HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4CPart3 05/17/2010Attachment. D
'~ ~W L~, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1 1 ENGLISH STREET
PETALUM;4, CA 94952
707/778-430 ]
~t~I~ICJ~ $l9C~~
of Envi~®nrnental Sogn~ficance
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant o the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,
Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines, .Additional informatior- incorporated by reference herein includes:
the project application, environmental information:questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents on file at the
City of Petaluma Planning Division.
Project Name Sunny D TPM &.PUD Amendment File Number
Site Address 1311 D Street and
216 Sunnyslope Avenue
Posting Date October 7, 2009
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
09-TPM-0134-CR
APN 019-130-049 and
APN 019-130-011
End of Comment Period October 27, 2009
.Lead Agency Contact City of Petaluma, Planning Division.
Attn: Tiffany Robbe; Senior Planner
11 English Street, Petaluma CA, 94952 (707) 778-4318
Applicant Steven J. Lafranchi
Steven J. Lafrarichi & Associates, Inc.
140'Second Street, Suite.312
Petaluma, CA-94952 (707) 762-3122
Property Owner Sunny D Development Company
Attn: Greg Asbell
73-1529 Apela Place
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 (808) 325 2866
Project Description
The applicant has applied to the City for:
1. , A Tentative Parcel Map: To divide two parcels that together comprise 1.64 acres into four lots and a
remainder parcel. The 1.64 acres is the land of 216 Sunnyslope Avenue and Parcel 2 of the Foley map
(approved by the City in 2005 and.recorded in October of 2008 as Parcel Map 36:1) which sits behind 1311
D Street. Thus, the project-would create three "new" lots: The request has been made to achieve the
desired result of two vacant lots' behind the existing house at 1311 D and two. vacant lots behind the
existing house at 216 Sunnyslope Avenue.. The four vacant lots would have-net areas of between 8,128
and 10,795 square feet each;and would access off a 20-foot wide drive where the 1311 D Street driveway
is now. The remainder parcel would be 27,018 square feet, contain the existing house and outbuildings at
216 Sunnyslope Avenue, and maintain its existing access off Sunnyslope Avenue.
2. A Planned Unit Development Amendment: To modify the PUD language for these parcels to default to the
R2 zoning standard rather than the R-1':20,000 zoning standard. This PUD amendment will result in the
~~
2T6 Sunnyslope & 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -File No., 09-TPM-01,34-CR Page 2
parcels having the Zoning designation that is consistent with the current Low Density Residential General
Plan designation.
Project Setting
The 1.64-acre project site is "L" shaped; located: on the south side of Sunnyslope Avenue, at 216 Sunnyslope
Avenue, and east of D Street, behind T311 D Street. Surrounding uses are residential.
The parcel has a 7.8 percent slope. There are'22. trees within or'partially within'the undeveloped portion of the site;
as mitigated and conditioned, all native'trees will be preserved. The site is 100 feet from the bank of Kelly Creek.
Responsible/Trustee Agencies:. None
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors. checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a. "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated bythe checklist on he following pages.
1. Land Use & Planning
2. Population, Employment & Housing
3. Geology & Soils
4. Air Quality
5. Hydrology & Water Quality
6. Biological Resources
7. Noise
8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics
9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
10. Transportation/Traffic
11. Public Services
12. Recreation
13. .Utilities Infrastructure
14. Mineral Resources
15. Cultural Resources
16. Agricultural Resources
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
I fmd that the proposed ,project. COULD NOT have a significant. effect on the environrent and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION should be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
X significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd the proposed project MAY ,have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment but. at least .one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable. legal standards, and 2j'has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described. on attached sheets. An. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the: proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because-all potentially
significant effects'a) have beenanalyzedadequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards; and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier. EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon xhe proposed project nothing
further is required.
A Notice of Intent to adopt.a Mitigated''Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public
comment period of October 7 through October 27, 2009.
Prepared by: Tiffany Robbe Senior Planner
Name /~~ T,\itleJ~ ~ /~~^~
mac... ~ . cG-L~- U L_1 ~~ L-~ lJ~,
ign a Date
2.16 Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPMJnitial. Study -File .No. 09=TPM-0134-CR Page 3
® Evaluation•of Environmental Impacts
1. Land Use andPlanning
Potentially Less-than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
a. .Physically divide an established community? X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, .policy or X
regulation of an agency with. jurisdiction over the,;project
(including, but not limited to the general-plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
a Conflict with any applicable. habitat conservation plan or x
natural community conservation,plan?
a. The new house sites are off of D Street and• Sunnyslope Avenue. The proposal does not divide an established
community.
b. The project does not conflict with the City of Petaluma's General Elan 2025, Implementing Zoning Ordinance, or
any other applicable regulation (the application includes a Planned Unit .District Amendment from a PUD that
defaults to R-1:20,000 to one that defaults to R2 ,which is the designation consistent with the General Plan land
use designation.
In 2008, General Plan 2025 was adopted and contained a policy stating that the unit yield. calculation pursuant
to the Sunnyslope annexation (which includes Ordinance No. 1856 `and Resolution 91-151), is superseded by
the density range established by the General Elan.
Policy I-P-S: The unit yield calculation historically used in the Sunnyslope Assessment District,
per the 1985 annexation, is superseded, by the applicable density ranges in the General Plan. Any
parcels and/or units that are created in the'. future that were not contemplated by the original
assessment and unit yield calculation will be required to pay the full cost of any additional
infrastructure (sewer, water, etc.) needed to support those new parcels/units.
General Plan 2025 designates the subject area as Low Density Residential with an allowable density range of
2.6 to 8.0 units to the net acre. The ,project ,proposes 4 lots grid a remainder lot over a 1.48 net. acre area; a .
proposed density of 3.4 units to the net acre. (excluding the remainder area, this is a density of 4.66 units to the
net acre). The proposed density is within the range allowed by General Plan 2025.
However, the Sunnyslope Planned Unit District (PUD) was unaffected by-the adoption of General Plan 2025,
and still specifies that the zoning defaults to R-1:20,000. The applicant is seeking,a PUD amendment to modify
the PUD language for these parcels to default to the R2 zoning standard rather than the R-1:20,000 zoning
standard. Modifying the language to default to R2 is appropriate in that R2 is-the zoning designation consistent
with the General Plan Low Density Residential designation. The R2 standards require a 6,000 square foot lot
size. When new homes are constructed at this site, they we will be required to conform to the RZ zoning
setback requirements,. which are: 20 feet to the front property line, 5 feet to the side property lines, and 20 feet
to the rear property line.
Policies contained in the.Petaluma General Plan that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect and those-that apply to this project include the following:
Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment:
~~
27`b Sunnyslope 8~ 13'1'1 D `St TPM Initial Study - File No: 09-TPM-01':34-CR Page 4
1-P-2: Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal. or higher density and intensity than
surrounding uses.
Community Design:
4-P-15D: Reduce emissions fromresidential and commercial-uses by requiring the following:
• Use of high efficiency heating and other appliances; such as coolang equipment, refi-igerators,'and
furnaces, and low NOx water heaters in new and existing residential units;
• Compliance with or exceed ~ requirements of CCR 'Title 24 for new residential .and commercial
buildings;
• Incorporation of passive solar ,building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use
for both residential and commercial uses, i.e., building- orientation in a south to southeast direction,
encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of.structures, landscaping with drought resistant
species, and use of,:.groundcoversrather than pavementtareduce heat reflection;
• Encourage the use of battery-powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local
air quality for nonresidential maintenance activities;
See also Air Quality section below and Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which. ensures compliance with the General
Plan EIR Greenhouse Gas Emission Volume.
The parcel is not within any specific-plan area.
c. There is neither a habitat conservation nor a natural community conservation plan that apply to the project site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required
2. Population, .Employment and Housing
Potentially. Less than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project' impact mitigation impact
measures
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example; by proposing :new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension-of
roads or other infrastnicture)?
b. Displace substantial numbers. of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replaceineiit housing X
elsewhere?
a. Displace substantial .numbers; of ,people. necessitating the X
construction ofreplacement-housing elsewhere?
a. The ,project would result in three new vacant lots.. It is anticipated that these will. be developed with new single-
family. Three residential units anticipated by the .General Plan are not considered to be substantial.
b. & c. The project site is currently developed with one house; it will remain.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin~: None required
3. Geology and Soils
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant si ificant w/ si ificant
~3
216 Sunnyslope & 1311 D StTPM lnitiaf Study -File No. 09-TPM-01.34-CR Page 5
impact mitigation impact
Would the project: measures
a. Expose people or structures to' potential substantiaLadverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning X
Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a lrnown fault?
o Strong seismic ground. shaking? X
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
b. .Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil'that s'unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result, of on- 'or off-site X
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence; liquefaction or
collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1;994), creating substantial X
risks to life or property?
e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in'geologic X
substructures?
f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the X
soil?
g. Change in topography or ground surface.relief features? X
h. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique ~ X
geologic or physical features?
i. Any increase in wind or water erosion ofsoils, either on or off X
site?
j. Changes in deposition or erosion of beachsands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel X
of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean.or,any'bay, inlet<or
lake?
k. .Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes,_landslides, mudslides, ground'failure or similar X
.hazards?
a. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault.Zone and no known active faults traverse
the site. Therefore, the risk of ground xuptue within the limits of the site is considered to be low.
The site is located within a region subject to a high level of seismic activity. Therefore, the site could.
experience strong seismic ground ahaking during the lifetime of the proposed project. Geologic structures in
the region are primarily controlled by northwest trending dextral faults. The closest faults to the project site are
the .Rodgers Creek Fault (5 miles northwest) and the San Andreas Fault (15 miles southwest). The project site
does not contain any evidence of recent surface .rupture. Therefore, the probability of fault rupture occurring at
the surface of the ,project site is low and thisimpact is considered less than. significant. Any one of these faults
could generate an earkhquake capable of causing strong grounding shaking at the subject site. It is reasonable to
assume that during the life of the proposed. development, it will be subjected to at least one moderate to severe
earthquake that could produce potentially-damaging ground shaking,. at the site. Further, it is anticipated that the
subject site will periodically experience small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes. In consideration of the.
fJ
216 Sunnyslope & 13l 1 D St TPM Initial Study-File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page b
shaking. effects; all structures shall be designed using sound engineering judgment and the current Uniform
.Building Code, as required. _
b. No threat of soil erosion is expected. Best. management practices. (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) -are standard requirements. An Erosion Control Plan
would be required for issuance of.,a;grading permit. The Erosion Control Plan would provide the details of the
erosion control measures to be applied on the .site and maintained`throughout the winter rainy season.
See a. above. According to the soil statement by Steven J. Lafranchi and Associates the soils on-site are Clear
Lake-Reyes association, defined as poorly .drained;. nearly level to gently .sloping clays to clay loams,
in basins and on tidal flats, with soil stability .ranges from low to moderate. See the standards listed
below. Additionally, lateral spreading is normally induced by vibration of near-horizontal alluvial soil layers
adjacent to an exposed face. Lurching is an action which produces cracks or fissures parallel to streams or
banks when the earthquake motion is at right angles to them. There are no exposed faces or creek
embankments immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading and lurching at the
site is low.
d. The proposed project would not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures, with
the standards listed below.
e, f, g, h, and i. The site has an average slope of 7.8%. This mild slope does not invoke the Zoning Ordinance
Hillside provisions. The site does. not support any unique geologic or physical features. See also, previous
responses and the standards listed below.
j. No rivers, streams, oceans, bays, inlets; or lakes are located on or abutting the project site. Kelly Creek is 100
feet from the nearest property line and will not be modified by this project: Therefore, the proposed project
would have no impact on the deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake.
k. The proposed project has the potential to expose people or structures to certain geologic hazards including
ground shaking and expansive soils (see responses above). Implementation of the standards described below
reduces these impacts to less than significant levels.
It is also because.of the following standards, that no significant geological impact is anticipated.
• The design of any and -all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations, and
structural components must be first reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Foundation and
structural design for buildings shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e.,
reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracingparapets, etc.).
• Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the :geotechnical specifications
by the Public Works Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building
permits. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check
of building plans: in,accordance with the Code.
® All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance
with the ,City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046,- Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance#1576; Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code). .
• The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional
engineer as an integral° part: of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to
review and approval of'the Planning Division and Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during excavation for foundations, and other
grading operations at the'.site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include that the material and equipment for implementation of
(~~ ~
"./'
216 Sunriyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -File No.. 09=TPlyl-0;1'34-CR Page 7
erosion control measures shall be on-site by October Lst. The Public Works Department in conjunction
with any -specially permitted rainy season grading may require special erosion control.
o All public and :private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the
approved improvement plans, prior to their acceptance by the City.
Mitieation Measures/Monitorin>;: None required
4. Air uali
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significantw( significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
.measures
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any .
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or:state ambient air X
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone.precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affectinga substantial number of X
people?
f. Conflict with AB 32 and its governing regulations?
" Unable to determine stgmncance; see dtscusston netow.
a. & c. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region.. into attainment; the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment -Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The air
quality plans are based on local General Plans, thus, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable
General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Development of -the proposed project
would not change the overall buildout scenario for the City of Petaluma envisioned in the General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project. would not conflict with or obstruct .implementation of the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan. or the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP) and, therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
b. & c. Air pollutant emissions' associated with the three. new residential lots would occur over the short term in
association with construction. activi ies such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions
would result from vehicle trips associated with the residential use of the project site.
The three new residential lots could result in both stationary and mobile sources of long-term air emissions.
The stationary source emissions from he residential use would corrie fromahe consumption of natural gas. The
three new residential lots would;add approximately 30 vehicle trips a day. This number is.below the threshold
(2,000 VDT) that requires a quantitative analysis of air emissions established by the. Bay Area .Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD). Any incremental impacts have been analyzed by the General Plan EIl2. No
mitigation measures :are required.
d. There are no substantial pollutant concentrations in the project vicinity:
e. None of the project activities are anticipated to create objectionable odors. During the project construction
period, some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction
2'lP6 Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 b St TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPN1'-0134-CR Page 8
equipment and/or asphalt paving.. However;, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in
permanent impacts, ao surrounding -land uses, including sensitive receptors. Therefore, no significant impacts
related to objectionable odors-would result.
f. Assembly Bill 32' -The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 commits the State of California to
reducing gre"enhouse gas :emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The statute requires the California Air Resources
Board (GARB) to track emissions through mandatory reporting, determine what 1990 emissions were, set annual
emissions limits that will result in meeting the target, .and identify a list of discrete early actions that directly
address greenhouse gas emissions; are regulatory, andcan be enforced by January 1, 2010.
The initial report of the Climate Action'Team identifies recommended measures that account for a reduction of
approximately 68 million metric tons of'C02-equivalents (MM"TC02E). In June 2007, the GARB approved the
Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in Califomia (April 20, 2007). In September 2007 GARB
published the Draft Expanded List of.Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California.
The two ARB reports combined include 44 measures that are estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42
MMTC02E. Of the 44 measures,,nine are identified as ".discrete early actions" that are regulated and enforceable
by January 1, 2010 (see chart, following page). The remaining 35 measures are to be initiated by GARB between
2007 and 2012 (GARB, September 2007). To achieve the 2020 target, California must reduce its emissions by
177 MMTC02E (GEC, 2006): InDecember of 2008, the GARB' adopted its Scoping Plan, the first step toward
identifying the additional reductions needed to meet the target.. In August 2007, the Senate passed SB 97
requiring the State Office of .Planning and Research to prepare and submit guidelines to the State Resources
Agency. The Resources Agency must adoptthe regulations by January 1, 2010.
Climate Change
Climate change is a shift in the average weather patterns observed on earth, which can be measured by such.
variables as temperature, wind patterns; storrris and precipitation. The temperature on earth is regulated by what is
commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Naturally occurring,greenhouse gases. in the atmosphere, including
carbon dioxide, methane; nitrous oxides, and water vapor, absorb heat from the earth's surface and radiate it back
to the surface.
Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
and halocarbons (fluorine, chlorine. and.;bromine). Of all human. activities, the burning of fossil fuels is the largest
contributor in overall greenhouse gas emissions; releasing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.
The resulting increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are leading to higher concentrations
and a change. in composition of the atmosphere. For :instance, the concentration of C02 in the- atmosphere has
risen about 30 percent since the late. 18006 (National Assessment`Synthesis Team [NAST]; 2001.): Many sources
and models indicate that temperatures on earth are currently warming-and will continue to warm at unprecedented
levels. The. global mean surface temperature has increased by L1° F since the 19~' century (IPCC Synthesis
report, 2001), and the.10 warmest years of the last century all occurred within the last 15 years.
The many effects of greenhouse gas emissions are still being researched and are not fully known, but are expected
to include increased temperatures which would: reduce snow pack, a primary source of drinking water;
exacerbate air quality problems and adversely impact human health by increasing, heat stress and related deaths;
increase the incidence of'infectious disease, asthma and. respiratory health. problems; cause sea levels to rise,
threatening urban and natural coas'tlands; increase pests and pathogens; and cause variations in crop quality and
yields.
No current CEQA. regulation;. statute or judicial decision outlines how CEQA analysis of a project's greenhouse
gas emissions impact .should be performed. Senate Bill 97, adopted in August, 2007, requires the Office of
Planning. and Research to develop CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation ofgreenhouse gas emissions or the effects
of greenhouse gas emissions which must be certified and adopted, by January 1, 2010. It is likely that these
prospective Guidelines will provide needed guidance on significance criteria and how to reconcile AB 32, the
,/
~`
2:16 Sunnyslope 8~ 131.1 D Sf TPM Initial Study- File No. 09-TPIv1-0134-CR Page 9
Global Warming Solutions Act, rollback provisions with CEQA's mandate that CEQA documents are not
required to mitigate existing pre-project.coriditions. As ofSeptember, 2009 neither the State Air Resources Board
nor the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has identif ed a prof ect-specific significance threshold .for
analyzing the effects of'greenhouse gases.
There is a great deal of'uncertanty regarding both the regulatory climate and ability to quantify greenhouse gas
emissions.accurately, as applicable within Petaluma. It is also premature to quantify or rely upon the effects of
emission reduction measures that. emanate from larger regional, state, federal and global regulatory mandates.
In addition, CEQA is only one of many tools being used. to approach the greenhouse gas problem, and it is
unclear to what extent CEQA documents may rely on other efforts, such as State or Air District measures
adopted pursuant to AB 32.
Nonetheless, the City is evaluating the contribution of this project to the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas
emissions in this Initial Study. The evaluation is not quantitative, that is, the tons of C02e expected to be
emitted by three. new residential lots/units have not been calculated. Instead, this evaluation focuses on whether
or not the project is consistent with-the state and local measures and policies regarding greenhouse gases. Data
developed for the Revised Draft EIR on. Petaluma's General Plan 2025 -Air Quality: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions found that Petaluma's contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions constitutes.
approximately 0.11 percent of California's emissions, and one dwelling unit constitutes on average
approximately 0.0004 percent of Petaluma's future annual emissions. (Primary sources of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) for single family dwellings- are. from electricity and gas' usage, vehicle emissions, and solid waste
disposal.) Therefore the three new :residential residents anticipated to result from the proposed project would
contribute (0.0004 x 3) or f 0.001'2 percent of Petaluma's~future annual emissions. Such contributions to the
overall emissions by the City of.Petaluma are=small and are not easily evaluated or considered on a quantitative
basis; therefore; the subsequent evaluation focuses on consistency with measures and policies that are either
adopted or proposed, but are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures/Policies Applicable to the I,o~an Place
Measuresand Policies Relation of the Project to MeasureslPolicies
State Reduction Measures
Measures Applicable to Energy Use in:Buildings
SB 1368 (Regulation of greenhouse CONSISTENT. This°measure would increase renewable energy in the
gases from load serving entities) California grid from 11'% to 20% by2010. Therefore the electricity used by
the roject would result in roject emissions being reduced by 9%.
,IOU Energy Efficiency Programs CONSISTENT. This_ measure' would outline a program for using energy
more efficiently by both residences and businesses. This measure has less
ofa.direct impact and relies on the owner to install and/or the.residents to
ro erly use energ efficient products.
Urban Forestry CONSISTENT. This measure is not only about increasing the number of
. trees in a community but also selecting the species and placement of trees so
that-they contribute to a reduction in heating and cooling needs. The plans
-for the project show existing orproposed trees along the south side of three
of the proposed vacant lots, which would serve to shade the new homes in
the summer and, if deciduous, allow the sun to warm building(s) in the
winter.
California Solar Initiative - 2,000 CONSISTENT. This measure seeks to deliver 2,000 megawatts of clean,
MW by 2016 emission-free energy to the grid through installation of passive solar
systems. More specifically, the podium building of Logan Place will be
fitted with solar water heating system Also, the podium and Building 1 will
be fitted with solar PV anels.
~~
2;1;b'Sunnyslope & 1311 D St TPlvl Initial Study -File No: 09-TPM-01.34-CR Page 10
Measures andP:olicies Relation of the°Project to MeasuresLPolicies
Additional RPS' (33%.hy2020) CONSISTENT. This measure would increase renewable energy in the
California grid from'the 20°Io goal identified.above under SB 1368 to 33%
by°2020:. Therefore the.electricity used by-the project would result in an
additional 13% emission reduction over the life of the ro'ect.
Measures Applicable to Vehicle Emissions
Vehicle Climate Change Standards CONSISTENT. Neither the-City nor the developer can influence the car or
Low Cazbon Fuel Standazd fuel purchasing habits ofthose living at the project<site. However, over the
Strengthen Light Duty Vehicle life of the project; as-these state measures come on line, and cazs and fuel
Technolo become more efficient, and those living at the project replace their aging
Heary-duty Vehicle Emission cars, it is a reasonable assumption that emissions from the vehicle miles
Reductions traveled (VMT) will be.cleaner. The project is sited on bus routes of Golden
Gate Transit, Sonoma Coun Transit, and Petaluma Transit.
General Plan 2025 Policies
5-P-22 Preserve and enhance CONSISTENT. The project preserves pedestrian connectivity on D Street
pedestrian connectivity in existing and Sunnyslope. Avenue. The development does not abut any public trail.
neighborhoods and require a well Construction of new residents will be subject to paying the Traffic Impact
connected pedestrian network linking Fee which funds pedestrian and bicycle improvements through the City.
new and existing developments to
adjacent land uses.
5-P-25 Establish a network of multi-
use trails to facilitate safe-and' direct
off-street bicycle and pedestrian travel.
5-P-30 Require all new development
abutting any public trail to provide
access to the trail.
2-P-94 Encourage .the development.of CONSISTENT. Water conservation standards such as limiting lawn size
landscape. standazds that reduce existing were very recently adopted by the City, and the homes shall be subject to
lawns and re wire tree. lanting.. that Water .Conservation Ordinance rior to building... ermit issuance.
2-P-12.1 Evaluate the success of the CONSISTENT: While such evaluation is underway and the Council gave
voluntary green program- and develop direction for a mandatory program, no mandatory program has yet been
and implement a°mandatory program established: The voluntary program based on.the Build If Green program
for.new residential, commercial and has been;inplace fotseveral years. The current .minimum standard for
municipal development.and remodels Build ItGreen is 50 points.. To ensure consistency with the General Plan
E1R, AQ-1 has been added to require that the new residences are Build It
Green Rated and;meet at least the minimum standard for participation (50
points): At a minimum meeting Build It Green standards results in 15%
higher energy efficient over current State standards:
4-P-19 Encourage use_and CONSISTENT. The City complies with this standard byrequiring that
development of renewable or- major`subdivisons "pie-plumbed" homes for solar. This: small Parcel Map.
nontraditional sources of energy: is, not subject to that°standard; though the home. builder may choose solar
means of achieving the re wired Build It Green rating.
CONCLUSION
The consistency .analysis in the table: above shows that the project is consistent with the State measures and
General Plan 2025 policies regarding greenhouse gas reductions.
Based on the small amount of greenhouse gas emissions contributed directly by the project and based on the
consistency of the. project with atate and. local measures. and policies, the project is not expected to increase
community-wide greenhouse gas levels by a ..substantial margin compared to pre-project conditions and would
not conflict with AB 32 and its governing regulations. However, determining its individual contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions ,is too speculative for evaluation because of the small size of this individual project.
Therefore, no determination of significance can be made of the project's net effects relative to GHG emissions
(CEQA Guidelines section 15144-15145).
S9
2.16. Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Sfudy -File No: 09'-TPM-0134-GR Page 11
1Vliti~ation Measures/Monitorin~
AQ-1 New houses at'lots l-4. shall achieve at least 50 GreenPoints under. the'current cycle's residential Build. It
Green ..program: Prior to building permit issuance, the. GreenPoints Checklist shall 6e submitted and the
building permit plans shall depictlnote the relevarit.measures. Prior. to building permit.fmal, each house on lots
1-4 shall be GreenPoint Rated.
5. Hydrologv and Water Quality
.Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
:requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there X
would be a net.deficif in:aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern-of the site or
~
area, including through the alteration of 'tlie course of a X
stream or river, in ~ a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-.site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
.area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or'river, or substantially increase .the rate or amount X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on or off-site?
e. Create or contribute. runoff water. which. would .exceed. the.
capacity of existing or planned. stormwater drainage systems X
or provide substantial additional. sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazards Boundary or Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood Hazard delineation'map?
h. Place within. a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of .loss, .
injury or death involving flooding, .including flooding. as a X
result of the failure' of a levee or dam?
j, Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X
Discussion: No portion of the site is within a floodplain or floodway. The project would not result.in alteration to the
course of floodwaters, affect ground water, or expose people to water related hazards. No significant change to the
existing water or sewer service or capacity will be created as a result of this proposal as these services are already
available at the site and. have been:anticipated by General Plan 2025. 'The :proposal will not deplete groundwater
supplies, interfere with the existing groundwater tables or contaminate the groundwater.
~~
21'6 Sunnyslope 8.1311 D St TPM Initial. Study- File No. 09-TPlvl-013.4-CR Page 12
The Preliminary Drainage .Report by Steven 'J. Lafranchi' and Associates details that the project drainage will be
collected in swales and .routed via drainage inlets- and pipes ~ to the existing .storm drainage system in Sunnyslope
Avenue. Storm drainage from the entire site will be collected: and routed to be detained in an underground storage
pipe: This method is proposed because of the limited capacity of downstream. storm drain infrastructure; it will
result in the post development runoff (after it is. detained within oversized pipes on the site) being released .into the
storm drain system at predevelopment flow rates: The underground: detention pipe was sized to keep 10-year
proposed peak flows at or lower than the level for the 'existing TO-year storm event. The storm drains will be.
privately maintained by the individual property. owners. These drainage alterations and all hydrologic, hydraulic,.
and `storm drain system. design shall be subject to review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA) and the City Engineer: No lot-to-lot drainage shall.be pernutted unless private storm drain easements are
created to collect rear yard surface water runoff. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, and
then~conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system.
In addition, the following standards or conditions shall apply to the project:
® All. construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutant
entering directly or indirectly into the storm. drain system or ground water.
o An erosion and sediment control plan. shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement plans. All
measures shall be employed per the City Storm Water/Grading andErosion Control Ordinance.
® The applicant shall pay the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee: Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at
the time of building permit issuance and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to
final inspection of issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy.
a. Any sediments or pollutants generated'by construction activities will be contained through the standard conditions
listed below.
b. The project will not use groundwater. The amount of ground that will be covered by the project's buildings and
paving is not substantial such as to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
c. & d. The project would not alter the course of a stream or river or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site. See storm drainage discussion,above.
e. The runoff that will be created by the new residences can be handled by the addition of storm drain inlets that
will connect to the existing drainage system.
£ No other water quality degradations are expected.
g. & h. The project is not located in a-Flood Zone.
i. The project site is not located within~an inundation area associated with a levee or dam.
j. The project site is not located within an area that could be affectedby seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
IVlitigation Measures/Monitorin~: None required
Qinlnnirnl i?ccn~ err-sac
V• YIV~V ~~+M~ ~
Potentially
Lessthan
Less than
No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: .impact mitigation
measures impact
a. .Have a substantial adverse. effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications; on any species. identified as a X
candidate, sensitive, or s ecial status s ecies in local or
G~(
21 b Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 ,D St`TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 13
regional. plans, policies qr regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S'. Fish. and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect. on any riparian habitat or ~
other sensitive natural community identified' in local or
regional. plans, policies,, or regulations, or by-the California
Department of Fish and Game or U5 Fish., :and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on ..federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not. limited to, marsh; vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species . or with X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of nafive wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of .an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community' Conservation Plan X
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
a-d. The site represents approximately 1 .,acre (44,554 square feet) of undeveloped area behind the homes at 1311 D
Street and 217 Sunnyslope Street.. Over half of this area (25,925 square feet) has previously been approved as a
separate legal lot eligible. for development., No change (other than a storm drain easement which will be
outside of the dripline of existing trees) is proposed to the area used by 217 Sunnyslope Avenue. There is no
wetland on site. Wildlife-may use Kehy Creek as. a migratory wildlife corridor; additional development of the
site over time is not expected to mpact:Kelly Creek which is 100 feet to the south.
e. This site consists of 22 on-site or adjacent trees. Eight of these trees: are. considered protected trees pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance section 17.040; 5 coast lire oaks, 2 California bay, and 1 coast redwood. Oaks 23, 29, & 31,
bays 17 & 18, and redwood 22 can be preserved with the incorporation of the Arborist Report
recommendations .(measures such as tree fencing, mulching, ivy removal, ensuring that the drainage Swale not
exceed 8 inches'in dep'tl). These are fairly typical recommendations that will be made conditions of project
approval. The Arborist Report recoimends that relocation of the storm drain outside of the oak 19 canopy
dripline is necessary to eliminate a significant impact to the health of that. protected tree; the applicant has not
yet shown this relocation on the plan set, but it is required by° the mitigation measure. The Arborist Report
recommends that. protected oak 30. be removed because the location of the proposed driveway and the
underground drain are a significant impact to the long-term integrity of that tree. To mitigate this potentially
significant impact and. because Zoring section 17.OSOB requires the protection of protected trees if such is
possible by way of creative design, 'the below mitigation. measure requires that the driveway and the sewer and
water laterals be moved outside the dripline of tree 30. Thus, all protected trees will be preserved, no native
tree will be removed, and the project, as conditioned and mitigated, is consistent with the Tree Preservation
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
f. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma, which would regulate the proposed development on this parcel.
Review of the Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan. Technical Appendix indicates that the site is
not designated open space.
216 Surinyslope 8~~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study - File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 14
1Vliti~afion Measures/1VlonitorinQ:
Bio-1: Prior to improvement plan building permit approval:
At oak 19, the storm drain. shall be relocated entirely outside; of the canopy dripline.
® At oak 30, the location, of the proposed driveway and any .underground intrusion such as sewer and water
laterals shall be relocated entirely outside of the canopy dripline.
7. iVoise
Potentially Less than. Less than No impact
significanf significant w/ significant
Would the project result in: impact mitigation impact
measures
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards:of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noiseaevels?
c. A substantial permanent.increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity- above levels- existing without the X
project?
d. A substantial temporary or .periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
withouttheproject?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X
such a plan has not been adopted, within..two miles of a public
airport or public use. airport,. would the project expose people..
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip would the X
project expose people residing or working. in the project azea
to excessive noise levels?
a-c. Petaluma General. Plan, :indicates that low density residential .land uses are considered normally acceptable in
noise environments of 60 dB CNEL/La„ or less. The General Plan Noise section (Figure 10-1) found that noise
levels at the project site are expected to be<below 55 dB CNEL/L~ at Plan build out. Thus, existing or anticipated
noise levels do not bare mitigation measures.
Ambient noise levels at the project site. consist primarily of vehicular traffic noise generated along D and
Sunnyslope Streets and:~distant construction noise. The proposed long-term use of this project is residential. This
land use would not generate high ambient noise levels. The project, would not generate enough traffic to create
a perceptible change (at least 3:dBA) in traffic noise in the°vicinity of the project site. No substantial long-term
increase in ambient:noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation. The potential noise sources
associated with the occupation of the proposed housing are not expected to be out of character with typical
residential uses and should be similar to that of the existing homes in the area.
d. Project construction_activities, anticipated to be ongoing or occasional (as homes are constructed) over one to two
or more years, would include some grading, paving of the shared driveway, construction of utilities, and
construction. of individual. homes. Construction noises are unavoidable; a condition of project approval will
restrict the hours of construction. to 8:00 to.5:30 Monday through Friday (Interior-only work may be conducted
216 Sunnyslope &.1311 D St TPNI Initial Study -File No, 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 15
on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohbited,on Sundays and all federal, state, and local
holidays.) These hours are more restrictive than the. City standard, due to the residential setting.
e. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport and would therefore not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
The closest airport to the project s. ite is the Petaluma Municipal Airport, located three miles east of the project site.
The project site is not located within a 15-mile radius of any major airports. The Charles Schultz Airport is
located 19 miles from the prof ect site.
I
f. The project site is not located within-the vicinity of a private .airstrip and would therefore not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
.Mitigation Measures/Monitorin>?: None required
8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
.measures
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista? ~ X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources :including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X
within a state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X
of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a. The site is not located within a scenic vista. 'The site is not a property that falls under the regulations of Zoning
Ordinance chapter 16, Hillsides.
b. The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic resource or on a state scenic highway.
c. The parcels will not: sit directly on any public street and therefore the anticipated new houses will not be
obvious to the public at large.
d. Exterior lights installed in conjunction wthahe newt homes will increase artificial light in the: vicinity; however,
a standard condition of project approval requires that. all exterior lighting. be directed down and shielded to
prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties, Viand lights attached to buildings shall provide a "soft wash"
of light against the wall and.shall generateno directglare.
Mitigation Measures/1Vlonitoririg: None required
9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant. significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
6~
21'6 Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -.File No: 09-TPM-OT34-CR Page 16
a. Create~arsignificant hazard to the public or`the environment
through the routine transport, use,, or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the.. environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X
Section 65962.5 and, as,a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public, or the environment?
d. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
Ply?
a. & b. 'The project activities are not expected. to involve hazardous materials: No storage of chemical or hazardous
materials is anticipated at this site. Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various
types of fuel, the project does not involve hazardous substances and should have no effect on emergency
evacuation plan. During construction, .the ,applicant. will comply with all existing- Federal and State safety
regulations related to the transport,. use, handling, storage,. and%or disposal of potentially hazardous substances.
For construction activities, involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site, the applicant shall file
a declaration form with the Fire 1Vlarshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit.
c. The site is not listed on a hazardous'materials site list.
d. None of the proposed site improvements are expected to impair the implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan br°emergency evacuation plan.
1Vlitig_ation Measures/Mortitorina: None required
7~1 Trr~ncnnrtnf!inn/Tmfflr
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
sigiificant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation
m impact
easures
a. Cause an `increase in ;traffic which is substantial. in relation X
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial. increase in either'the .number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity rafio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed; :either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
service standard established. by the county congestion
management agencyfor designatedroads or liighways?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to, a design feature (e.g., X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?'
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs X
~~ J
21~6~Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 17
supporting; alternative transportation (e:g, bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
a. & b. The three new lots proposed by this project can be expected to generate an average of 30 vehicle trips per
weekday. The General.Plan evaluated the potential impacts of developing this area at the density proposed as part
of the Citywide analysis. Tentative Parcel Maps (41ots and a-.remainder or fewer) where the density is anticipated
by the General Plan are not asked to prepare a Traffic Study.
c. Sight distance from the shared access driveway onto D Street, was found to be good and was approved via OS-
TPM-0210-CR and PM 361. Access from the existing house at 2.17 to Sunnyslope Avenue will be unchanged
and was not found to be unsafe by the City's Engineering Division.
d. The project's circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire
Departments. The private driveway has been designed to allow emergency service vehicles to access
the site and have the ability to turn around (this was .approved for P.M. No. 361). This project
proposes to extend the driveway approximately 90 feet to access the 4 proposed parcels.
e. All parcels will comply with the City parking standard of one covered and two uncovered parking spaces per
residential lot. The tentative parcel map proposal includes a Planiied Unit.District amendment; the Foleytentative
parcel map application in 2005 also •included a Planned Unit District. amendment '(S-TPM-0210-CR) which
specified that the rear~lot have an:intensified parking standard of 5 spaces. This intensified standard of 5 on-site
parking spaces shall be applied via a condition of approval tout least that area (Parcels 1 and 2) currently affected
by the Foley PUD amendment. Thus,'the parking for eacli.lot shall be equal to or great than the City standard.
f. The proposal does not conflict with. adopted pglicies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation; it is
located back off of public streets.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required
11 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical 'impacts Potentially Less than Less than No impact
associated with the provision of 'new or physically altered significant
impact significant w/
mitigation significant
impact
governmental facilities, need for new or ,physically .altered .measures
governmental facilities, the construction of "which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in •order to maintain
acceptable service. ratios; response times or other performance
objectives for any of the.public services:
a. .Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
c. .Schools? X
d. Parks? X
e. Other public facilities? X
a. Additional fire service calls-may occur as a result of the three new residential lots. However, each new residence
will be subject to the payinenf of Community Facilities fees, in accordance with Chapter 17.14, of the Municipal
Code, to offset the impacts to public facilities.
b. Each new residence. will be subject to the,. payment of Community Facilities fees, in accordance with Chapter
17.14, of the Municipal Code, to offsetahe impacts to public facilities.
•
216 S'unnyslope 8~ 1311 D St-TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 18
b. Each new residence will be subject to the payment of school impact .fees to offset the impacts on the school
system of students residing in the project.
c. Each new residence will pay a Park and Recreational .Facilities Fee and a Park and Recreation Land
Improvements Fee to help offset any increased use of parks or recreational facilities by the project residents.
d. There are no other public facilities that are likely to be impacted by the project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin>7::None required
,., ~_____a:,...
~ 6•
Potentially
significant
impact
Less than
significant w/
-mitigation
measures
Less than
significant
impact
No impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational ;facilities such that X
substantial physical deterioration of the.facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction. or .expansion of °recreational facilities 'which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a. The Park and Recreational Facilities Fee collected for each new residence will be used, in part, to maintain
existing parks and recreational facilities: .
b. No recreational facilities are proposed or required as part of this application.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin~: None required
13. Utilities Infrastructure.
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
a. Exceed wastewater'treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Boazd?
b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or ,expansion of existing X
facilities, the construction nf'which could cause significant
environmental' effects?
c. Require or .result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion. of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause sig~cant environmental
effects?
d. .Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the X
project from existing entitlements needed?
6~
2<16 Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -.File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 19
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may •serve the project that it has X .
inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected.. demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with;sufficient permiited.capacity to X
accommodate theproject's solid waste'disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
a. The project is not expected to generate wastewater that will require special treatment.
b. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the' project is consistent with the service needs anticipated
by the Petaluma General Plan and will not require the construction of new treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities.
c. The amount of runoff expected to be. generated by the project can be adequately accommodated by the City's
existing and improved storm water drainage facilities.
d. The proposed project would be located. on an infill site with the ability to connect to existing 10-inch water
main located in D Street to serve ahe 4 undeveloped lots that result from this application. Based on projected
build out of the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025,, sufficient water'supplies to serve the proposed project
are expected to be available from existing entitlements from.tfie Sonoma County Water Agency. Additionally,
a standard condition. from• the department of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project
comply with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance -for interior 'and exterior water usage. Thus, no
significant impact to water supply can be expected.
e. Development of the site was anticipated:by the General Plan and the three new anticipatedxesidential units are not
expected to generate a substantial amount.of wastewater: The existing!and new wastewater treatment plants have
adequate capacity to serve the project's expected demand in addition to that of existing commitments.
f. The amount of solid waste expected to be;generated by the project is consistent. with the service needs anticipated
by the Petaluma General Plan.
g. The project will only generate solid waste typical of residential uses.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin>;: None required.
14. Mineral Resources
Potentially Less-than Less than No impact
signi$cant significant w/ significant
impact: mitigation impact
measures
a. Result in the loss or availability of a lrnown mineral
resource that would be of value to the region` and the X
residents or the state? •
b.. Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery .site 'delineated on a local general X
plan, specific plan or-other land use plan?
a. The soil statement prepared by Steve Lafranchi did not note any valuable°mineral resources.
21:6 Sunnyslope 8~ 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPM-0134-GR Page 20
b. The project site has not been delineated as alocally-important mineral resource recovery site on any such plans.
1Vliti>;ation Measures/Monitorint;: None:required
15. Cultural Resources
Potentially Less than Less than No impact
significant significant w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the, significance of a
historical resource as defined in. CEQA Guidelines X
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change inahe significance of an X
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any humanemains, including those interred outside' X
of formal cemeteries?
a. At proposed Parcels 1 through, 4 there.; are no on-site structures of any age. At the %2-acre plus remainder parcel,
there is an existing. house and out buildings; no modification aie proposed to the lot, home, or out buildings and no
modifications are proposed in the relationship between the home or the lot and it neighbors along Sunnyslope
Avenue. On the D Street :side, an evaluation by Archaeological Resource Service in 2005 as part of the Foley
Tentative Parcel Map and PUD Amendment did not find the modified driveway to be of impact to the existing
house at 1311 D .Street.
b. Likewise, the. ARS evaluation of'2005 found no evidence: of prehistoric resources, features, artifacts,
or modified soils within the project area. No archaeologicahimpacts are expected in this area. A standard
condition ofapproval states that should any archeologicaUhistoricalreinains be encountered during grading, work
shall be halted temporarily and a qualified arcliaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the artifacts and to
recommend further action.
c. There are no known paleontological or .archeological resources. on the site; therefore, there are no potential
impacts. Tliere'are no unique geological features associated' with the site.
d. There are no known human remains that .have been interred on the site. If human remains are discovered
during excavation of the site or during construction, state law requires that the county :Coroner and the Native
American Heritage Commission be contacted. to arrange for Native American participation in determining the
disposition of such remains should they'be determined to be Native American.
Miti>;ation Measures/MonitbrinQt None required
16. Agricultural.Resources
Potentially Less than Less than. No impact
significant' significank,w/ significant
Would the project: impact mitigation impact
measures
~~
2'16 Surinyslope & 1311 D St TPM. Initial Study - File No. 09-TPM-0134-CR Page 21
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland'Mapping and Monitoring X
Program. of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for .agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
c
,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X
farmland to non-agricultural use?
a. The project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
This is a residential in-fill area.
b. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
c. 'The project site is a residential infill property and is noncontiguous to any other agricultural land.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin~: None required
17. Mandatory Findincts of Significance Yes No
Does the project. have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
a
.
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population. to drop below self-
sustaining levels,. threaten to eliminate a:plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict X
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory. ?
b. .Does the project have impacts that are .individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
{"Cumulatively considerable" means;that~the incremental effects ofa project are considerable when X
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a. See Section 6.
b. See Sections 5, 10, 11, 12 and 1'3.
c. See Sections 1 through 16.
® Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
Mitigation 1VYeasures:
Air Quality
AQ-1: New houses at lots 1-4 shall achieve at least 50 GreenPoints under'the current cycle's residential Build It
Green program. Prior to building permit issuance, the GreenPoints Checklist shall be submitted and the
building permit plans shall. depict/note the relevant measures. Prior to building permit final, each house on lots
1-4 shall be GreenPoint.Rated.
2'16` Sunnyslope: & 1311 D St TPM Initial Study -File No. 09-TPM-01`34-GR Page 22
Biology
Bio-1: Prior to improvement plan building permit approval:
a At oak 19, the storm drain shall be relocated entirely outside of the canopy dripline.
® At oak 30, the location of the proposed driveway and any underground intrusion such as sewer and water
laterals shall be relocated entirely outside of the canopy dripline.
Implementation. .
1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of
compliance to the City prior to issuance of.grading permits or approvals ofimprovements plans.
2. The applicant shall incorporate: all applicable code provisions :and required mitigation measures and conditions
into the design. and improvements plans and specifications for the project:
3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and: agents involved in the project implementation of
mitigation measures -and conditions applicable to the project-and shall ensure compliance with such measures and
conditions: Applicant shall notify all assigns and transfers of.the same.
4. The applicant. shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-
going operations on the site or long-range improvements, such. as archaeological resources, etc.
Monitoring
1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. shall review the
improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable
codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and. permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review,
improvement plans, gradingplans, or building.pernuts.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all
responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance
of grading or building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or'ssuance of a.Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be subject
to inspection by City ,staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved
development or improvement plans.
Construction Measures
1. The applicant shall designate a project.. manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and
conditions of approval and provide name; address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading
permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
2. Mitigation measures required during construction. shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits
and signed by the contractor responsible'for construction.
3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans and conditions of approval.
4. If deemed appropriate by the-City, the applicant shall arrange a :pre-construction conference with the construction
contractor, City staff and;responsible.agcncies to review the mitigation treasures and conditions of approval prior
to the issuance of graying and building permits.
Acceptance by Applicant:
r, ~T~V~~ 3. LA-~ycN-~
reviewed this Initial Study' and hereby .agree to incorporate
identif erein into the project.
Signa e of A scant
representative for the project. applicant, have
the mitigation measures and monitoring programs
~~~~o~ --
Date
~~
R.C.E. 49302
STEVEN J. LAFRANCFII ~ ASSOCIATES,. INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS
PETALUMA'MARINA BUSINESS'CENTER
775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954
TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239
S®ILS STATEMENT
'1cENTATIVE PA1tCEL MAP
LAND'S OlF SUNNY D DEVEL®PMENT, LLC
P.L.S. 6368
The following information is based on data that was obtained from the "Soils Survey" for
Sonoma County, 1972 Issue, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Clear Lake-Reyes association: Poorly drained, nearly 1'evel to gently sloping clays to clay
foams; in basins and on tidal flats. Soil stability ranges from low to moderate.
In conclusion, the above .information covers' this general area of Petaluma. Only a site
specific soil investigation can verify existing conditions. No further investigation is
proposed at this time as a condition for filing the Parcel M'ap. However, if future
construction is proposed'.for the site, a,formal report should be prepared by a qualified
professional to address specific design needs.
071205(5oilsstatament).doc ~~
R.C,E: 49302
:STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATE~,INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS ~ LANQ SURVEYORS ~ LAND PLANNERS
PETALUMA'MARINA BUSINESS CENTER
775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SCJITE 312; PETALUMA, CA 94954
TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239
P.L.S. 6368
..
LANDS ®F SUNNY [3 DEVELOPMENT, LLC
PHASE 2
1311 D Street
Petaluma, California
APN :019-130-047
Job IVo.: 071205
Aprpl 6, 2009
Prepared by: VV, Al7l=
Checked by: SJL
~3
GENERAL STi4TE~ENTS'
Introduction
The project site is approximately one acre, located at `1311 D Street in Petaluma (see
Vicinity Map on Page 3), and consists of four parcels and ~a designated:remainder. Under
the permitted conditions of the Phase-1 development, there is a driveway with a curb and
gutter on Lot. l of P1VI 729. The storm drainage from the driveway is collected in an fl-
inch storm drainpipes.. This. pipe was proposed.to discharges into a surface detention
pond on Lot 2 of PM 729. The flow from the pond is released as surface runoff via a 6-
inch storm drain pipe and energy dissipaters. T'he rest of the site drains as surface runoff
towards Sunny Slope Avenue to the north of the. site.
Under the Phase-2 development the: existing driveway will be extended through Parcel 1
(a portion of Lot 2 ofPM 729) to service Parcels 2-4. Parcel drainage will be collected in
swales and routed via drainage inlets and pipes to the existing storm drainage system in
Sunny Slope Road.
5tormwater Detention
Storm drainage from the entire site will be collected and routed to be detained in an
underground. storage pipe (see Drainage Map on Page 5)
Sizing calculations for the detention pipe. are .given on Pages 4 thru 6. The underground
detention was sized to keep 1'0-year proposed ,peak flows atlor lower than the level for the
existing 10-year storm event.. I~ydraflow Hydrographs was used for sizing calculations
and to construct 10-year hydrographs.
Size of detention facilities:
Underground Storage Pipe
36" SD, 100 ft long
Outlet Pipe: 6" SD
Summary of >EIYdrolo~y/Hydraulic Parameters of Calculations
All hydrology(hydraulic calculations presented in this report were done in accordance
with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria. All design
peak flows were calculated using the Modified Rational Method (Q = K C I A).
M1EAN SEASONAL. PR)EGIPITATION
The mean seasonal precipitation was determined as25 inches/year based on the Sonoma
County Mean Seasonal Precipitation Chart, Plate No. B-3, Page 9.
~~
LA~ OF SUNNY D DEVELOPME'NT', LLC
PRIVATE L PRVEi~IETS
1311 ~ STREET'
PETALU~A CA.LLFORNIA
APN: 019-130-047
h~~sh may,! `~; ~r~ ' / ~
ice. :._ 4~ i . Rri~
\`
.1
e, ~
~ a~ cc
~ ~ ~, 4
,
n
r
,` - ~
r
t ,
~¢, r pc
( (t t
.. _
'
_ r __ ..
~} ._.lal .~ 111 ri, > t i , ~ ~ ~ ~.
"~
~ - ~ --
~`t~ ~ ~ '}
` SITE ~ `~
-T ~,~, " H "'~ RN i 3-"1.
~ ~.
;
S l
_~..,.~_. ter,. ,.,• __. ,-
b
`.° ,~, ,
~, _
- ~~. ..~ c
`S. ^~` l
4~' p} a
y`.. 6
!lICLIVITY MIAP
T" = B00'
1 -.
-a
~'