged in a grid pattern
including a frontage street adjacent to the Petaluma River. The single-family homes would range
from approximately 1,200 to:2,300 square feet, with an estimated average unit size of 1,790
square.feet. The townhouse lots"would be served by an internal street that connects to the single-
familydevelopment.
Commercial and residential mixed-use development would be located on approximately 1.18-
acre"in the centralportion of the site with 30,000 square feet of ground floor retail space and 100
apartment:units located on the second and third floors. The retail component would consist of a
mix of neighborhood serving commercial opportunities.
Open space and community areas would consist of a 98,916 square foot (2.27 acres) active park
with a sports field and a 16,448 square foot "Central Green"passive park space encircled by the
access streets to the commercial and residential mixed use component. The active park would be
located between the single-family development and the hotel and office complex and a multi-use
trail would be located along the perimeter of the property.
Offsite Improvements
The project also:ihcludes two offsite improvements: 1) Riverfront Park; and 2) D-Street to
Hopper connector for EVA and Public Access. The adjacent state-owned property along the
•
1
Petaluma River will be developed into an,approximately3:5-acre passive Riverfront Park. The
park includes a walking trail, outlooks and landscaping improvements, including planting of
additional riparian trees. The'-preliminary.plan includes preservation of existing trees on the
future riverfront park parcel and plantings of additional,riparian,trees to enhance the area. The
street grid also includes a frail system running along the project's frontage with the SMART Rail
Line and leading from Hopper Street around both the eastern and western boundaries of the site
to the proposed Riverfront trail.
Site Access and Circulation
Access to the project would be provided from Hopper Street via Caulfield Land, with secondary
access off of D Street. Hopper.Street will be widened at the project entrance to accommodate
entrance features and aright turn out of the site onto Caulfield Lane. Internally, the primary
north-south road would be a segment of the planned extension of Caulfield Lane through the
project site and ultimately;to Petaluma Boulevard South, located south of the Petaluma River.
On-street parallel parking is proposed along both sides of all internal streets except for the alleys
behind the retail-residential mixed use area, between the Central Green and river road, and the
EVA street along the western property boundary. A 1.75 acre parking lot is proposed to be sited
west of the hotel and office buildings and will provide adequate:parking for the hotel, office,
active sports park and retail components. A total of 1,267 vehicular parking spaces and 150
bicycle parking spaces are proposed throughout the site, with bike parking located near each of
the proposed buildings.
An offsite emergency access route will be provided from Hopper'Street to a new EVA that enters
the project site from the west, south of the City owned property. The EVA consists of
improvements along Hopper Street and a joint EVA and public access point off of D Street
connecting two-way traffic to Hopper Street.
Entitlements
The project proposes a Master'Site Plan and Architectural Review'(MSPAR) for the entire
project site and future individual site-specific.SPAR for each phase of development. MSPAR
includes design and site layout regulations and guidelines intended to apply to all future
development on the project site. The MSPAR provides,an umbrella approach to capture all
warrants and ensures integrity and overall consistency among all the future phases of
development. The Applicant has provided a conceptual site plan that depicts potential structural
layouts and some architectural renderings for illustrative purposes in order to conceptually
illustrate the architectural styles and desired level of detail the Applicant intends to propose at
the future SPAR process for each phase.
To implement the Conceptual Area Boundary, a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA)is required
that would provide the actual zoning designations for the proposed zoning.districts. The zoning
designations selected for this project are very similar to the conceptual designations within the
CPSP and include General Urban (T-4), Urban Center(T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space
(C-S).
The Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to create 144 lots and four parcels. The four parcels
include an active park, central green, public path and a parcel dedicated to the City for future
5
development of a boathouse. The public path:consists:of an approximate 10-foot- wide, Class I
multi-use path around the perimeter of the site that would connect to other planned paths in the
project vicinity as forth in the City's Bicycle andPedestrianPlan (2008) and the.Petaluma.
River Access and Enhancement Plan,(1996). The 134-single-family homes will be on individual
lots; the townhoines will be on 3 lots. The remaining 7"lots will include the commercial, office,
hotel and apartment uses.
Project Phasing
The Tentative Map proposes development in eight phases: The plans do not specify a phasing
order or timeframe, rather according to the project applicant, will occur in response to market
conditions. City regulations require that all subdivision improvements within each phase be
completed. The site is expected to build out within six years. Mass site grading will occur at the
onset of construction to facilitate subsequent development phases. Accordingly, each phase will
require subsequent fine site grading, thereby limiting active ground disturbance to the phase
under construction. Infrastructure wilt be installed in a manner that provides adequate service to
the phase being constructed, and with the intent to serve the entire project area. That is, water
and sewer pipelines and otheninfrastructure will be sized appropriately to accommodate ultimate
build out. Following mass site grading a soil stabilizer will be applied to inactive portions of the
project site in order to ensure that dust and erosion are minimized.In addition, an erosion control
plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared that set forth specific best
management practices that protect the adjacent Petaluma River during the phased development
period.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the Riverfront
Mixed Use project in June 2013 and-circulated for a 30-day public review period from June 6
through July 5, 2013. The review period was extended to July 25, 2013 upon consideration of a
public request for extension. The IS/MND came before the Planning Commission on July 9,
2013, was continued to the August 13, 2013 meeting and subsequently continued to a date
uncertain to allow time for staff to review and respond to public comments. At the close of the
public review period, the City:reviewed all comments received on the IS/MND and determined
that an EIR would be prepared to address potentially significant impacts.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an
EIR was to be prepared for the project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to
responsible and/or trustee state agencies. After receiving the NOP, these agencies had 30 days to
comment on how, in terms,of scope and content, the DEIR,should treat environmental
information related to the agency's statutory responsibilities.
The Notice of Preparation is in Exhibit B of the EIR,and was circulated on September 17, 2013.
The close of the NOP comment period was marked by a Public Scoping Meeting, which was
held on October 29`h, 2013. Comments on the NOP were received from the California
Department of Transportation(C'altrans), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
and the State Lands Commission (SLC). All comment letters received on the NOP are included
as Appendix B to the DEIR.
Purpose
An EIR is a disclosure document. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that the public and decision
makers are aware of the environmental consequences of an intended action. The jurisdiction is
required to mitigate significant impacts where feasible, but may still approve a project with
significant impacts if it finds specific overriding considerations supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
Once a DEIR is prepared, it must be routed through the State Clearinghouse to all responsible
and/or trustee agencies. The agencies have 45 calendar days in which to comment on the DEIR.
At the same time the DEIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse, the public must be notified that the
DEIR is available for review:
A notice of completion and availability for the Riverfront DEIR was published in the Argus
Courier on December 19th, 2013 and sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of
the subject property, as well as:interested parties, individuals who commented in response to the
NOP, the State Clearinghouse and the Sonoma County Clerk.
The purpose of the February 3,'2014 hearing is to receive input from the City Council and the
public on the adequacy and completeness of the analysis presented in the DEIR. Following close.
of the Public Review period on February 6, 2014, all written and oral comments received on the
DEIR will be compiled, and responses to those comments will be presented in the FEIR.
Process
The City Council will consider the adequacy of the DEIR in disclosing the potential impacts of
the project and identifying mitigationmeasures, and identify any changes, clarifications, or
additional information needed in:the FEIR. At the direction of Council, staff will initiate
preparation of the FEIR which incorporates the necessary revisions and responses to all
significant environmental points raised during the public review period. The FEIR and project
approvals will come before the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Tiered EIR
The Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the Riverfront Project is a second tier EIR
and tiers,off of the Program EIR that was certified forthe City of Petaluma General Plan 2025.
Based.upon.the conclusions in the Initial Study(included in Appendix A to the DEIR), the
following environmental issue areas were found to include potentially significant impacts: Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural.Resources, Geology/Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous;Materials,.Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise, and Traffic
Circulation/Transportation. As such, the DEIR is limited to those discussion impacts that were
not examined in the previous E1R forthe General Plan.
Format of the Draft EIR
The analysis of the:DEIR,is broken into the following primary sections: Project Description;
Environmental'"Setting,;Impacts, arid Mitigation Measures; and.CEQA Considerations including
growth inducement, cumulative impacts and project alternatives. The analysis includes an
overview of the existing conditions compared'with incorporation of the project and applies
thresholds of significance based on CEQA guidelines iandiother regulatory criteria to assess
whether or not the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. The
DEIR discusses levels-of significance and feasible mitigation measures to ensure that the impact
is reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The DEIR and associated.Initial Study identify several areas where the proposed project would
have a potential environmental impact. All of the impacts identified as potentially significant can
be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. These
mitigation measures have been identified in the DEIR and would be incorporated into the project
approval and carried outthrough a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and
project conditions of approval.
Environmental impacts considered to be "Less than significant with mitigation measures" were
identified in eight categories-in the DEIR. The mitigation measures identified for the project are
summarized below, following the impacts discussion for each environmental category, and will
reduce all project impacts to"a"less than significant level."
Categories of Potential Impact
Potential environmental impacts of the project were identified in the DEIR, as summarized
below. Please see the text of the-DEIR for full discussion of impacts and mitigation
measures.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
The project would result in less than significant emissions from construction activities including
grubbing, grading, site preparation, delivery of materials and vehicle/equipment use However,
fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces
is identified as:a potentially significant'impact. Implementation of mitigation measures AIR-1
and AIR-2 would reduce the construction related emissions to a less than significant level.
Given that the precise timing of development phases is unknown, there is a potential that new
on-site residents (sensitive receptors) could be present during ongoing construction activities" In
order to reduce exposure to pollutants generated during construction, measure AIR-3 requires the
development of a construction plan and implementation of exhaust reducing-measures during all
phases of construction when residences are within 200 feet of construction activities.
Due-to potential for-odor complaints from the Primary Influent Pump Station (PIPS) adjacent to
the property, measure AIR-4,requires that the applicant provide funds to replace:the soil bed
control with a mechanical odor control unit.
AIR 1 & AIR 2—Implement basic-and additional control measures to mitigate fugitive dust.
AIR 3 Implement-construction related measures to mitigate onsite exposure of sensitive
receptors to temporary pollutant concentrations.
AIR 4—The applicant shall provide reimbursement to tl tCity for upgrades to a mechanical odor
control unit at the Primary Influent Pump Station to mitigate potential'exposure.of new residents
to odors.
Biological Resources
The project's biological resources report identified eight vegetation communities, 56 plant
species and 19 wildlife species on the.project site, and indicated that the project site has been
significantly altered from its.native"state. Six special status bird species are present or have the
potential to occur within the project,site, none of which.arerstate or federally listed as endangered
or threatened. Due to the historic use of the site as a construction staging area and location for
dredged materials the majority of the site is characterized by invasive and non-native plant
species adapted to extremely:disturbed conditions. Non-sensitive vegetation communities within
the project'site include disturbed land, ruderal herbaceous stands, and non-native annual
grassland. Gravel roads, concrete;slabs, and gravel piles occupy approximately 11.2 acres, while
approximately 26.9 acres of the site are dominated by non-native species. No potential special
status plant species were identified during the site-specific field investigation conducted for the
project site.
Wetlands &Jurisdictional Waters
The project biological;assessment found that the site has been,significantly altered from its native
state and the majority of the site contains non-sensitive vegetation communities, however, four
sensitive vegetation community types(all of which qualify as wetlands or drainages under
federal and/or state'regulations);cover a total of 0.58 acres ofthe=project site. These include a
drainage ditch through the site!(0.1"6 acres), small seasonal and isolated.depressions (0.10 acres)
and a seasonal wetland swale (0.02.acre) on the project site, as well as.a seasonal wetland Swale
(0.29 acres) and coastal brackish.march-(0.01 acre) on the Riverfront Park site adjacent to the
Petaluma River. A wetland delineation of all of these wetland and'drainage features was
conducted in 2010.
The wetland delineations for the two wetland swales, seasonal wetland depressions in the
southern portion of site, and coastal brackish marsh were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) as jurisdictional under section 404 of the Clean Water Act on November 1,
2011. The seasonal wetland depressions in the northern portion of the site are considered isolated
and therefore jurisdictional only under the Porter-Cologne Act of Waters of the State.
The proposed project would result in.the conversion of 0.24 acres of seasonal wetlands to
developed land. A majority of the wetland fill would be within the drainage channel that runs
through the site (016 acre);as well as small isolated wetland features. Since wetlands are
considered sensitive habitatareas, this would be considered a significant impact. Of the 0.24
acres that will be impacted, 0.19 acres of seasonal wetland habitat is under Corps jurisdiction
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, while 0.05 (seasonal wetland depressions in northern
portion of the site) is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board under
the Clean Water Act and/or the Porter Cologne Act.
To mitigate for the impacts to 0.24 acres of seasonal wetland habitat, credits shall be purchased
from an approved mitigation'bank'at a ratio of one acre for every one acre impacted, or as
otherwise.directed by the regulatory-agencies. Due"to generalaow-quality.of the existing wetland
habitat(e.g. presence;of non-native species, disturbedbsoils,etc.) within the project site, a
mitigation ratio of ones acre'mitigated"for each acre impacted is recommended by the biologist.
According to information provided by the project biologist, the Burdell wetland mitigation bank,
located just south of Petaluma, has some credits available.
Nesting Birds
Nesting bird species may be present.onsite. Mitigation measure B10-3 would reduce the impact
to less than significant levels:
Mitigation measures BIO-1 through B1O-3 would reduce the impacts'to wetlands and nesting
birds to less than significant levels.
BIO 1 & 2—Purchase credits from an approved mitigation bank at a ratio,,of one acre for every
one acre impacted to,mitigate'for the'impacts to the 0.24 acre conversion of seasonal wetland
habitat and develop final RiyyerfrontPark design thatavoids,and,protects wetlands using best
management practices(BMP):
BIO 3 — Conduct vegetation removal`through cutting and/or grubbing between September 1 and
January 30, outside of the general,breeding bird season. Otherwise, require preparation of pre-
construction nesting bird surveys within 14 days prior to such:activities to determine the
presence and location of nesting birds:
Cultural Resources
The Central Petaluma.Specific- Plan,ElRindicates that thesorne areas, especially in the vicinity
of the Petaluma River, have a high potential for the discovery of archaeological materials (City
of Petaluma, March 2003). Assuch, a records search and review was conducted for the project
(Archaeological Resource Service, 2013). The literature search and data review indicate that the
Riverfront project area hasa?low potential for the discovery of potentially significant historic or
prehistoric cultural-resources.
The entire project area was a brackish marsh until at least the second quarter of the 20th century.
This precludes the presence of Native American cultural resources-in the area. The project area
has been filled with sods from various construction projects,dredge spoils, and other materials.
There,ist some potential that these fill-soils-contain remnants of cultural_materials from their
source""s. However,'these;transported.and.disturbed soils would not be considered:to contain
potentially significant cultural resources since they would have lost all association with their
original location and structure. Although,accidental discover of cultural resources and
encountering human remains is unlikely CUL-1 and CUL-2 provide measures to ensure that any
potential impacts to cultural resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
CUL 1 —Provides for protection of prehistoric, historical or archeological resources should any
such resources be encountered'during construction.
CUL 2—Provides for the proper treatment of human remains in the event any are uncovered
during project construction activities.
10.
Geology &'Soils,
The potential geologic;hazards identified at the project site include differential settlement and
strong seismic ground!shaking. There'is also a potential for localized liquefaction associated with
an identified channel meander(See.Figure 4.4-1 of the DEIR). The project site is underlain by
highly compressible Bay'Mud that generally increases in'thickness from north to south. The
project's grading plan limits the,thickness of new fills on deeper bay mud deposits,,except for the
area where the:future Caulfield Bridge is proposed. This localized area will require as much as
10 feet of fill in order to achieve the desired elevation for a future bridge. Under increased loads
this area could experience up,to 2 feet of settlement. Settlement of;bay mud occurs at a
• decreasing=rate over several decades; with as much as 50% ofsettlement occurring in the first 5
years. Without mitigation differential settlement any-seismic activity could result in damage to
structures,infrastructure,:roads,,and utilities'onsite. As recommended by Miller Pacific
Engineering Group the use,of deep foundations, preloading, densification methods, lightweight
fill, and use-of stiff foundations;are effective means to protect structures and infrastructure from
consolidation of bay mud. These measures are also effective is reducing impacts associated with
the localized liquefaction potential.'In order to ensure thafimprovetnents are adequately
protected from theadverseeffectso'f'soil instability, mitigation hieasures'GEO-1 through GEO-3
that implement and verify effectiveness of recommendations from the geotechnical
investigations are required and would be,sufficient to reduce the identified impacts associated
with geology and soils'to a less than significant level:
GEO I —Implement all recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigations and
conform to California Building Code regulations.
GEO 2—Implement all recommendations identificd in the geotechnical investigations including
the use-of structural foundation systems for lighter buildings,:such as,residences(mat slabs and
rigid grade beams), and deep foundations for heavier buildingst.
GE0,3,—Verify that recommend'ed•measures to address differential.settlement in thicker fill
areas are,adequate via a third party peer review of the,Geoteclmical Report.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
None of the;project land usesfor development activities, including offsite improvements, are
expected to involve,hazardous materials..No storage of chemical or hazardous materials is
anticipated. A Phase I:and Phase.II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were conducted for
the project;property in 2001 and a new Phase I was conducted in 2013.
The 2001 Phase I investigation-:found evidence of debris andFwaste at the site, river dredge
disposal materials and diesel-impacted soil stockpiles. Groundwater samples identified
heavy-end hydrocarbons and petroleuni;hydrocarbons (TPH) (motor•oil and diesel) in some of
the sampled wells, but the concentrations,were considered low. The;absence of a clear onsite
source suggests that these contaminants are reflective of general historic industrial activity in the
area rather thananonsite.source:(Icleinfelder, January 2001), Groundwater is not used for
drinking water and would not be encountered by persons occupying the site, and-therefore does
not appear to represent a°potential healtnrisk to persons living or working on the site after
development is completed. The 2013 ESA revealed no evidence of"Recognized Environmental
{
Conditions" in.connedtiorf with the/project Site. Nonetheless,-in order,to ensure that construction
workers are not exposed to potentially hazardous materials that may be'encountered during
development,of the project, mitigation measures HAZMAT-1 and HAZMAT-2 shall be
implemented, which would reduce theimpacts of hazardous materials to a less than significant
level.
HAZMAT I —Require-that the quality of the soil be reaffirmed prior to being used for onsite fill.
The quality of fills shall be confirmed pursuant to the Clean,Imported Fill Material Information
Advisory prepared by the Department of Toxic Substance Control 2001.
HAZMAT 2—Prepare and imptementa-Risk.Management Plan (RMP) that identifies procedures
to manage groundwater that may be encountered and guidelines to follow in the event that
unknown environmental conditions are discovered. The RMP shall also contain a Health and
Safety Plan to ensure appropriate construction worker health and protection are in place during
construction activities.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site is currently undeveloped, and construction and build out of the project would
result in an increase in storinwater runoff that would ultimately discharge into the Petaluma
River. City staff.reviewed hydrological studies previously conducted for other projects within the
city, (i.e., the Deer Creek Plaza Shopping Center project) and determined that storm water
detention in the lower reaches of the Petaluma River does notprovide a benefit. As such, the
project will not,require onsite detention or that there be no net increase in stonnwater runoff
However, in order to ensure-that stofin drains have sufficient capacity, measure HYDRO-1
requires review and approval:of the final drainage plans.
The project requires,substantial;earthwork and grading activities could result in potential impact
due to erosion and pollutant runoff into the Petaluma River, which is already listed as impaired
for nutrients, pathogens, and-sediment:.In order to ensure thatthis,condition is not further
exacerbated by the subject project, HYDRO-2 through HYDRO-5 are required and would reduce
the impacts to water quality, erosion=and drainage to less than.significantlevels through use of
stonnwater pollution prevention and erosion control measures.
HYDRO 1;—Prepare,fnal drainage plans=as part of the Subdivision Improvement plans including
calculations:and documentationthe'stonn drain system and discharge culverts have adequate
capacity to serve-"the project at build out.
HYDRO"2_Prepared Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plait for subdivision grading and
construction:of subdivision improvements including Riverfront Park improvements and all
offsite construction in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
regulations.
HYDRO 1—Prepareand implement an erosion control plan for the subdivision grading and each
development phase..E'rosion'control;shall,include phasing of grading, limiting areas of
disturbance, designation of restricted-entry zones, diversion,of runoff away from disturbed areas,
protective=measures for=sensitive=areas,outlet protection and provision for revegetation or
•
mulching. The•erosionplan shall also;prescribe treatment:measures to trap sediment, such as
inlet protection, straw bale barriers, strawmulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams,
terracing, and siltationr,or sediment ponds.
HYDRO 4—Prepare and implement•anerosion control plan for constructio •of the Riverfront
Park including:•use of hay bales or temporary silt fencing topreventinadvertent transport of
sediments into the Petaluma-River; limiting.ground,disturbance•and vegetation removal during
construction;conducting work prior to the rainy 'season; protecting;disturbed areas during the
rainy season; and immediately revegetating'disturbed areas.
HYDRO 5 — Prepare plans anddetailed.calculations for treatment of post-construction runoff for
subsequent development phases over one:acre.
Noise.
Petaluma's'General:Plan indicates that;low-density residential land uses are considered normally
acceptable in noise.environments of 60 dB CNEL/Ldn or less-and conditionally acceptable to 70
dB CNEL/Ldn._Multi-family residential.and hotels are considered normally acceptable in noise
environments a 6 dB CNEL/Ldn of less and conditionally acceptabl'e,to 70 dB CNEL/Ldn.
Office and commercial uses are considered normally acceptable environments of 70 dB
CNEL/Ldn or less;and,conditionally"acceptable to about 77 dB'CNEL/Ldn. General Plan policy
10-P-3B discourages new noise-sensitive uses, primarily homes, in areas with projected noise
levels greater than 65:dB CNEL:.Where such uses are permitted,_incorporation of mitigation
measures are required to ensure,that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
According to the General Plan ER, most^of the project site is subject to noise levels between 65
and 70+ dB CNEL{Map•3.9-1).The major noise source affecting.theTsite:is vehicular traffic on
U.S. Highway 101. The highway is elevated in the project vicinity where it crosses over
Lakeville Highway, the railroad, and the Petaluma River. The,'differential in elevation between
the site and the highway substantially reduces the noise below what it would be if the site were at
grade with the highway.
The existing 24-hour average•noise,level on the project site rangesrfr'om a low of 57 dBA CNEL
to a high of 64 dBA CNEL from north to south. Three to four hundred feet from the edge of the
highway, the existing noise level on the project site ranges from• low of 59 dBA CNEL to a
high€of 66 dBA CNEL
Due to expected increases;overthe next 10-15`yearsdueto increased,traffic, noise levels at the
project site are estimated as a maximum of 65-68 dBA CNEL within 400 feet of the highway in
the northwestern corner of the site ranging down to 58-61 dBA CNEL in the southern portion of
the site.
The rail tracks that:border the site on the north currently carry freight traffic and in the future the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit(SMART) system will provide commuter rail service as well
Future noise levels_along•the rail corridor are estimated to reach'64;dBA Ldn at:a distance of 50
feet from the tracks,assuming a train speed of 50 mph through Petaluma. Additionally, train
operators are required to sound a warning horn when approaching an at-grade crossing. The
13
Caulfield Lane%Hopper Street contain such an,at grade crossing. Train liorns'can.'generate noise
levels of.90 to 100 dBA Lmax:50 feet from,the ttacks,Suekwarning devices are generally
exempt from City;standards,for noise. Nonetheless;,noise.from train warning devices could be
occasionally intrusive.
The project intfoducesnoisesensitive receptors onsite that would be exposed to noise levels that
exceed-normally"'aeceptable levels. Due to the ambient noiseenvironment, proximity to the rail
corridor(including the at-grade crossing).and.Highway 101, noise attenuation features would be
necessary to ensure that interior noise standards of 45 dBA or below are achieved. The
_ nds measures such as mechanical ventilation equipment, thicker
Riverfroni noise study recomme , -
walls, stucco siding, building and`bedroom orientation, and small or no,windows facing noise
emitter to achieve'thenoise,reduction...NOISE-1 requires that a design level acoustical report be
preparedthatidentifies,the-necessary:noise:attenuation requirement to.achieve an interior noise
level of 45:dBA for residenees, hotel, and office uses.
Construction activities,will also generate'noise that could-be.potentially intrusive, especially in
the event that new residences.orrsite are occupied while;construction>is still ongoing. As such,
NOISE-2-requires corrstructionsched'uling, proper maintenance=and use mufflers, prohibition
on idling and designation ofuthe.noise disturbance coordinator to ensure.the;temporary
construction noise:impacts are reduced:to levels below significance.
Mitigation measureNOISE-f and NOISE =2 would reduce potential noise exposure the impacts
to future residents and employees to less than significant levels.
NOISE 1 —Require:aniacoustical report`by a qualified acoustical specialistas part of subsequent
development phases to determine.the;noise control treatments necessary for the residential
buildings'and hotel to meet local and state interior sound standards.
NOISE 2—Implement measures during all constructionactivities to reduce construction noise,
including,limiting constructionliours,use of mufflers on heavy-duty equipment, prohibiting
idling;,selecting quiet const'fuctibn equipment, designating a noise disturbance coordinator, and
notifying residents on the construction schedule.
Traffic an l,Circulation/Transportation
Traffic conditions were measured for six scenarios:. existing conditions, existing.conditions plus
project,baseline conditions;(those°projects approved and not yet complete''or with applications in
the development process),;baseline conditions-plus project, future conditions (cumulative), and
cumulative conditions plus project, which is the General Plan 2025:buildoutscenario.
The traffic analyses found that the all existing study area intersections'are currently operating at
acceptable levels of,service D:or better,during both the AM and;PM'peak,hours. (The Lakeville
Street intersections with Washington Street and D Street currently operate at LOS D.) With the
addition of project-traffic, these intersections would continueto operate at acceptable`levels of
service, although delays would slightly increase, and the L'OS°at-the Lakeville Street/Caulfield
Lane intersection would decrease from.0 to D. However, all intersections would continue to
I4.
operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore potential impacts associated with LOS are less
than significant.
Access to the project site is provided from Hopper Street, primarily from its intersection with
Caulfield Lane. As part of proposed project, Hopper Street, from Caulfield Lane to the
project site, would be widen'd'to'45 feet to accommodate two travel lanes, landscaping, and
pedestrian/bicycle access. A second point of access from East D Street is proposed to provide
connectivity via Hopper Street through installation,of a short two-way road segment south of Old
Lakeville Street that would connect EastD Street to Hopper Street. The internal network of
streets consists of one primary north-south street and several minor north-south connections.
Most onsite street's will provide onstreet,parking. The primary north-south street through the
project site will provide_for the future extension of Caulfield Lane as forth in the City's
General Plan.'The traffic report;recommends stop controls for some of the internal intersections,
as well, which will be further reviewed by City staff and conditioned accordingly at the design
level stage. Preliminary analysis indicates that internal streets andrecommended stop sign
controls are consistent with CPSP standards and would be expeeted to provide for sufficient
operation. The access and hazard design issues associated with the Riverfront project are
considered to be less than significant,However, the cumulativeconditions require
implementation of CUM-1 and CUM-2, which reduce impacts'to levels below significance.
Although the project site is located is proximity to the Lakeville Highway/ US 101 interchange,
traffic from the proposed project would result in changes to the volume-to-capacity ratio of less
than 0.01, which is considered a less-than-significant impact.
The project also includes'a`network of pedestrian facilities thatis`consistent with the Central
Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) and City requirements, and would effectively tie into the regional
pedestrian network. The project site is also accessible to transit services,including pedestrian
. and bicycle connections to existing and future bus and rail facilities.
No supplemental safety-measures:atthe Caulfield crossing are expected to be required for the
Riverfront project, beyond those that may be required for SMART. If SMART rail service
the supplemental safety measures that may be needed for it) is delayed to such an extent that the
Riverfront project is built first, then the supplemental safety measures outlined for SMART may
need to be implemented by the Riverfront project to avoid significant hazards from the at-grade
crossing.
In order to ensure"that;potential impacts associated with the rail"crossing,_located measure
TRAF-1 requires installation of supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane at-
grade crossing including an additional,exit gate on the southwest'side'of the crossing to preclude
vehicles from navigating around the entry gates to proceed eastbound on Caulfield Lane.
TRAF 1 —Require that improvements to the Caulfield Lane at-grade crossing be implemented in
the event that Riverfront comes online in advance of SMART.
/S
CUM I —Require paymentof the project's;pro-rata share of the cost of signalization at Hopper
Street/Caulfield°Lanewhen an'extension'-of Caulfield Lane over the Petaluma River is
completed.
CUM 2—Lengthen the>westbound':left-turn pocket afLakeville Street/Caulfield Lane to
approximately 250 feet, and install a"raised median on the'westbound;approach to physically
prohibit illegal left turn movements into and out of adjacent properties.
Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable
The DEIR did not identify anypotentially significant;impacts on«the environment that cannot be
mitigated. As such there are no=significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed
Riverfront Mixed-Use Project. .
Findings and Overriding Considerations
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires public agencies.to make one or more written findings
for each of the significant environmental effects identified in an EIR in conjunction with project
approval..CEQA Guidelines Section'15093 requires a statement,of overriding considerations for
significant and unavoidable impacts; none have been identified so there is no statement of
overriding consideration necessary for the Riverfront Mixed-Use Project.
Growth,Inducing Impacts
The project site is designated;MU-'tMixed Use in the General Plan and is located within the
"Lower Reach" subarea Of the,Ceritral Petaluma Specific Plan, which allows'a variety of
residential, commercial, retail, office,.:and.industrial uses consistent with the development
regulations. The Central Petaluma Specific Plan Environmental,Impact Report (CPSP EIR)
identified a potential for 2,716'new residential units in the "Lower Reach" subarea and the
analysis'in the CPSP EIR was'based on a"cap" equal to 25% of.the overall maximum
development potential, resulting=in atotal.of 679 residential units-in the subarea.
Other than the project site, theionlyproperty designated for mixed use is the former City
wastewater treatment site and corporation.yard to the north of the project site The remainder of
the Lower Reach subarea is designated for "river dependent industrial"uses. It is expected that
the residential build out estimated for thesubarea would occur primarily on the project site. The
proposeddevelopment of 273±residantialunits is therefore well below the potential 679
residential units:that was estimated and analyzed for the project area in the CPSP EIR.
The "Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis" (PEIA) estimated that the project.would-produce
348 onsite workers. Given the,nature_of the uses (hotel, retail, and office), it is expected that
these employees would be/drawn from the local area. Thus, the project would not indirectly
foster population growth asa,result of new jobs.
The population generated by the'project-is less than the development envisioned under the
Central Petaluma Specific Plan arid the General Plan. Thus, the project'would not induce growth
beyond what has already been anticipated.
Analysis ofAlternatires
The DEIR evaluated.threealtematives: The'"No;Project"'alternative, the "Modified,Subdivision
Layout and the "Reduced Project Size' alternative and compared the environmental effects that
might be associated with these hypothetical>alternatives to the proposed_project: The alternatives
analysis;is intend'edto substantially reduce;or.avoid.significantenvironmental impacts. The
proposed project did not identify any impacts that would remain significant after implementation
of mitigation. As,such, the alternatives.do;not eliminate a'significant environment impact.
Rather, alternatives have been,developed incompliance with CEQA to further reduce or avoid a
mitigable impact. The.Alternatives discussion begins on page:5-l0 of the DEIR.
Under the "No Project" alternative, which is required by, CEQA,;the proposed project would not
be constructed and the site.would'remain:in its existing undeveloped condition.
Under the "Modified Subdivision Layout' alternative the project layout would be-modified to
provide for greater protection,of wetland and to create a greater distance-between the,rail
corridor and.townhomes. Under,this alternative the play field and eight single-family homes
would be removed, and the-3 northernmost townhomes would shiftto the south. Although the
play field would be removed, a°smaller sized play area with playstructure could be
accommodated. This alternativewas,developed to protect nearly 70% of the onsite drainage
channel and provide.a,greater set back from the rail corridor. This:alternative would result in fill
of 0.13 acres, which is less than the 0.24 acres of fill proposed under the proposed project
alternative. No other project related-impacts would be substantially reduced under this alternative
relative to the proposed project alternative.
The "Reduced Project Size alternative was designed to provide wetland protection to 90% of
the onsite wetlands:As with alternative 2 8 homes in.proximity to the drainage channel would
be removed along with the playing field: Additionally, the southern project road would be
relocated tcr north to provide further wetland protection and would result in the elimination of the
southern row of single-family lots (#1-20). The office space'would be reduced by 10,000 square
feet in order to avoid wetland fill at this location. The 3 townfiomes,nearest'the railroad would
also,be eliminated under this alternative. Combined, Alternative 3 wouldprotect 0.21 acres of
wetlands and require fill to 0.03 acres. This alternative would.also marginally reduce traffic and
exposure fewer residences to geological hazards. No other project related impacts would be
substantially reduced under`this,alternative-relative to the.proposed project alternative.
Based on the evaluation in the DEIR, the "Reduced Project Size"alternative would be regarded
as:the environmentally,superior,alternative because it would reduce the significant impact to
jurisdictional wetlands and would result in some reduction in the severity of other significant
impacts. However, this alternative would not eliminate any significant impacts ofthe project.
Rather, it would reduce impacts to levels similar to what would_be accomplished under the
proposed project alternatives with implementation of mitigation measures.
PUBLIOCOMMENTS
A Notice of Completion/Availability of the DEIR and Public.Hearing was published in the Argus
Courier and`notices were sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject
iqr
property, as well as interested parties°who requested notification, and all individuals who
commented on the Notice ofPreparation.,Notification was also filed°with the State
Clearinghouse and the"Sonoma County Clerk.
Copies of the DEJR and associated Appendices have been made available at the Petaluma
Library, the Community Center, City Hall, and on the City s website. The General Plan and
General Plan E1R and the.CPSP'.and CPSP EIR have also been made available for review at the
City of Petaluma Community,Development,Department, Planning Division, located at 11
English Street in Petaluma. Additionally,;copies of the documents have been made available for
purchase by the public.for the;cosfof printing. Written comments received prior to the
distribution of the staff report arthattached.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The Riverfront Mixed Use Project is a cost recovery project with all expenses paid by the
applicant. The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Strelow consulting for
completion of the EIR and all expenses have been covered,through,the associated deposit by the
applicant.
ATTACI-IMENTS
1. DEIR.and.Appendices (hand`delivered on December 19 .2013)
2. Public comments on`DEIR
18
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Brian Way [mailto:beed"ubyoo @yahoo.com]'
Sent: Wednesday,January 15,.2014,10:50 AM
To: CDD
Cc: petalumaplanning
Subject: Riverfront comments
I see that the issue of a river crossing,from_this development to Petaluma Blvd. South has been
addressed. My question is .is itja requirement that it be built?`For'numerous reasons it should be a
requirement:.safety and traffic relief among the most important.:Please tell me this will be a
requirement for the development;to be'built.
Sincerely,
Brian Way
rq