Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 6.C 7/21/2014 Staff Report
DATE: July 21, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolutions certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Making Findings of Pact, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance to Approve a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property to T4, T-5, T-6, and Civic Space, and Resolution approving a 144 -lot Phased Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development located at 500 Hopper Street within the boundaries of the Petaluma Central Petaluma Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development: • Resolution certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development (Attachment 1); and • Resolution Malting Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 2); and • It is also recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property located at 500 Hopper from the conceptual zoning boundaries to T-4, T-5, T-6 and Civic Space (Attachment 3); and • Resolution approving the 144 -lot Phased Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development, APN 136-010-027 (Attachment 4). BACKGROUND Planning Commission The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, and the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development at a noticed public hearing on June 24, 2014. At this hearing, the Commission approved resolutions reconmiending that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt an Ordinance approving the Zoning Map Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manag Amendment for the project site, and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map (Attachments 5, 6 and 7.). The Planning Commission found the project in conformance with requirements of relevant plans and documents including the 2025 General Plan, Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP), and the SmartCode. All three resolutions were approved with a unanimous vote (5-0 with Miller and Marzo absent), and before the Commission voiced support of the conceptual site plan and renderings as reflective of the vision and goals of the CPSP. The Commission heard public comment from six individuals; four representatives of construction trades labor unions (sheet metal, IBER), one representative from Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, and one representative from the law firm Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo. An approximately 20 page letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo dated June 24, 2014, was delivered at 4:00 pm the day of the heating (Attachment 10). Although there was not a written response to the Adams Broadwell letter available at the time of the Planning Conmrission hearing, the Commission did consider the points made in the written comment letter as part of their deliberations. Oral public testimony at the Planning Connnission hearing included concerns about the methodology for soil sampling taken as part of the hazardous materials analysis and methodology for establishing the construction period for purposes of the air quality analysis. One commenter focused on concern about the chemicals once stored and possibly left behind on the adjacent Pomeroy property and their impact to Riverfront. The commenter representing the Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, expressed concern that opposition from construction labor unions across the state was obstructing the public review process by presenting challenge to CEQA documents as a negotiation tactic. More detailed discussion of public comments as they relate to the EIR, including response to the Adams Broadwell letter is included in the Environmental Review Section below. Several items were of particular focus during the Planning Commission's deliberations, including: • Emissions during project construction • Noise attenuation recommendations • Development phasing • Project implementation • Active Park Field Surface Planning Commission discussion on the first two items resulted in conditions of approval in the Tentative Subdivision Map resolution to ensure that the development timeline remained consistent with the project description and analysis in the EIR and to make recommendations on the hierarchy of noise attenuation methods during the design level noise analysis (Attachment 4, Conditions 23 and 25 respectively). The Planning Commission added a third condition of approval (no. 24) to the TSM resolution to require implementation of best management practices during construction activities adjacent to the Riverfront Park as discussed in the EIR. Although not identified as a potential impact in the FEIR, the applicant voluntarily agreed to these preventative recommendations. Development phasing and project implementation was discussed at length during the Planning Commission hearing. Although eight phases are identified on the Tentative Subdivision Map (Attachment 13), there is no outline of timing or sequencing of those phases. The applicant indicated that this was largely to allow adequate flexibility to respond to market fluctuation during the buildout of the project. Additionally, the Commission indicated strong support of the overall vision and proposed design of the project and wanted assurances that future Site Plan and Architectural Review applications for specific buildings would maintain and honor that vision. Conditions of approval are included in the Tentative Subdivision Map resolution to facilitate ongoing review and discussion to ensure this vision is carried through building siting and design (Attachment 4, Exhibit A). During the hearing the applicant indicated a desire for a natural grass field in order to create an active park that can also serve as a neighborhood park for residents of the development. Some members of the Commission expressed a strong preference for installation of an artificial turf field to meet the demands of Petaluma's recreational programs and to carry forward the recommendation of the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission from their earlier review of the project in 2013. No change was made to the proposed condition (Attachment 7, Condition of Approval 60) prior to adoption of the Tentative Subdivision Map Resolution No. 2014-17. Since the Planning Commission meeting the applicant has submitted a written request and justification for the grass field (Attachment 11), which is discussed in more detail in the discussion section below. Recent History The Riverfront Mixed Use Development has been under prelimhiary planning review since 2009 with a formal application filed on February 8, 2011 by Basin Street Properties. The Tentative Map application for the project was deemed complete in February 2013. Table 1 illustrates the recent meetings and actions that have occurred in the last year. Table 1. Recent Meetings Date Request =May 6; 2013 City Council (CC) eviews Riverfront EEIA June 17, 2013 CC introduces the 2013 SmartCode amendments =July 1, 2013 CC 2MEL reading ad"omits 2013 SmartCocle = July 9, 2013 PC reviews Riverfront project and IS/MND July 11,2013 PUC approves Caulfield Lane crossing' August 13, 2013 PC continues Riverfront to date uncertain October 29, 2013 NOP public scoping meeting Deeemb_er 19, 2013 ' 1DEIR released for ppblic review February 6, 2014 Close of public comment period on DEIR 3, 2014 CC public hearing on the DEIR June 24, 2014 PC public hearing on the FEIR, ZMA & TSM In June 2013, the City Council approved language providing a hybrid approach to the existing and amended SmartCode for the Riverfront Project as specified below: SmartCode Section 2. Section 2 of the ordinance adopting the Amended SmartCode provides as follows: "Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Amended SmartCode; provided, however, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Amended SmartCode, 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 SmartCode, until the earlier of: six (6) years following the effective date of the Amended SmartCode, 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 SmartCode upon the effective date of the Amended SmartCode, subject to applicable law." The above provision is limited to the Riverfront Mixed Use Development as currently proposed, as it was the only complete application within the plan area at the time of adoption of the amended SmartCode. Should the subdivision map not be approved, or the project not be built out within six years of adoption or July 1, 2019, any future project proposal at this location would be processed in full compliance with the amended SmartCode. Project Description The proposed project consists of a mixed-use development on approximately 35.7 acres (39.5 acres including the offsite Riverfront Park). As proposed, a total of approximately 19 acres will be developed with a mix of residential, hotel, commercial and office uses, with approximately 13 acres for right-of-way dedication and 3.7 acres for civic spaces as summarized in Table 2 below. Future development includes 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 potential future development of a community boathouse adjacent to the Petaluma River by the Petaluma Small Craft Center. 4 Table 2. Land Use Summary COMMERCIAL Office 60,000 s.f Retail/Restaurants 30.000 s.f Hotel - 120 rooms 40,000 s.f. Total Commercial Square Footage 130,000 s.f RESIDENTIAL Apartments 100 units over the Retail/Restaurants Townhouses 39 units (including 4 live/work units) Single -Family 134 lots Total Residential and Live/Work Units 273 Parcel A — Active Park 98,916 s.f. Parcel B — Central Green 16,448 s.f. Parcel C — Public Path 50,662 s.f. Parcel D — Future Small Craft Facility 6,878 s.f. Land Uses Detached single-family residential lots occupy the majority of the southern portion of the site adjacent to the State-owned property along the Petaluma River with medium -density townhome development located in the northeastern corner. The hotel and office complex are located in the northwestern portion of the site and separated from the single-family residential area by an active park and sports field. In the central portion of the site, the Central Green, an urban park, would be encircled by mixed-use development; ground -floor neighborhood serving commercial and up to 100 apartments on second and third floors. A parcel in the southeast corner of the site will be dedicated to the City for the potential future development of a community boathouse and launch operated by the Petaluma Small Craft Center (PSCC) for small craft access to the Petaluma River. The single -fancily residential lots average approximately 4,000 square feet and are arranged on a grid with a street directly adjacent to the State-owned property along the Petaluma River as shown on the conceptual site plan illustrated included in (Attachment 9). The 134 single -fancily homes range from approximately 1,200 to 2,300 square feet, with an average unit size of 1,790 square feet. The townhouse lots are served by an internal street that connects to the single -fancily development. Besides the single-family residential and 39 townhomes including 4 live/work units, there will be up to 100 rental apartments as part of the mixed-use component. Thus, the proposed project would allow for a maximum project build out of 273 residential units. Offsite Improvements The project includes several off-site improvements including an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to connect D Street to Hopper Street, widening of Hopper Street to meet Fire Department requirements, and development of a "Riverfront Park," an approximately 3.7 acre passive use park on state-owned property which would include walking trails, overlooks and landscaping. Detailed design plans for the development of the Riverfront Park have not yet been prepared, however the riverfront pathway is expected to be approximately 10 feet wide and proposed conditions of project approval require that it be constructed pursuant to the Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the Petaluma River Access arzd Enhancement Plan and operational prior to the 80Th certificate of occupancy granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. The preliminary plan includes preservation of existing trees, the addition of overlooks on the future riverfront park parcel and plantings of additional riparian trees to enhance the area. The linear park will pass near the potential future community boathouse that will be designed and constructed at a later date and will be subject to environmental as well as Site Plan and Architectural Review. The onsite street grid provides bike and pedestrian access as does the project perimeter trail system running along the SMART Corridor Line and Hopper Street and around both the eastern and western boundaries of the site connecting to the Riverfront multiuse path. Due to proposed changes to Hopper Street, a number of changes to the Primary Influent Pump Station (PIPS) part of the wastewater disposal facility on the adjacent City -owned property to the west are required, including an automatic controlled slide access gate to the PIPS facility wide enough to allow a 55 foot long truck trailer access into the pump station. Because of the potential for odor complaints about the PIPS facility, the applicant will provide funds to replace the mechanical odor control unit, and required to replace the odor control bed. Other site improvements at the PIPS facility will include site lighting, landscaping, irrigation, signage, paving for replaced parking area, drainage, fencing, walls, security system, and building protection as required by the City. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access to the project will be provided from Hopper Street via Caulfield Lane, with secondary access off of D Street (Attachment 13, Sheet TM -I3). Typically the city requires two points of public access for projects with 50 or more residential units. Hopper Street will be widened to 45 feet to accommodate two travel lanes, landscaping, and pedestrian/bicycle access from Caulfield Lane to the project site as proposed by the project. The project plans also provide an internal network of streets that consists of one primary north - south street and several minor north -south connections. Most onsite streets will provide on -street parking. The primary north -south street through the project site will provide for the future extension of Caulfield Lane through the site to Petaluma Boulevard South to the south of the Petaluma River as described in the City's General Plan. Several grid-pattem streets would serve the residential uses in the southern portion of the site, including one running parallel to the north bank of the Petaluma River. In addition, the existing and future sewers together with proposed project utilities will be located in the public right of way and not in an easement. The General Plan calls for a bridge across the river to provide a southern crossing. This future bridge would cross the Petaluma River in alignment with the proposed central roadway that extends from the Central Green and connects to Petaluma Boulevard South. Although the project will contribute to the construction of the southern crossing through traffic impact fees, the construction of the bridge is not part of this project. The roadway has however been designed to facilitate future completion of the bridge in terms of alignment and elevation. 6 Until such time as the Southern Crossing Bridge is built, the required second point of emergency access would be provided through an emergency vehicle access (EVA) route from Hopper Street to a new EVA that enters the project site from the west via Pomeroy [URS property, south of the City -owned property (Attachment 13, Sheet TM -12). 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. The EVA connection from D Street to Hopper Street varies from 26 to 30 feet in width. The at -grade crossing of the SMART rail tracks at Lakeville Street has been relocated to Caulfield Lane northeast of the project site and been given final California Public Utilities Commission approval. The applicant will provide agreed upon financial contribution to the cost of the crossing gate for the at -grade crossing, as conditioned. On -street parallel parking would be provided along both sides of all internal streets except for the alleys behind the retail - residential mixed use area, on the street between the Central Green and the frontage road along the river. Parking The project is within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries and is subject to the parking standards contained in Chapter 4 of the 2003 Smart Code until the six year period from the date of the Amended SmartCode adoption applicable to Riverfront concludes, as discussed previously. The 2003 parking requirement is one space for each residential dwelling unit, one parking space for each hotel room, and one parking space for each 300 square feet of commercial space (office and retail). The project requires 378 parking spaces for the commercial land uses (60,000 s.f. office, 30,000 s.£ retail/commercial and 120 room hotel). All of the townhomes and single-family homes will have two car garages, while each apartment will have one covered space. The preliminary parking layouts provided as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map (Attachment 13, TM -15), provide 155 on-site parking spaces and 129 on -street parking spaces within the commercial areas for a total 284 spaces. On -street parallel parking occurs along both sides of all internal streets except for the alleys behind the retail -residential mixed-use area and between the Central Green and River Road as shown on the cross sections on Sheet TM -7 of Attachment 13. The CPSP allows the frontage on -street panting to be counted toward the number of required spaces. There are an additional 280 on -street parking spaces within the residential portions of the project site. This results in a total public parking supply of 564 spaces. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity The project includes a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are consistent with the goals of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (1996), the City's Bicycle and Trail Plan (2008), and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (2003). An approximately 10 -foot wide, Class I multi -use path is proposed around the perimeter of the site and would connect to other planned paths in the area as illustrated on Sheet TM -5 of Attachment 13. The proposed street through the middle of the site would serve as a Class II bicycle and pedestrian facility that connects the multi -use path within the proposed Riverfront Park to Hopper Street. There is an existing easement for general public vehicular, pedestrian and 7 bicycle access that runs north -south through the site that will be relocated to align with the Class II path leading to the future bridge to connect to Petaluma Boulevard South. Transit Due to the proximity to bus stops located near the Caulfield Lane/Lakeville Highway intersection (1,000 feet walking distance to the site), the size of the project, and anticipated transit usage (348 jobs and 565 residents estimated by the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis for the project), there was sufficient nexus with the project to provide for the purchase and installation of a new bus shelter at the nearest bus stop to the site. Providing funds to purchase and install a new bus shelter at the Caulfield/Lakeville intersection (southbound Lakeville) to meet the transit usage demand created by the project is a condition of approval. This new shelter will provide access to both the existing transit system and the planned SMART downtown station located .77 miles to the northwest, directly across D Street on Lakeville Highway. The Planning Commission found the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development to be consistent with applicable policies contained in the General Plan, Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP), the SmartCode and other relevant documents as detailed on pages 9-23 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 8). The proposed project will implement CPSP goals and policies by providing a viable mix of land uses that engage the river and link both the east and west sides of the City in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhood. The conceptual plans increase the density and intensity of development, while providing a variety of public recreational opportunities and minimizing the focus on the automobile. Siting and architectural design for individual buildings will be considered through future SPAR review at the discretion of the Planning Commission and consistent with the vision presented in the conceptual site plan and renderings presented by the applicant (Attaclunent 15). The following provides analysis of the entitlements currently before the City Council for consideration and forwards the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Zoning Map Amendment The requested Zoning Map Amendment changing the current "conceptual area boundary" zoning from Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) zoning districts to General Urban (T-4), Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) complies with Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050.13, which requires that the Planning Commission find the amendment to be in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan and consistent with the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. The Planning Commission determined that these finding could be made for the following reasons: ® The Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) zoning districts directly comply with the proposed districts in the SmartCode which innplements zoning for development within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area. The zoning will facilitate mixed-use development proposed by the Plan and several areas of public open space. ® The General Urban (T-4) zoning designation will allow for the development of single family and townhome residential development to complement the cominercial, office and multifamily uses. 8 • Approval of the requested zoning map amendment facilitates implementation of the General Plan 2025, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, the SmartCode, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the River Access and Enhancement Plan. The zoning amendment serves the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare by implementing zoning consistent with adopted plans, policies, and zoning code regulations. Tentative Subdivision Map The project satisfies all the requirements of the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance per Chapter 20.15 of the Municipal Code. As required by the city's subdivision ordinance, the City Engineer prepared a written report to the Planing Commission with recommended conditions for approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. Those recommendations along with recommended conditions from the Planning Department, Fire Marshall, and advisory committees were incorporated into the TSM resolution approved by the Planning Commission (Attachment 7). In 2013, Council adopted the amended SmartCode which allows the use of warrants (deviations) from applicable development standards under certain situations (Amended SmartCode Section 8.10.020.H). As part of the Riverfront Mixed Use Development, the applicant has requested approval of several warrants which are outlined on Supplemental Map Sheet TM -8A. The warrants summarized below and more specifically detailed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8, pages 23-27) were considered and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map. The warrants are intended to create certainty and consistency between approval of the map and future of site planning for the phased buildout of the Riverfront development. The requested warrants meet the intent of the SmartCode and will preserve a balance between: • maintaining an appropriate project density and mix of uses • maintaining a walkable and inviting streetscape envisioned in the CPSP • ensuring that the project is economically viable Architecture, park design, landscaping, lighting, signage and similar elements will require future Site Plan and Architectural Review for each individual development components. Consistency with the warrants granted as part of the TSM will be part of SPAR consideration to ensure implementation of the current vision of the project. Warrants currently being requested as part of the TSM include: • Rear yard setbacks (garages) • Side yard setbacks and lot coverage (townhomes) • Parking in first and second layers (frontage, front fagade vicinity) of Lot 134 • Street sections Request: Reduced rear vard setback for garages on 92 sinele family lots in T-4 Zone The modified rear setbacks are consistent with the T-4 Zone description and balance the competing needs to: • Achieve the desired densities of the CPSP N • Create a walkable interconnected neighborhood that provides access to alternative transportation corridors and modes (bike, bus, pedestrian) • De-emphasize the auto by placing garages accessible by alleys at the back of lots The inclusion of smaller residential lots to achieve appropriate density is consistent with the intent of the CPSP. Compliance with the 20 -foot rear yard setback standard would be possible for nearly all lots in the Riverfront project if garages were moved to the front of each lot. Such a design, however, is at odds with the fundamental tenet of the CPSP to de-emphasize the automobile and maximize the pedestrian -oriented nature of the streetscape. Request: Reduce setbacks for tmvnhomes in T-4 Zone • Reduce side yard setbacks to zero (0) for townhomes on lots 1.31, 132 and 138 in the T-4 Zoning District. Townhomes or rowhouses are attached single-family structures that share a common party wall with other townhomes and require a zero (0) side yard setback. Compliance with the required side yard setbacks would preclude inclusion of this housing type, although the townhome component of the Riverfront development provides variation in housing types and is consistent with the more dense residential development envisioned in the CPSP. Request: Increase lot coverage for townhomes in T-4 Zone • Increase lot coverage for three townliome lots 131, 132 and 138 in the T-4 Zoning District to 80%. The 2003 SmartCode sets a maximum of 60% for lot coverage. Townhomes (attached single-family units) typically consume most of an individual lot with common areas for driveways and open space. Compliance with the maximum 60% lot coverage would likely preclude inclusion of this housing type, although the townhome component of the Riverfront development provides variation in housing types and is consistent with the more dense residential development envisioned in the CPSP. Request: Parking in the First and Second Laver • Allow parking spaces within the surface parking lot adjacent to the hotel and office complex and north of the active park to be located within the first and second layer. The SmartCode T-5 Zone does not permit parking in the first layer (the area between the frontage line and facade line) or the second layer (the area from the facade line to 20 feet back from the facade). The applicant is requesting to provide parking within all three layers on Lot 134 to provide shared parking for the office, hotel and proposed active use park. The nature of the mixed-use project and the central location of the playfield (civic use), hotel, office and mixed-use components require that surface parking be visible and conveniently located to all three uses. Specifically, visibility of the surface lot from the playfield is paramount to the success of the parking being utilized by playfield attendees to avoid overburdening the neighborhoods during high use periods. Shared parking for multiple users is consistent with the vision of the CPSP. WE Request: Modified Street Sections The Riverfront mixed-use project proposes street sections that differ from those illustrated in the SmartCode. More specifically, variations are proposed for the local residential streets, a portion of the Caulfield Extension between the Pomeroy property and the Central Green, and the main street extending from the Central Green to the Petaluma River. The overall width of the right-of-way required for these streets is consistent with Section 5 Thoroughfare Standards of the SmartCode requirements. However, the applicant proposes modifications to the components within the right-of-way (bike lane, landscaping, sidewalks and paths) as outlined in greater detail in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8, Table 3) and as illustrated on Sheet TM -7 of Attachment 13. In addition, the extension of Hopper Street requires modifications to the right-of-way and components within the right-of-way due to physical constraints (City sewer pump station and SMART right-of-way) and the desire to provide a Class I bike/pedestrian path along the north side of the Riverfront site. Staff believes that the proposed deviations are justified to meet Fire and Public Works standards and code requirements while still meeting the intent of the SmartCode to create a pleasing streetscape and provide a pedestrian and bicycle -friendly environment. Active Park Field During preliminary review of the project in 2013 the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission indicated a strong desire for an artificial turf field in the proposed active park to accommodate year round use and to provide a tournament level field for soccer and other sports. The Planning Commission echoed this direction and approved the recommending resolution for the TSM with Condition of Approval 60 which requires an artificial turf field. In a letter dated July 1, 2014 (Attachment 11), and submitted after the Planning Commission hearing, Basin Street Properties outlines their request to install a natural grass field instead of the current requirement for an artificial turf field. The letter includes costs and a comparison of the benefits and cost of the two different field surfaces for the Council's consideration. Consistent with the recommendation of both the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission and the Planning Commission, staff recommends the Council maintain the condition as proposed with final design of the field to include artificial turf and require review by the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission prior to final map approval. CalTrans Easement The applicant expressed opposition to the inclusion of TSM Resolution No. 2014-17Condition of Approval #78, which requires the applicant to grant an easement to SCTA and CalTrans across parcel C. The applicant has indicated that Basin Street is currently involved in litigation with CalTans on this issue and wants the results of that litigation to decide the issue as opposed to a condition of project approval. Basin Street has also argued that there is no legal nexus for the city to require the easement as part of the Riverfront project. Although discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission directed that the condition remain in the resolution with direction to staff to consult with the city attorney's office on the appropriateness of the condition, and to forward that recommendation to Council with the final TSM resolution. 11 Based on the project information provided by staff and also legal counsel representing CalTrans, the City Attorney's office agrees with the applicant that there is not an adequate nexus between the project impacts and the proposed condition. Therefore, staff has removed the condition from the draft TSM resolution before the Council for consideration. It appears, based on communications with CalTrans counsel, applicant counsel and City staff that revisions to conditions 56 and 81 in the TSM resolution will be sufficient to provide access to the fee property to be dedicated to the City as part of the project from the public road system to be built as part of the project. If in the future CalTrans and/or SCTA require access across the fee parcel dedicated to the City such revised conditions will preserve the City's ability to grant such access without the need for additional improvements such as new curb cuts, ramps, or outlets to connect to the project's public road system. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEIR Summary The Draft EIR for the Riverfront Project was made available for a 45 -day public comment period on December 19, 2013. A notice of completion and availability was published in the Argus Courier and sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties, individuals who submitted continents on the NOP, the State Clearinghouse and the Sonoma County Clerk. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development identifies potentially significant impacts to the following categories: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic Circulation/Transportation. Analysis in the DEIR includes an overview of the existing conditions compared to the proposed project and applies thresholds of significance based on CEQA guidelines and other regulatory criteria to assess whether or not the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. The DEIR finds that all of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The DEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment that cannot be mitigated. As such, there are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed Riverfront Mixed -Use Project that would result in need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. During the public review period there were two public hearings, one before the Planning Commission on January 14, 2014 and one before the City Council on February 3, 2014. Commissioners and Councilmembers provided comments on the DEIR and public comments were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. There were no public comments at the City Council meeting. By the close of the public review period (February 6, 2014) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverfront Project, staff received written comment fiom the following agencies, organization and individuals: 1. California State Clearinghouse 12 2. California State Lands Conunission 3. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) 4. Adanls Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 5. Rachel Starr FEIR Summary The Final EIR for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development was made available on June 12, 2014. A notice of hearing was published in the Argus Courier and sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties. A copy of the FEIR was posted at the City of Petaluma Public Library, Community Center, and made available at City Hall with the City Clerk and at the Planning Division counter. The FEIR, hand -delivered separately, addresses all comments raised on environmental issues and provides clarification and revisions to the Draft EIR where appropriate. A total of 5 comment letters were received during the 45 -day public comment period on the DEIR. Copies of all written continents received on the Draft EIR, a record of oral continents made at the Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 2014 and the City Council meeting on February 3, 2014, are contained within the FEIR. The FEIR Chapter 3 identifies text in the DEER that has been changed. Minor modifications to the DEIR include clarification on the project description, specific wording in Air Quality, Geology and Noise mitigation measures, and updated text and tables for air quality emissions and screening levels for hazardous materials. Additionally, the narrative for the geology and soils discussion was expanded to include the findings of a peer review that was conducted and the hydrology and water quality discussion was enhanced to include additional information on sea level rise. The FEIR includes all comments and itemized responses in Chapter 4 as well as Appendices A- E. Appendix A contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which identifies each mitigation measure and sets forth the requirement for implementation and identifies the party responsible for ensuring compliance. A Geotechnical Peer Review Letter is included in Appendix B that provides an independent third party assessment of the adequacy of the geoteclunical report and the feasibility of the proposed geotechnical recommendations. A supplemental Air Quality Memo and Noise Review are included in Appendices C and D respectively. The additional modeling provides documentation to further support findings of the DEIR and to describe the methodology approach and modeling assumptions. Appendix E contains responses from IRIS Enviromnental that addresses comments raised relating to Hazardous Materials. The Appendices to the FEIR are included to provide clarification on comments raised and do not identify any new impacts or result in substantial new information not previously identified in the DEIR. A detailed outline of the commmon topics raised in public comments during the DEIR comment period is included in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8, pages 31-35). No new significant impacts or other information requiring recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments. The FEIR concludes that the clarification provided in response to specific comments do not meet any of the tests for recirculation in CEQA Guidelines section 13 15088.5 as no significant new information has been added, no new significant impacts identified, and no considerably different mitigation measures have been added. None of the changes, revisions, or clarifications results in significant new information that would warrant recirculation. Late Comments Received In addition to comments received on the Draft EIR, for which responses were provided in the Final EIR, an additional letter was received on the date of the Planning Commission meeting (June 24, 2014) from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo. The letter did not raise new issues that weren't already addressed in the DEIR and/or FEIR as summarized below. The continent letter was provided via email to Planning Commissioners and a hardcopy was also provided at time of the public meeting. As described above, the Commission hearing included discussion regarding several of the areas of concern raised in the letter. No other comment letters on the FEIR have been received from the public as of the writing of this report. Response to Late Comments Received Staff has reviewed the comment letter on the FEIR submitted by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on June 24, 2014 (Attachment 10). The comment letter reiterates the same areas of concern identified in the comment letter provided by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo for the DEIR and for which itemized responses are already provided as part of the FEIR. In general, the comment letter identifies the following areas of concern: 1.Adequacy of the Air Quality Impact Analysis During Construction 2.Potential Geotechnical Impacts due to Bay Mud and impacts from mitigation 3.Adequacy of Greenhouse Gas Analysis 4.Soi1 Testing for Surface to depths of 4 feet S.Location of Boathouse 6.Voluntary Biological Mitigation Measures 7.Recirculation Although CEQA does not require that individual responses be provided for late continents, staff carefully reviewed each comment to consider if any new information or new issues were raised. Staff determined that all comments were previously raised and adequately addressed in the FEIR. Nonetheless, in an effort to ensure that all comments have been fully acknowledged, staff has prepared the following responses to the late continent letter: 1. Air Quality Analvsis The comment asserts that the FEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze and mitigate significant air quality impacts. The continents raise concerns regarding changes to the air model defaults for the construction schedule for the entire project, especially for painting, as well as not changing the default for a model run performed for the non-residential project components. The technical analyses, included in Appendix C-1 of the DEIR and Appendix C of the FEIR, provide the results of the modeling and explain the changes in default settings. Given the eight 14 phases of development that would result in construction of 273 residential units, 30,000 square feet of commercial space, 60,000 square feet of office uses, and a 120 -room hotel, as well as infrastructure improvements and park and recreational areas, the air quality modeling conservatively assumed a minimum five-year buildout and adjusted the model defaults for some of the construction activities as fully explained in Response to Conmients 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11 in the FEIR (pages 4-108 to 4-110). Similarly, a model run of just the non-residential portions of the project was performed to identify potential worse -case impacts and health risks to residential uses that may already have been developed (Response to Continent 4-10). The Californian Emissions Estimator model CaIEEMod (version 2013.2) was utilized in accordance with the User's Guide. CalEEMod default assumptions represent a "default' data set that the authors intended to be modified to reflect the facts and circumstances of each unique project. The Air Quality Analysis conducted for the Riverfront Project used both default data of the model and made adjustments to reflect the project specific conditions and build out schedule. Where modifications to the model were made, such as extending the default schedule, a rationale is provided to justify each adjustment. It should also be noted that CaIEEMod requires the inclusion of a narrative explanation whenever an adjustment is made to the default. The Air Quality analysis and Appendix C to the FEIR include CalEEMod output tables which contain user entered comments and non -default data notes that provide the required narrative explanation. Each deviation from the CalEEMod defaults was reasonable for the proposed project and justification for adjustments are provided in the FEIR. One of the adjustments made in CaIEEMod was to extend the duration of the architectural coating stage of construction. This extension was provided given that the default period was unreasonably short for a project of this size with distinct development phases. The extension of the schedule also provides for additional interior work including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sheet rock etc., since these activities are typically performed in conjunction with interior painting. Accordingly, the timeframe of 325 days as adjusted for the architectural coating phase is reasonable given the scale of the proposed development and the anticipated development schedule. 2. Geotechnical Issues The comments raise concerns regarding construction on bay mud, which is addressed in section 4.4 of the DEIR based on technical analyses included in Appendix C-4 of the DEIR, which were further subjected to a third -party peer review included as Appendix B of the FEIR and summarized in section 3.0 of the FEIR. As indicated in Response to Comment 4-30 of the FEIR document (pages 4-133 to 4-137), the peer review concluded that feasible design reconmlendations have been identified to reduce impacts associated with construction on bay muds. The revised Mitigation Measure GEO-3 specifies that design -level geotechnical analysis be performed and provides for the use of light- weight fill, and or pre -loading in the event that recommended design measures are determined to be insufficient at the design level stage. These measures are standard, accepted and proven 15 engineering practices that address settlement of Bay Mud, are known to be feasible and have been successfully implemented throughout the Bay Area. The EIR, including both the DEIR and FEIR, adequately characterizes site conditions and potential impacts and identify mitigation measures that would reduce soil stability and settlement impacts to a less -than -significant level. 3. Greenhouse Gases The comment indicates that the GHG emissions analysis should be based on a project occupancy no later than 2019 instead of 2020. As explained in Response to Comment 4-17 of the FEIR document (pages 113-114), even with the shortest estimated construction period of five years, occupancy would not be achieved until 2020 at the earliest. The air model assumptions regarding PG&E energy rates used the most current best available in_forniation as explained in Response to Comment 4-18 of the FEIR document (pages 4-114 to 4-115). 4. Hazardous Materials The commenter continues to reference photos included in the 2001 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as suggesting potential hazardous materials contamination in the area proposed for an active park. In addition to the information and analyses provided in section 4.5 and Appendix C-5 of the DEIR document, the FEIR fully responds to comrnenter s concerns, specifically regarding potential sources of contamination in Response to Continent 4-20 of the FEIR document (pages 4-116 to 4-119), including the cited photographs on page 4-118. The comment indicates that lead could be present in higher levels in soils closer than four feet to the surface, presenting a risk to workers, residents and future users of the project site without further testing. As indicated in Response to Comment 4-24 of the FEIR (pages 4-123 to 4-126), the 23 soil samples analyzed throughout the site including samples of soils from the surface to four feet below ground level do not suggest that lead concentrations in project soils present a risk to human health or the environment. Response to comments 4-20 through 4-28 (pg. 4-116 through 4-132) as well as comment PH 8-1 (pg. 4-167) provide clarifying information regarding screening levels, methodology used to detect contaminants, and the evaluation of the site's potential to contain hazardous materials. To further substantiate the record, nine soil borings that yielded 27 additional soil samples were taken from the site in the immediate vicinity of soil boring K-2 which had previously identified a lead concentration of 75 mg at an approximate four foot depth. All additional samples were taken at shallow soil depths from the surface to four feet below and were analyzed for concentration of hazardous materials. The additional samples detected lead at concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 68 mg/kg, with an average of 9.5 mg/kg for surface samples and 20 mg/kg 16 for samples between 0.5 feet and 4 feet below the surface. The results are consistent with previous subsurface investigation in that they were not found to contain lead concentrations of concern to human health or the environmental. In addition to lead, the soil samples also detected arsenic at concentration ranging from 2.3 to 14 mg/kg, with an average of 5.4 mg/kg. Although arsenic concentrations exceed the Tier -1 screening level of 0.39 mg/kg and the worker screening level of 10 mg/kg, the arsenic levels onsite are consistent with background condition as described in the EIR. Thus, the findings and conclusion of the FEIR are further substantiated. An updated memo from IRIS Environmental outlined the samples and soil analysis, including the conclusion that no unsafe concentration of contamination was found on the site. The updated IRIS Environmental memo is included as Attachment 12 to this staff report. 5. Boathouse The comment states that the DEIR indicates that the potential future construction of a boathouse is evaluated in the EIR. but that the FEIR retreats from this statement. The boathouse parcel created by the project and subsequent development of a boathouse was generally assessed in the DEIR where potential impacts were identified (e.g., biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology, traffic), but both the DEIR and FEIR documents are correct in stating that development of a boathouse is not part of the proposed project and would be subject to further environmental review in the future when specific siting and design plans are developed, including a potential boat launch, which will address potential exposure to 100 -year flood and sea level rise risks. However, as shown on Figure 4.6-1 of the FEIR document (page 3- 19), the proposed boathouse parcel is mostly outside of the 100 -year floodplain/sea level rise area. Future construction of a boat launch is further discussed in Response to Continent 3-3 of the FEIR document (pages 4-28 to 4-29). The DEIR (page 4.4-8) and Response to Comment 4-33 of the FEIR document (pages 4-138 to 4-139) indicate that geotechnical reviews have identified foundation types that could be utilized for the boathouse. 6. Biological Mitigation Measures The comment states that "voluntary" biological measures must be mandatory, enforceable, and specific. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPS) will be required as a Condition of Project Approval in accordance with suggestions of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, although mitigation measures are not required as explained in Response to Comment 3-2 of the FEIR document (pages 4-27 to 4-28) since habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse has not been identified on the property. 17 7. Recirculation The conunenter's request for recirculation does not meet the criteria set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines as explained in Response to Continent 4-37 of the FEIR document (pages 4-140 to 4- 141); see also Response to Comment 4-3 (pages 4-102 to 4-103 of the FEIR document). IMPACT AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Impact and development fees are assessed on the final entitled project based on the most recent impact fee studies, which were most recently conducted in 2012. The current development assumptions proposed for the Riverfront project were included in the 2012 update. The Riverfront Mixed -Use project is subject to the following development fees plus any other fees in effect at time of Tentative Subdivision Map approval for residential: • City Facilities • Commercial Development Housing Linkage • Affordable Housing In -Lieu Contribution • Open Space Acquisition • Park Land Acquisition (Quimby Act Projects) • Park Land Development • Wastewater Capacity, Water Capacity and Water Connection • Storm Drainage • Public Art (Ordinance No. 2202 N.C.S.) • School Facilities • Traffic Mitigation • Central Petaluma Specific Plan In an effort to respond to questions raised as part of the public hearing process on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, development fees have been estimated for the project as proposed, the "No Project" alternative, and two other alternatives representing varying levels of development intensity. Refer to pages 5-14 to 5-18 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for a full description of the alternatives. The estimated development impact fees for each of the alternatives are as follows: • Proposed Project $16,224,852 • Alternative 2 - Modified Subdivision Layout $15,919,896 • Alternative 3 - Reduced Project Size $14,988,618 • No Project $ 0 The development impact fees are due at time of issuance of building permit (commercial uses) or occupancy (residential uses) at which time, the estimated fee will be updated and other fees that are applicable to the proposed project will be required. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The project is subject to cost recovery with all expenses paid by the applicant. The applicant has paid $263,626.87 cost recovery fees to date. 18 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Draft Resolution Making Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3. Draft Resolution Adopting the Zoning Map Amendment 4. Draft Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-15 recommending certification of the Filial Environmental Impact Report 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-16 recommending approval of the Zoning Map Amendment 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map 8. Planning Commission Staff Report — June 24, 2014 9. Illustrative Conceptual Site Plan 10. Public comments Letter — Adanis Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 11. Letter from Basin Street Properties regarding the Active Park field surface 12. Subsurface Site Investigation Report from IRIS Environmental -July 10, 2014 13. Phased Tentative Subdivision Map Plan Set (half-size) 14. FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (hand delivered separately) 15. Illustrative graphics 19 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties ("Applicant') proposes a mixed-use development consisting of up to 273 residential units, up to 90,000 sf of commercial uses, a 120 -room hotel, approximately 4 acres of parks and an approximately 3.8 -acre offsite riverfront park on adjacent state-owned property along the Petaluma River; and WHEREAS, the project applications submitted by the Applicant include a zoning map amendment and a tentative subdivision map to create 144 lots on 35.7 acres, and the applications collectively comprise the "Project; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development was prepared and circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation on the scope of the EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the Scoping Meeting, and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated December 2013 (SCH No. 2013062004) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published in the Argus Courier on December 12, 2013 and mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, exceeding CEQA's notice requirements, and the Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from December 19, 2013 to February 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008, and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) adopted June 2, 2003 and amended July 1, 2013, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Malang Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Enviromnental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Draft EIR at a noticed public hearing on January 14, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and following the public hearing, the Planning Commission provided comments on the Draft EIR and provided recommendation and feedback to the City Council for preparation of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Draft EIR at a noticed public hearing on February 3, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and following the public hearing, the City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR and directed staff to prepare a Final EIR; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Final EIR dated June 2014 containing written responses to all conmrents received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments: and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments on the Draft EIR, the responses and information developed in preparing the responses and determined that none of the comments, responses or information required recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and, WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Final EIR for the Planning Conmlission; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on June 24, 2014, at which time it considered the Final EIR, accepted public testimony, and adopted Resolution 2014-15 incorporated herein by reference recommending certification of the EIR ; and, WHEREAS, staff identified two (2) minor corrections to the EIR: 1) page 3-7, Table 4.5-113 - the last two words of the Table title reads Deep Soils, and should read Shallow Soils; and 2) page 3-9, second reference to Page 4.6-7, first paragraph at end reads between 2000 and 2010 and should read behveen 2000 mzd 2100; and WHEREAS, staff identified two (2) minor corrections to the MMRP: 1) page 4 of the MMRP — reporting requirements for BIO -1 should be replaced with the following language "applicant shall provide proof of purchase of credits" and 2) page 13 of the MMRP — NOISE -2d should replace "noise -generally' with "noise -generating; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on July 21, 2014, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, 1-Z WHEREAS, the Final EIR does not identify any impacts that remain significant and unavoidable after application of feasible project mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and presented with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council which reviewed and considered it prior to making a decision on the Project. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts of the Project. 4. The Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the Draft and Final EIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, documents on file at City Hall and incorporated herein by reference. 1-3 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties ("Applicant") proposes a mixed-use development consisting of up to 273 residential units, up to 90,000 sf of commercial uses, a 120 -room hotel, approximately 4 acres of parks and an approximately 3.8 -acre offsite riverfront park on adjacent state-owned property along the Petaluma River; and WHEREAS, the project applications submitted by the Applicant include a zoning map amendment and a tentative subdivision map to create 144 lots on 35.7 acres, and the applications collectively comprise the "Project'; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation on the scope of the FIR , pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082: and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the Scoping Meeting, and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated December 2013 (SCH No. 2013062004) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published in the Argus Courier on December 12, 2013, and mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, exceeding CEQA's notice requirements, and the Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from December 19, 2013 to February 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) adopted June 2, 2003 and amended July 1, 2013, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in support of the General Plan 2025, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City as Exhibit A to Resolution 2003-104 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in support of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 14, 2014 to consider the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 3, 2014 to consider the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, responses to written and oral comments received the Draft EIR have been prepared in the form of a Final Enviromnental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting on June 24, 2014, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on July 21, 2014, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project will require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts of the project and therefore no statement of overriding consideration is required for approval of the project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, as set forth in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and Z_.'Z NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and adopted as findings of the City Council. 2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding potential significant effects of the project and mitigation contained in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the attached Exhibit B. which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented. Compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any Project approval. 6. The City Council hereby finds that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency. 7. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma, Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952. 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. Z-3 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts of the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development (File No. 11 -TSM -0130) ("Project') and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term EIR means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specifies. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environment impact contained in the EIR. Instead the findings provide a summary description of each impact, identify the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is in the EK and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determination and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact 4.1-1 — Criteria Pollutant Emissions: The project would result in emissions during construction and from vehicles once development is complete, which would not be considered significant except for generation of fugitive dust during construction. This is considered a potentially signif ccoit impact. AIR -1: Require implementation of Basic Control Measures during construction. AIR -2: Include the listed construction specifications measures (GP Policy 4-P-16) such as maintaining equipment, using alternative fuels, equip construction equipment with Best Available Control Technology, and require use of CARB's most recent certification standards. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant 7 Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions from grading as recommended by BAAQMD. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants as described in the EIR, and would be further minimized through implementation of measures during construction activities. Impact 4.1-2b — Expose Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants During Construction: Sensitive onsite receptors could be temporarily exposed to substantial concentrations of pollutants during construction due to diesel equipment exhaust. AIR -3: Require that construction activities achieve an additional 60 percent reduction in exhaust particulate matter emissions, compared to similar equipment based on CARB statewide average emissions when building construction activities occur within 200 feet of any residential use. Methods to achieve this objective includes the use of Tier 2 standard equipment, alternatively fueled equipment (LPG fuel), and/or prohibit the use of diesel powered generators for more than two days when line power is available, Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigations will reduce exhaust emissions within 200 feet of residential uses to less than applicable exposure thresholds. The mitigations employ a combination of techniques to reduce exposure concentrations including that construction equipment demonstrate optimal function and performance, use alternative fuels, and be equipped with Control Technology such as oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks would be reduced by 64% as a result of this measure. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.1-3 — Objectionable Odors: Future construction and development of the site, resulting from the proposed project, will not result in the generation of objectionable odors in substantial concentrations. However, occupancy of the project site has the potential to expose new residents to objectionable odors. AIR -4: Provide reimbursement to the City for the design and construction of the Primary Influent Pump Station mechanical odor control unit. The odor control unit shall meet current design criteria and be equivalent to the units installed at recent pump station upgrades within the City. Z.-5 Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of a mechanical odor control unit to replace the existing soil bed filter would substantially reduce detectable odors. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.2-1 - Wetlands: The proposed project would result in fill of 034 acres of onsite wetlands, most of which are jurisdictional wetlands. Although the fill will not result in significant impacts to special status species or habitat value, due to the fact wetlands are considered sensitive habitats, this is a potentially significant impact. BIO -1: To mitigate for the impacts to 0.24 acres of seasonal wetland habitat, the developer shall purchase credits from an approved mitigation bank at a ratio of one acre for every one acre impacted, or as otherwise directed by the regulatory agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Prior to issuance of grading permit, proof of purchase of mitigation bank credit or verification of onsite wetland remediation to offset losses shall be submitted to the City and U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers. BIO -2: Develop final Riverfront Park design that avoids and protects wetlands. The design shall also investigate the feasibility of creating wetland habitat as part of the proposed Riverfront Park, which could serve to offset losses in lieu of purchasing credits (See BIO -1). Implement standard best management practices (BMP) to protect wetland areas during and after construction of the Riverfiont Park to include, but not be limited to installation of protective staking and silt fencing to prevent inadvertent intrusion by equipment during construction. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that agency as part of the requisite 404 Nationwide dredge and fill permit. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigations will protect wetland habitat and/or offset any losses to wetland habitat though the procurement of mitigation bank credits. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.2-2 — Special Status Species: Site preparation could result in direct impacts to nesting bird species, if they are present, including potential special status bird species. BIO -1: Conduct vegetation removal within areas to be developed between September I and January 30, outside of the general breeding bird season. If this is completed, no further mitigation is required. Otherwise, if vegetation removal or modification occurs between February 1 and June 15, require pre -construction nesting surveys within 14 days prior to such activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If vegetation removal or modification occurs between June 16 and August 31, pre -construction surveys shall be performed within 30 days prior to such activities. If active nests are present, establish temporary protective breeding season buffers to avoid direct or indirect mortality of these birds, nests or young. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enviromnental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation will protect special status species by controlling the seasonal timing of vegetation removal or requiring nesting bird surveys if occurring within the breeding season. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.3-1 - Discove7y of Archaeological Resource: The project has the potential to disrupt previously undiscovered archeological resource. CUL -1: If during the course of ground disturbing activities, historic resource is encountered, all work within a 100 foot radius of the find shall be suspended for a time deemed sufficient for a qualified and city -approved cultural resource specialist to evaluate and determine significance of the discovered resource. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation ensures that currently unknown archeological resources will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed as a result of construction activities. Through the requirement to suspend construction work within 100 feet of a find, the cultural significance of such a resource can be assessed and construction work can proceed as appropriate. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. z-7 Impact 4.3-2 — Disturb Human Remains: The project could disturb undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. CUL -2: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work shall be suspended and the Sonoma Comity Coroner shall be contacted in accordance with provisions of the California Public Resources Code section 5097.98-99. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation ensures that currently unknown human remains will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed through ground disturbance as a result of construction activities. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.4-1 — Exposure to Seismic Hazards: Future project structures, residents and occupants at the site would be subject to strong seismic shaking and liquefaction hazards. GEO-1: Require implementation of all recommendations as set forth in the geoteclurical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013). Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant enviromnental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project is subject to the California Building Code (CBC) which recognizes the seismic risk of developing in this state and includes stringent design and construction requirements and engineering applicable not only to future Project structures but also to grading, foundations, retaining walls and other structures. The Project prepared a preliminary Soils and Geotechnical investigation, which was peer reviewed as part of the FIR process. Compliance with the CBC regulatory scheme and implementation of the specific recommendations provided in aforementioned studies, will result in improvement designs that mitigate the identified geotechnical conditions. The Project will be subject to a process of increasingly detailed engineering review to ensure that ground shaking is addressed at each phase of the development process and that CBC requirements are satisfied and study recommendations are carried out. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. i Impact 4.4-2 — Soil Settlement: Future structures at the project site would be subject to soil settlement with potential damage to structures and utilities. GEO-2: Implement the recommendations of the project geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013), except as modified based on site-specific refinements. Settlement mitigation measures shall include use of structural foundation systems (such as mat slabs or rigid interconnected grade beams) for residential structures, which can withstand the potential total and differential settlements in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical investigations and deep foundations (driven piles or drilled piers) for heavier structures planned in the northern portion of the site. Ground improvement, such as with the use of Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAP), may also be appropriate at certain locations within the site. GEO-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in accordance with City of Petaluma Improvement Plan submittal requirements and procedures, the developer shall submit construction plans along with Design Level Geotechnical analysis that specifically addresses the thicker fills up to ten feet in the area near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge in the southern portion of the site. The Improvement Plans and design level geotechnical analysis shall be subject to third party peer review in order to verify that recommended measures to address differential settlement of bay mud associated with thicker fills up to ten feet near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge are adequate to accommodate potential settlement. In event that peer review concludes that the recommended design measures will not sufficiently minimize the effects of differential settlement, the developer shall be required to implement one of the following standard construction techniques: 1) the use of lightweight fill material in place of heavier, existing soils on areas that require thicker fill, or 2) pre -load areas that require thicker fill and allow settlement to occur prior to construction. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of the peer review and the City's Public Works Department shall coordinate the scope of service and approve findings of the peer review prior to the issuance of grading permits. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The required design -level geotechnical report and preliminary Soils and Geotechnical Investigation, which was peer reviewed as part of the EIR process, will be reviewed along with the existing geotechnical studies to ensure that Z -i through compliance with applicable soil settlement regulation in the CBC and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria for soil stability will be implemented in project construction and improvement to ensure that proper soil engineering, foundation design and construction will be implemented to avoid hazards from soil instability. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.4-3 — Expansive Soils: Future structures at the project site would be subject to expansive soils with potential damage to structures and utilities. GEO-1: Require implementation of all recommendations as set forth in the geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013). HYDRO-1:Prepare final drainage plan as part of the Subdivision Improvement Plans that provides calculations and documentation that the site storm drain system and discharge culverts have adequate capacity to serve the project and watershed area at full buildout. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The required design -level geotechnical report will build on the existing geotechnical studies to show how regulation in the CBC and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria for soil stability will be implemented in project construction and improvement. The City will review the design level report and ensure compliance with applicable CBC regulation. The mitigation will ensure that proper soil engineering, foundation design, adequate site storm drain system capacity, and construction will be implemented to avoid hazards from expansive soils. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.4-4—Erosion: Grading at the project site could result in inadvertent erosion or soil transport into the Petaluma River. HYDRO -2: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the developer shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for grading and construction of subdivision improvements. HYDRO 3: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for the subdivision grading and each subsequent development phase site plan. HYDRO -4: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for construction of the trail and improvements for the offsite Riverfront Park. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigations would substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation by ensuring that construction activities employ the most effective erosion control practices such as site watering, stabilizing soils when inactive, and avoiding active construction during periods of heavy precipitation. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.5-2 — Exposure to Soil -Pater ('ontWWIX tiOM The potential reuse of onsite stockpiled soils or discovery of unknown hazardous materials during construction could pose a hazard to workers during construction. HAZMAT-1 : Require that the quality of the stockpiled soils be reaffirmed / tested prior to use for onsite fill, which shall be done following the Clean Imported Fill Material Information Advisory prepared by the DTSC (DTSC 2001) in accordance with the recommendation set forth in the 2013 Iris Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. I-IAZMAT-2: Prepare and implement a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that provides the procedures to properly manage site groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation recognizes that unknown hazardous materials may be discovered during construction and ensures that an effective construction worker safety program is established, so as to limit exposure of workers to hazardous materials. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.6-1 — Stori neater Drainage: Buildout of the project site would result in a significant increase in stormwater runoff that would ultimately discharge into the Petaluma River, and which would result in potentially significant impacts if stornl drains are not properly sized. HYDRO -1: Prepare final drainage plan as part of the Subdivision Improvement Plans that provides calculations and documentation that the site storm drain system and discharge culverts have adequate capacity to serve the project and watershed area at full buildout. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation recognizes that adequately sized infrastructure is necessary in order to ensure that stormwater runoff capacity is provided as part of the Improvement Plans. The preliminary plan shows that sufficiently sized pipes are feasible and mitigation requires that final drainage plans provide precise calculation and documentation that discharge facilities are properly sized. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.6-2 — Water Oualio, & Stormi-mater Discharge: Grading activities and future runoff from the developed project site could result in non -point and point source pollution into the Petaluma River, if not properly controlled. This is a potentially significant impact since the river is listed as impaired for nutrients, pathogens and sediment. HYDRO -2: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the developer shall prepare a Stomi Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for grading and construction of subdivision improvements. HYDRO -3: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for the subdivision grading and each subsequent development phase site plan. HYDRO -4: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for construction of the trail and improvements for the offsite Riverfront Park. HYDRO -5: Subsequent development phases over one acre in size shall submit plans and detailed calculations to show that requirements for post -construction runoff treatment have been met in accordance with the City's stormwater management regulations. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation recognizes that the project is subject to NPDES and other water quality control regulations that will protect water quality. Implementation of mitigations would substantially reduce the potential for water quality degradation through accidental release of potentially harmful or hazardous materials and sediment by minimizing the potential for such materials and sediment to enter the Petaluma River. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.7-1 —Elevated Noise Exposure: The project could expose people to noise levels that exceed the Petaluma General Plan 2025 Land Use -Noise Compatibility Standards and City regulations. NOISE -1: Pursuant to General Plan Policy 10 -P -3C and the CPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-1, a detailed acoustical report shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical specialist as part of the design phase to determine the noise control treatments for the residential buildings, offices and the hotel to meet local and state standards. Noise attenuation measures shall include as appropriate thicker walls, stucco siding, sound insulating windows and/or doors, building and bedroom orientation, and other measures pursuant to the detailed acoustical report. To acldeve the noise reduction requirements, some form of forced air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building official, would be required in all residential units and the hotel. Special sound rated building elements such as windows and doors may also be necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the train noise given that typical noise levels could reach 95 dBA Lmax outside the nearest townhomes if Quiet Zone status is not approved. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation ensures that noise attenuation measures are further refined through the design level acoustical report. Implementation will be realized through various attenuation techniques that consider the entire building envelope to achieve City prescribed noise standards. Noise attenuation will minimize noise intrusion and substantially lessen interior noise levels. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.7-5 — Tempormy Increase in Noise: Noise levels generated during construction activities would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels for an approximately six-year period during buildout of future development phases. NOISE -2: In accordance with Mitigation Measure 10-2 of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, require implementation of the following measures during all phases of project construction: • Construction Scheduling. Limit noise -generating construction activities to daytime, weekday hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends Z-13 and holidays. When construction is occurring within 100 feet of existing residences, then construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and Holidays. • Equipment. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Equipment Locations and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise sources - generally equipment such as air compressors - as far as practical from existing, nearby noise sensitive receptors. • Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. • Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a project construction supervisor as "Noise Disturbance Coordinator"' who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation ensures that construction activities are limited to the least noise sensitive time of day, that equipment is outfitted with noise reducing devices, and stationary noise sources be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Implementation of these measures will ensure that construction noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.8-4 — Rail Crossing: The project will result in an increase in daily and peals hour trips, but would not substantially increase hazards due to conflicts between motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and rail operations. However, if supplemental safety measures to be implemented as part of the SMART rail service are not in place before project completion, potential hazards could result. TRAF-1: If SMART rail service (and the supplemental safety measures that may be needed for it) is delayed to such an extent that the Riverfront project is built first, require installation of the supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane at -grade crossing to include an additional exit gate on the southwest side of the crossing to preclude vehicles fiom navigating around the entry gates to proceed eastbound on Caulfield. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant 2-l4 Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation ensures that safety measures are installed for the Caulfield Lane at -grade crossing to facilitate increased activity, including pedestrian, cyclists and motorists, at that intersection, which provides for an additional exit gate. Implementation of this feature will ensure that safety concerns associated with the existing at -grade crossing will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Cumulative Impact — Traffic: The project will contribute to significant cumulative near- term impacts. CUM -1. Require payment prior to recordation of the Final Map of the project's 21 % pro -rata share of the cost of signalization at Hopper Street/Caulfield Lane in the future when an extension of Caulfield Lane over the Petaluma River is completed. CUM -2. The Applicant shall lengthen the westbound left turn pocket at Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane to approximately 250 feet, and install a raised median on the westbound approach to physically prohibit illegal left tum movements into and out of adjacent properties, as recommended in the project traffic report, in order to improve capacity and safety at the intersection. Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation recognizes that the project will contribute to cumulative traffic related impacts and requires that fees and improvements be provided to cover the project's share. Implementation of these measures will ensure that cumulative traffic impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, after applying this measure, the impact would be less than significant. Z,-15 EXHMIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROCEDURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a 4'reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment' (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The City of Petaluma (the "City") is the Lead Agency for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring the mitigation measures in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to mitigate potential impacts identified to a level where no significant impact on the environment would occur. This MMRP is designed to monitor implementation of the required mitigation measures and conditions set forth for project approval for the proposed project as identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The mitigation measures as well as the conditions set forth for project approval are listed and categorized by Section with an accompanying identification of the following: • Implementation Action: Describes how the measures will be implemented. • Monitoring/Reporting Responsibility: Identifies the party that is responsible for implementing and enforcing the measure, and the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation and development are made. o Timing Requirements: Specifies the stage at which the measure is in effect and identifies the duration that the measure remains effective including pre - construction, construction and operation. • Reporting Requirements: Identifies the reporting method to ensure compliance with measure. The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place throughout all phases of the project. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The applicant shall also be obligated to provide certification, as identified below to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriate enforcement agency that compliance with the required mitigation measure has been implemented. The City will be used as the basic foundation for the MMRP procedures and will also serve to provide the docmnentation for the reporting program. Generally, each certification report will be submitted to the City in a timely manner following completion/ implementation of the applicable mitigation measure and shall include sufficient information to reasonably Z-1� determine whether the intent of the measure has been satisfied. The City shall assure that project construction occurs in accordance with the WARP. 2-17 m 0 m `o m a G Q) 0 m 2E .. m a 7--W N E m m 0( a m L n v = E o C P > o C m C N a m@ o�.2 E� m Q E a Q --a E E .� -� d -31 O 0 p p m m m .2a nS mE > Ea m c N N C r @ @ N p @ _CZ, C p` Q tm?i Oni O S m� 0 -,a= o c_ m N @ O N N ` _ _-2 E n N U .a0...'Q m m a E 0 rn - Z ai O N m n 0 o O N C> n 0'.0 c N co m e@ n O@ `m o m EE co U N _ 2 > Q O J U FN -I- d. O C 0 n m O p d Z Z @ to m o m >-a -- m m � E C @ Em>n 2v>=a O ow tN 0` '0 0 d a a N Cl dd W @ O@ d N Q � m H . C N N :Ei a OJm a 01p U� LCCU OCo E" Nmu mL O 0 -0 0 w E y nm m m oE c 0 _'=mUmOa+ -m a o o Ood O U t.-. N> MU O m 0. N O O a> S N L C O j L N ?i O Emm m .0 n Em Epo m m mm mm ' m dCo E m m no =m _m No p moN Up �m a E E a aL p m` o 1M mc pm m _F E @ OO-pE a mo m m m m @ d o o m e c > ?m YC m m E m` E E o E 0@ WU m a L E m> a a m 3 E a_Ni •m O¢ m E E¢3¢ E¢ o in ¢¢ <n n¢ `@ cn E o CY E m a 7--W E m d U U Q) O CL C 0 C E N m >o N 0 u L d R R o E o m m O L v � C N C C N'O O N O U M N C m N= N V iC m . O N ¢ E'O C N U N c CL Q' N N E v c n c v E a Qom' a=`meE> 0 m a C N O O"O m O m U 0 F.9 O E `M S U a O .p O N O N D y vi i'N Cf N N N t0 O O E O .n E O Qi m N O.a N pOj C T°Em' 2a E v Z y w 5-2 E o0 9 o 0 C o °1 O 2 s2 2 O N U ti m N N N c0 .> o m N O S w N f0 m¢ O N N IO E v E o as m>° a"i m>O� 2 > 0$ m -O OO d' W N N O CI d d W Wd N U O¢ d N 5¢ �o �U E ¢ E aci N C N m N 3 0.. m m o m N m c m= 0. C_ o N E m O N - r. N wD G N 'O [O S] C J L N U D7 L > 'C N._= N (O O N Q! fO N N N C C L E (O N U N T i s E L m ,0 n E m m O&i d CoCn 6 N 5'UE '.5 � o 3a =U dpE o ...� 3 N Q - N mO tE YmLCm C OjL O ZN d a E n O .- f9 N >i •- a T g Zy n pm )C 2 v c SC 2 EcO atm`a 0t5 mM- 22 , mm S .cO0 EoTvmo o4m-1' o aL m o w0 O NOf E0 I— S `mEn, O 0 0 ON�o¢ f -"voOpxOtNmii ¢o w ai 2-, om Oo o� O O m 0, OL E I yam o m� o m F " "o O n o—m m Ei mo` °1 E H, > w y mwo m 0 N U C T L N C O n IOo E a N (O m O U` O O O N 'C m m O m m m m 'O d = 'm m m 'm �'O C U - m L V U ENm¢n. 0 w"v namnva O m m m O N O = U oa�mU m'mm 2 .m...'. OI N cC rC C O O_ Q U m : o m a Z--ZZo C N C N E N E m > m N o > O o m o _O_ = y v o E a a E O � q tII o E o v rL S o CD 0 m m Ci C_ E O UD - OI N C O N N O U pm N N O� `'C -m p) Nfr y� Q E a ry C N U N a' m d O w"m O p O O m y E Mm rc O tY Q' t U a p.5 m E E> E o. z o m a co p m m c 0 a�. Im c �'c 3:o v '2 a 2 E c -, .E E o� a `E v - mE E d p d -+ m a O S m o a U m m cpn n. m a C C y m N 0 O O a p m p N " _ p p U C N N p O N O V N y = am` a E c c N E m c¢ c o O m N N p N d 0.2 m m p Ya o5 E y aEi E o.a N N r E ,y O a. m'N rn 2 c> c o E y 2 m E p O �- 0 p O m 09 m C> O C C c O- C= N _C w O N C11 a N ' d O C E5O C1 -0 N 'a o 2 o c a' E E . _ E _..�- 2 p m win p m a � O Z c a Z Z N d W W L C m E Z m N< W •w. m¢ N O N y a U Q w a >= E m> 0 m c o E m> m m> O o 2> 'a G13 v m_ > 2 -0 - d m N pQ aw w o m' n y c SQo �U QS m a� E SQA U m E m as m m rn m N` E N N 'O S E o g mm c p c -a m o `a o d m E om 9 mm Emc mm E 3c w> o am Z5 2 -._ E E 12 LD m m Om> ma mpm -o E HE oEmo m E a t 'o ami c 3 cLmp3mvamoE -2p m. =omo p' m o i c m y N m p Nm_. tO m aw 'o m -o, of 0 5 a w u0 oc Eip o am_ ;n o m -m p L3 mN o .mc cEm m Lc E •0N- a '~E E v am E2' m 2� oC Hm 0 _OoC E E o ao c.?y aEmm N m C O O N S om [a m m O N C9 -6 E 'C m p m m C C d N N m7 Nm Qo� pN( Oom 1 'E EO Ed— E ? U.rn mOm E 2 m3 o ui ammN E E cLO M m¢ m- avEf m o,mnomn c `' M 0 [a E r 0 N �a p 22 LQm O -. m m mw.E�E E o o ON c..0 c of Lu 0 m ¢ L m a3 o m L U om � pa op op UE y h - U2 U m -N> a p -J°a= m E E 0 n 0 ¢ m a Z--ZZo m a 2-4 C E 0 r o O E O � d O a m 0 C CE N N O.QOE 2Cjo YEm N Em.oa aO> ao E yO $U ¢0 _ U` v0. yNm ymo o. 0m o Ym o M om 0 a Ute.^ m `o N m >O m ` Q 0 o E o o m E �' 0 a v N m m m El d m o o S`o m > y �+ K -� n`. F 1-K m w Y is a m E A an d V N o V C :p 0• p p- C m O c (p O m h m `� rn n. o- O m E4L�_>a E Em>mcc N> C O C > N U (O U m Ol m E �. o y m o m m E 6 m `-'a-0�E=mw'c 0Li E�o`m E Cm. F. masF EE ac m.G w.po E Eo mmmc0t om v¢i o co 'e o d ". m H `o t5`m m m `m. U U= am. m> a m .n roil F i2 m m Z o o > o c = c c m o m o E o O o w c 9 U Q > a N _ C 1n C UO 2' a.2 UOZ< comic m W W< m U E C d H .o m O a.Z mm a0 mtnY R QBE `o m C arOi E w m o > E w m v c N m> m a m> 0 m m> a0, N`C Cp m .> Q. cQ� d ti cQaa. �U o y E U v O O U O `° a o L E O m m m m U C C m L 3 a m Oco o cmaVUN c t c N m� y v, o 0 m O m CLJ C m a m -N' m 3 m m E ,Ep _ cam•` m o c s� g y m N 0 0 o c m m m m c m o m- ami ami >• L o s L 3 `° L N o m a o o m m v a>> = a L a �., E Y o v L w a E= H m m o> m m Er m c o `o 3 w- a S c aNi .n n4 L" C O U ._ L m d=lam m R '. a :3 L `m L E v E E E`o 'E vol' ,00 m Ln 42 o ~N3E�Oo Rm 2 f6 O O M m cii m m C N NvN O CV m0 >m p m oam E o O > m -2!- >m mmtm E O1E w m a 2-4 o, a N N C E N C E m >o m m m 0 m >Q m m t°y E E 0 4E .INa y m � C C Q O N Ql O _Eq 2 mmy OOm`mOo E NU E dUmm eE cEO OE amm aa .0m_ U MoO m NC2cv Z E E EO -m O¢p m cU aa >0m 77,7 c > y N m 0 O o v O n m O O [] y ry C >> O V "C m m C> O [O > N _ U o 0 p 3cb T o> E m m 2 3 w C Q N 0 m 2 y a 2 >> m > �' U m Gl m> U e C m U O N= O V O O m d y N y O d j y O N U m j E D a m O E C E m m m N 0 � c _O Q m ¢ m 2> c' E a o 3 >: � m :- r. mm C E N c' c CI = n L y OU C a N 'O O_ U F-' i N U U F- U N i N d OJ y m O Q p Z< Z< m C U p Q c c p Q � m m d Q �' a C N 0 a o o 0 m 0 0 5 E m p` N LL W C N LL N U] O> a C y m O N 0 0 > 15o w w U= O O UO>¢N aca= U y m 6 N m LL 'C z Z pL.. ZZ Z iwLLZZZ22 c.c E awda a� E awad "a' -c -a w 2 m � m>0- »E 'n m>>p00 =2 v m Qww -c a Qwww c c 6 nLL» 'O nN N U n6 w. O U N -00 U Q. U ¢ m ¢ U m sQ 00 U am E N C O C S] to OJ O Y m m T M y V m U N L_ CJ C n.• ` OI �. 3 +TI Qi > N m 2 am`> Z''- a .� n -o �' 3 m a AE E mw o m m m 'O $ o T E E :n E E m o ami smLm" E E tD c m E w =o c o_ o M. o g a d m c e ami m n m m -=o m o c oc n o `o °� m n ... M m m m a M "Q �° _ n o m m m _m m M o o m N oo c M- �o~m0s oE aci mL-' ac o. am "a 0m E m E>Tw a E ,: v o o • ai 0E mm� U5 M 16 0 E 00 O 2 N N D > E D >' G m m u R '_N - o N j EF O C >c '. �.. o ac m'.ME am o2 mcm_o�n m caQom . om .o m N Eo f ofo m0 �_ c a `o o m Q c c m U `o m '= m_ o E m c mEm a>d y E .w_ a �' in o m my 2m mm wmU aN cy mN 'ny �m mm o.�G = E0cE m>E L m -m`o N O O O O 1 0 V M mo mo OcmoE Q o, a G_ 2- Z3 N N C N E N G N E N O m m o Q o m o> m 0 c m c m v @ d m Nj m m m C N m 2 p p GO N d: O C C O O C O G m N m m m c o -424, d E m O O 2 0 E L aci `o y c m `o E ny � E U m C d N U U O •C E N N O y L 0. 'O M> 2 2. N N m O m m G m C L N U N @ m C N O 0 'w °° > " m is O >. E a = >mcm 06 aa'i Ec- .nnE > oU :5 Y E Eoc >E m m mmm o _0.••$pG�C')'w.ONflN E2 c _d mE.E _.0oE cmm m >. coanm L` _= m'NEO c ,0 am=o E 'N -N _�m° O `yO. .Z3N_ •r2N. aO n;� .EN- > mm N •omr ..:. . 0�=J- aE �EEwN -Lc aoUacwac -O w H U E O m d E O H 3 m U o"§ U U Z N c N Z N O d aid m 2 p C CO- C> Z L" C C E r O O N m C> Z y_ N L a o c o 0 0 c E m L o E c w m m `'u c C C •.O ` U E a C N 6' w U N m U N 1 a 7 w c o. O N W w [O N m m G] N J _O N U w N J N aL.. UE C) J fn N O C) n 0 o O7FD N O K a U O- _ 'C N Z, � a : N K a= @ m@ S M.= m @ O m ¢ m J d Z Z Z E N N O m C L E = d Z Z Z N m m •r •- i,� L.o E a. w w w m e >�� to c E I m d w w w cmm.-m Em>0O E=> m�Jmm= caE Jm v c 00 m>>00 aLo� 0 m n> w w w ui rn m b m 2> y :a ,= aa'm aNc aa» e cD� n as ww mOmO= aOmm ca�ww Lmcp Ci <n o :R C) w QU O -Q =z @ =O U N NJ m O m O O C @ . =o - p - 0`OCD, °•' n m m m m c' ` E o. m n m vi o@ wn U rn t m N o o m c O o. m N@@ m @ `o M m co c� a rn c aoi m o c m 2 m'c g LL c.m a m 2 oN yvEi aci `o U m' E N a c w c m N 3 �L... V .f p N N= 01 CO O� N O -0 is E2 L ,.L_• 0m���.�3N� OC �,�N��o-m0 p0 -M o_ 2 U m U 06 m r1 G Z7 U m Emm m mmt O C m OnpE C U •_ L o--• J to m E o m o v@ E 0 o m U a cn m - Q m U .a N �. uJ m> o m m O J i9 2 6 `a.2 02 O 2- Z3 w c Q � a v @ z o 0 0 0 0 € � o E 15 m 0 0 2 o 2 U T y m =E u Q v�c o a8 m n @ 0 yE> o o. a >2'o C 0= 0 tEi t3 U @ T@ U tEj 0 d Q` a CE `T rna U a NlO O = @ O J(A J doU L Oo rn • •E N _ o ._ O .J N O".` �. _ C0 _ - a :O @>� sEa>i 'oo2cl m>rn AJ_ O N U v! U `0 `O N a- y m n C_ C N O 'C m E C E m@ d C_ C@ UME=l @ U C LT/.Q L- U L_. m L- @ N U CO 'O "O N C ^" U L... C U O U OJ C U i C N t O a n rn o 3 N L .y @ m N O 0 J w_ Q@ @ Yy C -2.m ? d 61 O Np N t4 O N •C y@ L N@ N@ E U� L`-' 0 U l yLL@OE`d CO O O - 0W> Ov N 1 00 O E o g oO Un m WN 0 @ C 0 Em 0 ` m� cc �E O= h E o!E S m m aEi .Ey@L m E ao E@nw tE > m m > m o m m o C - -O CEy 'O O CN =l O) d U y d >O -0 N y@ U y jp C O O @ N Q_ y .L.. y@ V n> N O@ "O L.. E 2 'O N y@ U y m C 0 m._..: '3cac-. !L-�mm!P�$o� �Qo Hoc. 03�`0_� IL-Smm NEcci of vU Q m J 0 �' EG 0 O - pj _ 'O C 0- U 0 �a (7 "O O mE uJ :"". m ao v @ m c m m o o c m d= o m m O] C m O C CcU (Ed J E@ o m Cr) m O no ooNn a E o =rnoa E O oa m n °1 m �ot'oa-@oa�Ec"cJi - n`> E 'o �o 'm��� mfE@ri Y.amcmaarmJno`oa' c'om mQm Emotm cEEo E a iop -. o ._mE vJE pm Ean�o o c L -NJ- Np o -Fu —r Lmm c@ Uo mv,moc�mErn—o, ��E�'°aca`m.@@c� ` QmE o in 0 E 6 E m 3y L .OO E " mompoE>- Uy Eam i o O °E o m m E N0Tuv' L c a' m o76 o c J O C2 O 0n m v 0 c0> "o em E5 m co 0 2 m WEmON m d m m EM 'vi E 'an U m ¢Nm�' m 3 y a v E m 0 d a 0 `o aai c o` 0 0 0 m a Z, -Z5 N N N N � m L p n ' a U o m y . Q s 0 0 K � z z N d N ui O p> p U pp m _ O= N O L d o N" a NNU dm ° > dmmn Lo O i m w N U E NO rmom a m 0 m s yEn ?mn15 ai ,.> om mo o E dN a�3a: am mS a�O m mE ymV m=) N Z nm T o m = o> U D- N t9 O N ' N a . L O.UU O > U' •U U O 'n m ml m : U O E m "s p N � = C N 4- � C �: N ~ 6 T � � ' d N m c a1 m h n c C H a Z m .� dW m-Om �d¢� E d N= G] .V C N W U70 p >i Om>> 2 C N m> a o W U m N c d a o m .E o a`� a LT ` m N om-. N o ,O N Cy _ _ min a m O O_ m _ LL m .0 U] tC m p 'O •u E . C m C U m pl �. N U O ='a o oami o" m a`Ei > "' t ai o �' m o-'" m .n c -p c v a o a p o E m ' n o L w U c m a N O m m m =mNc-.cmmmcmi'ptmmrn=amiomym� m !�oEa c N m '- L O N _ m C .O d N m� m E n o m m m T N =. m E E n N c p E L m Y m s a� ani E m `o N m m a rn Z 3 ac' o m m= m a E T U N s m t > �- _> m a c_ m m o> m W m N _ - _ m E .... x m a m ..' v "' _ m N m o m m> m c' N'.. _' .c in . a'.5 -n N 3 m m` .c U `� E p N c m m L '� is 0L' L c a a �' m m m m m o a o- Q m F- M0 C m m m O .� 0 N t N w» C O U m U N m m 3 m m.c 3 "o J o N 0 E a�L N O -_H m m o �c o•m 0= m o..' m m -i m c .Y o E E c m 0 aa api m `m o m m o S m E a' m yL• O m= C L L U T2. -- O a. n: a E m o .� °J m N o - m o m N m _ a n J m m o m W m N U E U t N E n'> 0===m p m o o� m J m rn n N m m E 3a��i m c o v L �° U o 0 .� .� -_ m `m -> op > Y a E op H '> '- m> a ami U` c m a m o m m a 0 E Eli = ami m E 'o c m m o m o o o� m Q= :H m ._ a m c n- n m m m a Z, -Z5 O ¢ d E15 N rn m E: m w 4 O o a v o c vi m d L o c m E O �c - a c. m m c c `o L-= m v m E N 'O O _0 C -O Q O L 19 tD (U aN —mCOU CNEQl -d0C$ 0vdOi .0WWN N yS ,I nN NtiCU—�OOE.a�L Ir -D5 '`OUo] E 0C EN U N C (O p L O) O o OI N O T -C N C O w N O N Y N O O O C m F E o O E C N U C U d N N L_ E: y L (O N� O _Ol N >i pOj N O• � Y N N O i O EE O- (O O N) N 3 0 C N (O L Ul O E-2715 c oo N �, N E OC T E d L_ y L m N 0 QI C N -� C O T fa " f9 N D• — al N N O C _O '6'M w76 maN >E >ao mWd EO E N N VENoo O y 0 UO OCO O `o N O E IO O L E S a C N C N N N N y O O > O N m =o E E E E C C C d m w c E 15 vc-i .........._.... _.......... y O d O 3 N y Q E'O C y V N as N UIN O O O O O N N N N N m IL'.�... E> E5 n m m L O C N m S D- O U O) C �• OI OI f' f' ( 0- Lm OS m Ql 0) N oa` 2 c vi KS w 00 Y m �y 2 -W, -E'E y vmi p[O] N O n- d O N O C O pNj m m N N U m - n m m 0 m m a m m o m a N am< m _ L� N�m m c ami ti F .a m y a E v m Z 0Z= rn - c c O m `a o< m m m m U m m> N U mO> C Z O. C O N C m O 0 m En O00 m m L m O m C C y N y C y K h 0 O 2 C C O O w = O m Q w~ a '>O N ~' Q Q a c= E m a .> m m m W N m E m O m W N 45 d N N U C y U y a O •{O N d W m m 2 N N O al y N N d W m= E Q f N N m <W < W N L C> m Q W<< N O -O C a N m . W m .. - L ._ r IO w m> m m U m m>> 00 �m� �m�ww aaN m� �o.=�> 0 N _.0.... '. � <';EQ a Q d' E C =.- C S Q� o o Q m � U a m w� 4 5 m E m c o m N m N 0 m _ 2 m m- m= �--mo ° m �E o w.Qm 'mELN Em ds moO o W 0 .¢m -*=2 E `o o. ow�am� m or i a a -na cmm =3mm m'amrnm m zzB E o 0 amm E.=ocm= oum Nom` oa Y =c oo m- -Eo E 2 E m N = E m `Q 50 Cr m 3 aaEo m a� a c M m U -o E E c cn m .N _ w" m m L �2 a m 'o E E= m m 0 2_O D_ C N aJ d O a] C y C m Q m 'O a. {m`a cf)o � L N N 'O Q Nw C a C L y O p y 2 0_ C U D_ U C C o$ C L m c m 'm m- N m Y fn U m O, X E E .... d.. m 'O dD c m m O m N O 0 O.. T T w C lD C m O o m m o m c O o c a m a s o_ E o U E `o m m o •. o> m E Z N o m> y m L m m a� o a E d= m .E a m m E_ c - rL - - 00 >o `o jR o o to of U] vmi o ow v a z-zg C N N N N N N QO t9 IV w O E a s a m N- is a d N — m rn m— L L C r C m p m ._ O 7 2' n rn m y S Q O d C N N O !O 2 O Q E a d C N U N [0 p N 2 m N O W tO p O OO N m E m m m rnE>E5a UmE>ESa m m (D N N N G p O N N N p p O ry O [O Ll O O O N O' Ql CO N U O E5 c y c� o �' 2 y _ O _T __NO d L OI O C 01 U a i -J d N Ol C O) U 'O U C Y c d Y c d o Q d U' d O C C L C'j a N U UJ O C L C'j a a pmmmcm --:a E�'°m�'a -' mm o o a o vi m o o n OLQ C -U! m p O U 0 Ny N O p Q C m 0 p- 2 .. O m -5 o m N N CN C C E C L S w E C �.92 o.2-- E N U O E0= E O C n L E p Y C O C C Z O C M G "o O W< 9wmno z o ` OO a rn.0 m oC m -p wN =a m > C -C p m 0 o C a o Z >. C p m m U m o o c c 2 t c f J - o m m m y a .m p U O O co y m s o. c 10 E `� a o m a m c :g m C 20 m �n w m E m m vi o_ U S JN L m N m pI N -63 Cm0mdww >a dm Co W> L C Q) N ¢` O o m p E N 'N L' E a W d fO O D_ L C n U 'p C O .S �p > N d N ] '0 0 v o a 'm 2 v m '0 3 ca p 2 v m E o _ m v_ K � -F r N N OI _ m -mo 0 Y .5-3.0 o O N n d> n O �• C (O C C -U L n n N N - 0_ K O_ 2 Z` C O C d d y Q..__; 5 <— ¢ W U con � U o- m m 4 5 m S¢ a Q W U v Q o aci E m E o rno 2 -tn N C T > a C m U N [d `U C m p O W A O` T O w m �' o M co. � m�� 3� E�� U m m m .p a E o_ rn in '.. m E n m No E 0 c a 0- m a m 0 -oo U H o m y' i 0 m m 3 amici m t o � m� > 3� m m 0 M E S = m .o mama m `m m c� L O G N O N •` E E "' m O- E m m en (O y N L O m W_ OL.. N ... a> fn c m w EM ow o a m w m a `o vi a `n m E 'N m-2 a m m O O 0� U m 'N m � w N �0 O m N .- ._ m Ola C N V O l9 td O y gym-. nE 0 2w>> m e v; il. c m o o �' 3 E ''f°o o m E °' m E o o a r E m m ani a v E aEp_mm o 0 Co p>EEmai o 0- 0 2 5 maci o U o oo. a�omE Um Eonai 2 E�mc am a o o- m ci m `o a v a z-zg N N o m m c � d O 3 m m O � N N TE CC o 'L 3 o c c c V nL =O O P N 0� y E `o Ol s m o f a c o a E a E n v p a m 'm `a aci m C m n E c H O 0 w 8 O e L O m c o m `m m m c p E - m o m o E m o as o o 0 0 a J N m N m m ' 0 Q N N -O 0 Q W 'm T N W O 0 �. 0 N O a n m N O O N O N m N S m N m N W m p N a C n O O d Z - C u . O .' N d LLZj m o y U1 Q< < v o E v E ai a o w m v a E N '> o m 2 C1 U E N a C U N V o?> U m m m t O N CL m n m 0 3 -0 m v w o - m E y 'a OJ 0 E L N .� m 0 m 76 -.0B 0- a m aci E o `m c o -' N o p m- a E 0 5 E c m o a n E m m N o 0 m m �° aci m m m n m E m m m a E N o c m o ami m e a m aEi m E a ami a m P' a ami o 3 o v m a m> o Op."p m c o U m E2 m N m o m c m N. m o m _ .. m N c ._m -6 0o- 41 •O N fmn N g m N o N o a o L m U C 0m cca c • aO mn.... cEjtim a - oam -Z6 ia nin 'u g 2 = ai vtui m n `m E oa''m-.v om c m mr �0 am m e=i1 oZ` C m m E 0 aO "-' > =GUS m'm E mm"Q c m m m c m 0 m o 0 0 o m Z Z m a o 0 o E N M n ,L... m a o m c c a N 2-Zq m E mu0 d 0 z U U .O CL C O 't N a Z-30 N N E N > m � o m L d o Y C c c J m c J N'O � m 0 d `. 2d m U m 9 Q E a c E U E '. N 4 a 0 m 0 2 o 0 ti ami ami m ....:.................... ....................... a c L E m ? o p o mgo tm mo m 2O .- y m �' o .__ m U -p U `O a o_ cz `o o o m m > p- m 0 o c m cn m ., mN d O N y N _c m :. m E m c E c o C �O N d N •_ m U Em ,07 d rn� J C y m d m da5 m N 0 m - C N Z 0 C m � v U . O y d 0 O O m O c c `o Eo- po -�E mL mo - d fD m C G] U v a_Z<z mW !" v E -mo m 0 < m aEi > p m d C O m= C E 0 N'nEs ` o 2 d c a o m m Ln .o o_ F a m -p m v m c J E m m r m O m`m N Y a L O7 D7 �Y p N X N N C m O C 2 d- o L_ o -3-: 2 E N m -L' o a m U cEpomm'o Bpd aa` d`o. noa m>`o �12E� w. m O m a c m aa- 'o..am-' Eo � T5 c c 3- m E :L [n o E m Z m _ Jo E -- a3 �. a in o c m t m m -. m m U '3 o= o o '� L .c o E c a a- O1 0 c m m 3 c o v E t p� n. T L N [p p U m m E o N T p -O y O -O U m J d o O G N m tp U i U m m a m m c E c O J m m N m O C L Ia U N N m U m U U m D7 L d N G C N d U 2 o d m O w C O d _ aZcm Cc m.c mE �-aa meow>Eo. aN3v U Eads �na z _ m— O p p p api U �' m T m m Z' p` N m E N N Vl my N N m m aa E.o U o N � -. J ioa m=T.E U N m Nm am m caN 0 c2 E ¢`o 5o p U L op �EEa" SWEmo o mJc- E O a z `o E a m a v a m c rn a Z-30 m n x-31 N C C C d N d p O O O p R R o m a > > p � U [p JJ UJ UJ m d' Of CC Of L D' m m c c c 0 z z - m m G C o C Cp p C N O N E d U vm U v m p 0a o o m nM. y C •N C N O d N m N C N m V O U_ N O p- N p- U _ C c �= 3 E °a E m m m p1 U m U LL Y m N N O N > O Y Q N G1 Q'N n U' m N p. a d• m 0- IL- o a Y 4 3 0 H Cl y d F o o E Z Z Z c U cc on m O p N N N Q CO Vl Cp 1q p' C Iq d C U N N N � � N m in m r2 -ma > GEm� ac oao. m0 N -ac o0 nE.. `pno-a E>Ovopmp a> oon�o_ n. m M w m c c c_-0 0 o c m �° o m a' m m p N `m. c o� v m_? m(if 0-6 U m Y a E 0 m a'Ui on W m m V! L O 3 m >_ t O C d .- U p m y o o c m m '-U o a Uj o..p -p m m U U 'o m m L a w TmO ,.. N m C. m mac o c ym�Op�a O.�-H L-m_mam -m mFt E°s cNC1 W `m'`c m�c> Y E mC nO m 'E $ ¢ m momm U U o Q' ° mC 0 'p m'O m • m 0 C _ O m 0 j On OO E o m E U E p n m E v N m °' Z .2 U U h in `o o U m m� a m E m n x-31 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE SMARTCODE AND THE ZONING MAP CONTAINED IN IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 2300 N.C. S. FOR THE RIVERFRONT MLYED USE DEVELOPMENT APN 136-010-027 FILE NUMBER 11 -TSM -0130 WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties submitted an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed Development (File No.: 11 -TSM -0130) allowing for the future development of up to 273 residential units, 90,000 square feet of commercial space, a 120 -room hotel, approximately four acres of on-site parks, and a system of multi -use trails located at 500 Hopper Street ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") which was approved by the City Council on June 2, 2003 and is implemented through zoning provisions in Appendix A, the SmartCode, adopted on June 16, 2003 and amended on July 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Project remains subject to the 2003 SmartCode until July 1, 2019, because it was deemed complete before the Amended SmartCode was adopted, except that it is subject to the administrative procedures/warrants section of the Amended SmartCode, and is subject to the Amendment procedures in Chapter 25 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance since amendments are not addressed in the SmartCode, and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to rezone the 35.7 acre development area from the existing conceptual boundary area zoning of Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) to pernianent zoning of General Urban (T-4), Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS), as shown on attached Exhibit 1 which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to assess the potential environmental effects of the Project, including the rezoning, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and the City prepared a Final EIR providing written responses to comments received during the public review period (the Draft and Final EIRs are collectively referred to as the EIR); and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 described and analyzed the Final EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission reviewed conformity of the Project, including the rezoning, with General Plan 2025 and the CPSP and recommended approval of the Project (the staff report is incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Department at City Hall during normal business hours); and 3 -1 WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2014-15 recommending certification of the Final EIR, Resolution 2014-16 recommending adoption of the proposed zoning amendments, and Resolution 2014-17 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Division at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would require amendments to the zoning maps in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan SmartCode and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, as described in the staff report, the proposed amendments to the zoning maps are consistent with the General Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the existing zoning shown within the Conceptual Area Bormdary of the CPSP is conceptual and only for the purposes of determining recommended zoning designations and street layout, and is not intended to provide a detailed plan for future development in this area and the proposed rezoning would establish permanent zoning for the Project site and would provide the basis for developing the proposed mixed use community through the Tentative Subdivision Map and future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits for individual components on the Tentative Subdivision Map lots; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the City Council considered the CEQA evaluation for the Project and certified the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014. the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Zoning Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Maps and rezone of the property located at 500 Hopper Street (APN 136-010-027) to T-4, T-5, T-6, and CS are in conformance with the General Plan 2025 and implement the Mixed Use land designation. Additionally, the amendments are in conformance with the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and implement the vision of mixed use development and pedestrian friendly neighborhood character envisioned in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that it would allow development of the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development, which is an appropriate implementation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. As further described in the staff report, the Project provides a compatible and complementary mix of uses on an infill site with an extensive network of sidewalks, multi -use paths, and a new bus shelter nearby. These improvements provide convenient and effective bicycling, walking and transit 3 -Z alternatives to automobile travel within and around the Project site. Zoning standards would be implemented through the Tentative Subdivision Map to establish the infrastructure necessary to provide public services and to support the Project as a walkable community. The zoning standards would be further implemented through future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits to ensure that each future structure, park or other improvement is an attractive element that integrates with the rest of the community both on- and off-site. Through the proposed public parks, trails and paths, and the linear Riverfront Park, the Project provides public access to the river while also providing protections to the river environment. C. The City Council finds that an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project have been prepared, circulated and adopted by the City Council in accordance with State Law. NOW, THE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Zoning Map contained in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and SmartCode is hereby amended to modify the zoning districts of the property located at 500 Hopper Street (APN 136-010-027) from Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) to permanent zoning of General Urban (T-4), Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) as shown in Exhibit 1, based on the findings made above. Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council. Section 4. Posting / Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the City Charter. INTRODUCED and ordered posted/published this 21st day of July, 2014. ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: 3-3 ZONING MAP DIAGRAM EXHIBIT 1 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE RIVERFRONT PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL AREA BOUNDARY OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN 3-+ ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 500 HOPPER STREET APN 136-010-027 FILE NO. 11 -TSM -0130 WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties submitted an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development (File No. 11 -TSM -0130) to subdivide the parcel located at 500 Hopper Street, APN 136-010-027 into 144 residential lots and 4 parcels for public Parcels A through D. The application is referred to as "the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and WHEREAS the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to assess the potential environmental effects of the Project, including the Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and the City prepared a Final EIR providing written responses to comments received during the public review period (the Draft and Final EIRs are collectively referred to as the EIR); and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 described and analyzed the Final EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission reviewed conformity of the tentative subdivision map with General Plan 2025, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP"), and applicable zoning and other regulations, and recommended approval of the Project (he staff report is incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Division at City Hall during normal business hours); and WHEREAS the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public bearing at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2014-15 recommending certification of the Final EIR, Resolution 2014-16 recommending adoption of the proposed zoning amendments, and Resolution 2014-17 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Division at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the tentative subdivision map; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the City Council reviewed the CEQA evaluation for the project and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Petaluma Enviromnental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2014, the City Council introduced an ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment to rezoned the property located at 500 Hopper Street to T-4 (General Urban), T-5 (Urban Center), T-6 (Urban Core) and CS (Civic Space); and +-I WHEREAS, the proposed Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map is subject to Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act, which regulate the design and improvement of proposed subdivisions; and WHEREAS, as described in the staff report, the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map proposes to subdivide the project site into 144 lots and 4 public parcels; and WHEREAS, As proposed, 134 single family residences will each be on separate lots, 39 townhouses and 4 live/work units will be on three lots, and commercial and mixed use buildings will be on three lots; Parcels A, B, and C will contain an active park, the central green and multi- use path adjacent to Highway 101, respectively; Parcel D will be dedicated to the City for a potential future boathouse facility along the Petaluma River; and the Riverfront Park will be on a separate state-owned property adjacent to the development site; and is included in the project but not in the Tentative Subdivision Map; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map illustrates the overall site layout, proposed roadways (roadway widths, bike and pedestrian facilities), master utility plans (water, sewer, and wastewater), grading plans, and stonnwater treatment plans, among other improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to develop in eight phases, for which multiple future Final Maps will be recorded for the purposes of development in accordance with the CPSP; and WHEREAS, as discussed in the staff report, the Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan 2025, the CPSP and the applicable provisions of the 2003 SmartCode; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows for the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed Use Development: A. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. B. The site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed in that it a relatively flat, undeveloped lot within the Urban Growth Boundary that will serve to use land efficiently and promote infill at a residential density consistent with the vision of the SmartCode. C. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or 4-Z wildlife or their habitat in that the Final EIR provided mitigation measures to reduce identified potential impacts on environmental resources, including biological resources and their habitat, to less than significant levels. All identified mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval to ensure implementation through the project. D. The design of the subdivision and the types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project proposes a vibrant, walkable mixed-use neighborhood on approximately 35.7 acres with a mix of residential, hotel, commercial and office uses, as well as approximately 4.0 acres of parks and trails providing access to the Petaluma River. No industrial uses are proposed and the Final EIR identified no significant health impacts. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that the project is proposing a grid network of public streets that will connect to the City's existing street network, including provisions for emergency vehicle access. Existing easements will be preserved or realigned to mesh with the subdivision design. The subdivision layout is consistent with and does not preclude the future Southern Crossing bridge over the Petaluma River connecting to Petaluma Boulevard South. F. The Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map proposes warrants pursuant to the CPSP and its implementing SmartCode to modify lot setbacks for rear garages, lot setbacks and coverage for townhomes, parking in first and second layers (front of Lot 134), and street sections as follows: • Reduced rear yard setback for garages on 92 single family lots in T-4 Zone (reduce rear yard setback for 2 lots to a minimum 12 feet, reduce rear yard setbacks for 14 lots to a minimum 10 feet, and reduce rear yard setback for 76 lots to a minimum 5 feet. • Reduced setbacks for townhomes in T-4 Zone for three lots. • Increased lot coverage for townhomes on three lots in T-4 Zone District to 80% from the maximum of 60%. • Allowed parking in the First and Second Layer (area in vicinity of front of lot and facades) on lot 134. • Modified Street Sections for local residential streets, a portion of the Caulfield Extension between the Pomeroy property and the Central Green, and the main street extending from the Central Green to the Petaluma River. These warrants are justified by the following SmartCode Intent provisions: The T-4 Transect Zone Description defines the zone as "consisting of a mixed-use but primarily residential urban fabric" with a "wide range of building types" including "single, sideyard and rowhouses". It further states that "setbacks and landscaping are variable" and the Zone description shall constitute the Intent with regard to the "general character' of the development. The variable setbacks, lot coverage, parking and street section modifications allow the site design to facilitate walling and biking, as alternatives to automobile travel; by facilitating development of compact, pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods; and by adequately accommodating automobile travel while respecting and encouraging pedestrian movement. The requested warrants for variable setbacks, 1-3 landscaping, road sections, bike lanes and parking in order to provide more space for landscaping, trees and pervious areas that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and that also provide compliance with Fire Code requirements - all in accord with the Intent statement in the SmartCode. G. The proposed Riverfront Mixed Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map complies with the requirements of Chapter 20.16, Tentative Subdivision Map, of the Subdivision Ordinance and with the Subdivision Map Act as further described in the staff report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 1. The Tentative Subdivision Map dated February 1, 2013, and on file in the Planning Division, including the requested warrants as specified above, based on the findings above and subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved, conditioned on and subject to Ordinance no. , an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Amending the Zoning Map Contained in Section 2 of the SmartCode and the Zoning Map Contained in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 20300 N.C.S. for the Riverfront Mixed Use Developoment, APN 136-010-027, File Number l I -TSM -0130, taking effect. ?. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council, and the approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map conditionally granted pursuant to this resolution shall become effective upon Ordinance No. becoming effective, without further action by the City Council. RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT Project File No. 11 -TSM -0130 July 21, 2014 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DIVISION 1. Effective Date. The tentative map approval shall not be effective until the related zoning map amendments are adopted and effective. 2. Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval as notes. 3. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the plans date stamped June 16, 2014, except as modified by these Conditions of Approval. 4. The applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination ("NOD") Clerk's fee to the Planning Division. The applicant shall provide a $50.00 check made payable to the Sonoma County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office. The applicant shall also provide a check for the State Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental filing fee (as required under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (as of January 1, 2014, the fee is $3,029.75; contact the Clerk's office at (707) 944-5500 to confirm). 5. No building permits shall be issued for any buildings on the site until a Final Map has been approved that covers the project locations for which building permits are sought. 6. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the developer/applicant shall record the following notice in the Official Records of Sonoma County (requirement of the EIR), and shall include the following notice in all sale, lease or rental agreements concerning any portion of such property: "Thus document shall serve as notification that you have purchased property or you are leasing or renting premises in an area where river -dependent and/or agricultural support industrial operations are located which may cause off-site effects including without limitation, noise, dust, fumes, smoke, light, and odors, and which may operate at any time of night or day. The nature and extent of such operations and their effects may vary in response to fluctuations in economic circumstances, business cycles, weather and tidal conditions and other conditions. This statement is notification that these off-site effects are a component of the industrial operations in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area of the City of Petaluma and you should be fully aware of this at the time or purchase, lease or rental." 4-5 7. Prior to building permit approval for Residential buildings the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 or less) in compliance with General Plan policy 4 -P -15D (reducing emissions in residential units). 8. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the project, in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. 9. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall record an irrevocable easement for shared parking purposes for the parking facility located on Lot 134 to serve the planned Office, Hotel, Retail and Active Park uses. The shared panting agreement shall allow for public parking for time periods approved by the City. The form and content of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 10. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre -wiring for solar facilities for each of the individual commercial and mixed-use buildings and are subject to staff review and approval. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit, the applicant shall provide a lighting plan for planning staff reviewing and approval. The lighting plan shall include exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and brightness (lumens). All lighting shall be glare -free, hooded and downcast in order to prevent light pollution and glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes. 12. The applicant shall be subject to any fees in affect at time of building permit issuance. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit (commercial uses) or occupancy (residential uses) at which time, other pertinent fees that are applicable to the proposed project will be required. 13. Signs are not approved as part of this project approval. Signs require a separate sign permit. A Master Sign Program shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by the Planning Conunission for the commercial and nixed -use portions of the project prior to the issuance of any sign permits. 14. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, conunissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. To the extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local in statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such clahn, action or proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. 15. If the applicant elects to install Public Art on-site, the proposed locations shall be incorporated into SPAR plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Committee prior to installation. 16. All standpipes, check valves and other utilities shall be placed underground or fully screened from view by decorative screening structures or landscaping to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. 17. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (41046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). An erosion and sediment control plan will be required for the subdivision grading plans. The proposed subdivision grading and subsequent development phases that are over one acre in size will be required to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with City and State regulations, and all future development will be subject to City grading and erosion control regulations. 18. In the event that human remains are uncovered during eartlmioving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended and the following measures shall be undertaken: a. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted. b. If the coroner deterraines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. c. The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate. d. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American, and shall contact such descendant in accordance with state law. e. The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that human remains and associated grave goods are reburied with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to the most likely descendent. 19. The developer, through an agreement to construct public improvements, including all new on and off-site parks (the Riverfiont Park, Active Park, Central Green) and the on and off- site paths, unless also serving as an EVA, shall be required to provide all required improvements consistent with Sheet L1 and the Riverfront Park Concept Plan and subject to final approval of the approving body. The developer shall be reimbursed for the cost thereof for on and off-site parks (the Riverfront Park, Active Park, Central Green) from the fees collected from the subdivision or from other subdivisions in the same manner as set out for land reimbursement by Section 2034.110 and 20.34.120 of the Municipal Code. 20. Geotecturical investigations shall be required and recommendations implemented for each development phase in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code and City policies. 21. The applicant shall review and approve any site and architectural plans prepared for future phased development by others, including, without limitation, the residential portions of the project and the boathouse, prior to submittal to the City for Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), in order to provide coordination and consistency of design intent as depicted in the Concept Plan and Architectural Intent Images on file with the Planning Division. 22. The applicant shall prepare a Supplemental Map Sheet for filing with the Final Subdivision Map to include and identify items that deviate from the 2003 SmartCode, consistent with the deviations/warrants shown on sheet TM -7 and TM -8A in the Tentative Subdivision Map. 23. The project description indicated a six year construction schedule and the Air Quality analysis assumes a more conservative five year schedule. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Planning Division on actual and assumed construction to ensure that the construction development schedule maintains consistency with the project description and analysis contained in the EIR for the project. 24. Construction best management practices including exclusionary fencing for wildlife, barrier fencing, avoidance buffers, and personnel training shall be implemented during construction in proximity to the Coastal brackish marsh habitat located south of the Riverfront Park component. 25. When preparing the detailed acoustical report during initigation measure NOISE -1, the project acoustical following hierarchy of potential attenuation measures: a. Building and bedroom orientation b. Robust building shell construction e. Densification of construction d. HVAC and mechanical equipment design phase, as required by consultant should consider the 26. Mitigation Measure AIR -1: Require implementation of the following measures during construction: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12%. b. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. c. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground -disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. d. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. e. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. f. All visible mud or dirt tracked -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. g. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mules per hour. h. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. i. All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after pipeline replacement work is finished. j. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. k. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR) establishes a maximum idling time of 5 minutes). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 1. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. m. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. n. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. o. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Arcliitectural Coatings). p. All roadways, driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be complete as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. 27. Mitigation Measure AIR -2: Include the following measures as part of the construction specifications (General Plan Policy 4-P-16): a. Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; b. Use alternative fuel construction equipment if available (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas); c. Require that all construction equipment, diesel tucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM through the use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; and WA d. Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. 28. Mitigation Measure AIR -3: Require that construction activities implement the following measures at the project sites to reduce construction equipment exhaust when building construction activities occur within 200 feet of any residential use. The contractor shall develop and the City shall approve a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower and on site for more than 2 consecutive workdays) to be used in project construction (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve an additional 60 percent reduction in exhaust particulate matter emissions, compared to similar equipment based on CARB statewide average emissions. Based on the CalEEMod modeling, a feasible method to achieve this objective would be the following: a. All diesel -powered construction equipment more than 50 horsepower used on-site during all construction phases for more than two days consecutively shall meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards for particulate matter emissions or substituted with alternatively fueled equipment (e.g., LPG fuel). b. Prohibit use of diesel -powered generators for more than two days when line power is available. c. All non-mobile construction equipment shall be alternatively fueled or meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards for particulate matter emissions 29. Mitigation Measure AIR -4: Provide reimbursement to the City for the design and construction of the Primary Influent Pump Station mechanical odor control unit. The odor control unit shall meet current design criteria and be equivalent to the units installed at recent pump station upgrades within the City. 30. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: To mitigate for the impacts to 0.24 acres of seasonal wetland habitat, the developer shall consult with agencies to identify feasibility of creating onsite mitigation areas through remediation within the Riverfront park area. If onsite mitigation is determined to be infeasible then, 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 general low -quality of the existing wetland habitat (e.g. presence of non-native species, disturbed soils) within the project site, a mitigation ratio of one acre mitigated for each acre impacted is recommended by the biologist. Prior to issuance of grading permit, proof of purchase of mitigation bank credit or verification of onsite wetland remediation to offset losses shall be submitted to the City and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. a. According to information provided by the project biologist, the Burdell wetland mitigation bank, located just south of Petaluma, has mitigation bank credits available. 31. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Develop final Riverfront Park design that avoids and protects wetlands. The design shall also investigate the feasibility of creating wetland habitat as part of the proposed Riverfront Park, which could serve to offset losses in lieu of purchasing credits (See BI0-1). Implement standard best management practices (BMP) to protect 4-1 D wetland areas during and after construction of the Riverfront Park to include, but not be limited to installation of protective staking and silt fencing to prevent inadvertent intrusion by equipment during construction. 32. Mitigation Measure BI0-3: Conduct vegetation removal within areas to be developed between September 1 and January 30, outside of the general breeding bird season. If this is completed, no further mitigation is required. Otherwise, if vegetation removal or modification occurs between February 1 and June 15, require pre -construction nesting surveys within 14 days prior to such activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If vegetation removal or modification occurs between June 16 and August 31, pre -construction surveys shall be performed within 30 days prior to such activities. If active nests are present, establish temporary protective breeding season buffers to avoid direct or indirect mortality of these birds, nests or young. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation and topography and shall be determined by a qualified biologist as appropriate to prevent nest abandonment and direct mortality during construction. 33. Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If during the course of ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to excavation, grading and construction, a potentially significant prehistoric or historic resource is encountered, all work within a 100 foot radius of the find shall be suspended for a time deemed sufficient for a qualified and city -approved cultural resource specialist to adequately evaluate and determine significance of the discovered resource and provide treatment recommendations. Should a significant archeological resource be identified a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction activities. 34. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work shall be suspended and the Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted in accordance with provisions of the California Public Resources Code section 5097.98-99 and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code 5097, so that the "Most Likely Descendant" can be designated. 35. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Require implementation of all recommendations as set forth in the geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2014 including but not limited to recommendations for site and soil preparation, foundation designs, drainage and installation of utilities. Buildings shall require the following: structural foundation systems, such as mat slabs or rigid interconnected grade beams, able to resist the anticipated strong ground shaking and potential for differential movement caused by liquefaction and/or consolidation of the bay mud, b) soil improvement, c) deep foundation systems or d) other engineering techniques as recommended in additional geotechnical investigations of liquefaction hazards. All structures shall meet the California Building Code regulations and design requirements for seismic safety. 36. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Implement the recommendations of the project geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013)„ except as modified based on site-specific refinements. Settlement mitigation measures shall include use of structural foundation systems (such as mat slabs or rigid interconnected grade beams) for residential structures, which can withstand the potential total and differential settlements in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical investigations and deep foundations (driven piles or drilled piers) for heavier structures planned in the northern portion of the site. Ground improvement, such as with the use of Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAP), may also be appropriate at certain locations within the site. 37. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in accordance with City of Petaluma Improvement Plan submittal requirements and procedures, the developer shall submit construction plans along with Design Level Geotechnical Analysis that specifically addresses the thicker fills up to ten feet in the area near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge in the southern portion of the site. The Improvement Plans and design level Geotecluiical analysis shall be subject to third party peer review in order to verify that recommended measures to address differential settlement of bay mud associated with thicker fills up to ten feet near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge are adequate to accommodate potential settlement. In the event that peer review concludes that the recommended design measures will not sufficiently minimize the effects of differential settlement, the developer shall be required to implement one of the following standard construction techniques: 1) the use of lightweight fill material in place of heavier, existing soils on areas that require thicker fill, or 2) pre -load areas that require thicker fill and allow settlement to occur prior to construction. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of the peer review and the City's Public Works Department shall coordinate the scope of service and approve findings of the peer review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 38. Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Require that the quality of the stockpiled soils be reaffirmed / tested prior to use for onsite fill, which shall be done following the Clean Imported Fill Material Information Advisory prepared by the DTSC (DTSC 2001) in accordance with the recommendation set forth in the 2013 his Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 39. Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2: Prepare and implement a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that provides the procedures to properly manage site groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. The plan shall address procedures for discovery of any unknown features or environmental conditions that may be encountered during activities that will disturb site soils. The RMP shall include, but not be limited to the following components as set forth in the 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report: a. Soil management: Provide guidelines for identification and analysis of unknown environmental conditions and define responsibilities for management of discovery of unknown features or site conditions. b. Groundwater management: Prohibit use of groundwater encountered during construction activities for dust control and allow discharge of groundwater to 4-1Z surface waters only pursuant to a permit issued from applicable regulatory agencies. All permit conditions must be satisfied prior to discharge. c. Preparation and implementation of a site-specific Environmental Health and Safety Plan by the general contractor to ensure that appropriate worker health and safety measures are in place during redevelopment activities. Elements of the plan must include all practices and procedures necessary to comply with all new and existing Federal, California, and local statutes, ordinances, or regulations regarding health and safety. Specific components of the EHASP must include the following: identification of site hazards; assignment of specific health and safety responsibilities for site work; establishment of appropriate general work practices; establishment of control zones and decontamination procedures; job hazard analysis / hazard mitigation procedures; air monitoring; required personal protective and related safety equipment; and contingency and emergency information. 40. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: Prepare final drainage plan as part of the Subdivision Improvement Plans that provide calculations and documentation that the site storm drain system and discharge culverts have adequate capacity to serve the project and watershed area at full buildout. The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. 41. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the developer shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for grading and construction of subdivision improvements. The SWPPP shall also include provisions for the offsite Riverfront Park. All subsequent development phases over one acre in size shall prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP shall address erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction, storage and use of fuels, and use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. The SWPPP shall prohibit fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of equipment except in designated areas located as far from the river as possible. As a precaution, require contractor to maintain adequate materials onsite for containment and clean-up of any spills. The developer shall provide approval documentation from the RWQCB to the City verifying compliance with NPDES requirements. Acceptable proof of compliance is the Notice of Intent with a WDID number or other equivalent documentation. 42. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for the subdivision grading and each subsequent development phase site plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed development. The erosion control plan 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 plan shall also prescribe treatment measures to trap sediment, such as inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. Catchment and settlement ponds will be constructed to contain silt being deposited at temporary outlets. Temporary outlets will be rocked with silt control. Fiber rolls, silt fences and fiber mats will be installed on all slopes. 4-13 43. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -4: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for construction of the offsite trail and improvements for the Riverfront Park, including, but not limited to: installing hay bales or appropriate temporary silt fencing adjacent to the perimeter of the work area to prevent inadvertent 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. 44. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -5: Subsequent development phases over one acre in size shall submit plans and detailed calculations to show that requirements for post -construction runoff treatment have been met in accordance with the City's stonriwater management regulations. 45. Mitigation Measure NOISE -l: Pursuant to General Plan Policy 10 -P -3C and the CPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-1, a detailed acoustical report shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical specialist as part of design phase to determine the noise control treatments for the residential buildings, offices and the hotel to meet local and state standards. Noise attenuation measures shall include as appropriate thicker walls, stucco siding, sound insulating windows and/or doors, building and bedroom orientation and other measures pursuant to the detailed acoustical report. To achieve the noise reduction requirements, some form of forced air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building official, would be required in all residential units and the hotel. Special sound rated building elements such as windows and doors may also be necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the train noise given that typical noise levels could reach 95 dBA Lmax outside the nearest townhomes if Quiet Zone status is not approved. 46. Mitigation Measure NOISE -2: In accordance with Mitigation Measure 10-2 of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, require implementation of the following measures during all phases of project construction: a. Construction Scheduling. Limit noise -generating constructions activities to daytime, weekday hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends and holidays. When construction is occurring within 100 feet of existing residences, then construction shall be initiated no earlier than 8AM during weekdays, 9AM on Saturdays, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and Holidays. b. Equipment. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. c. Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. d. Equipment Locations and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generally equipment, such as air compressors as far as practical from existing nearby noise sensitive receptors. e. Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. f Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a project construction supervisor as "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator at the construction site and submit to the City of Petaluma Building and Police Departments. g. Notification. Notify nearby residents (within 300 feet) in writing of the construction schedule. 47. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: If SMART rail service (and the supplemental safety measures that may be needed for it) is delayed to such an extent that the Riverfront project is built first, require installation of the supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane at -grade crossing to include 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. The exit gate and related items shall be installed by SMART's contractor and funded by the City. The applicant shall contribute funds equal to half the cost of construction. 48. Mitigation Measure CUM -1. Require payment of the project's 21% pro -rata share of the cost of signalization at Hopper Street/Caulfield Lane in the future when an extension of Caulfield Lane over the Petaluma River is completed. 49. Mitigation Measure CUM -2. The Applicant shall lengthen the westbound left turn pocket at Lakeville 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, as recommended in the project traffic report, in order to improve capacity and safety at the intersection. PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES (ENGINEERING DIVISION) Section 20.16.420 of the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the City Engineer shall prepare a written report of recommendations on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions of the Map Act. The following list of Engineering Division conditions constitutes the required report. The following conditions shall be addressed at the time of final map and improvement plan application. 50. Pursuant to the Petaluma Bicycle & Pedestrian plan, all multi -use trails shall be designed to Class 1 bike path standards as contained in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. The minimum width of the two-way paths shall be eight to 10 feet, depending on location, expected usage and site constraints. Both sides of the paths, where space exists, shall have two -foot graded shoulders to provide clearance from poles, trees, walls, fences, guardrails and other obstructions. Final path design, including widths and surfacing materials shall be completed on the subdivision improvement plans prior to recordation of the Final Map, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Manager. 51. Hopper Street shall be a minimum of 20 -feet wide. Two-way, public access, from D Street on all of Hopper Street is acceptable. The proposed access point at East D Street shall be limited to right turn in and right turn out only for passenger vehicles. Install a raised, 2- 4-15 foot wide max, mountable (for emergency vehicles) concrete median, or other median type as approved by the City of Petaluma, on East D Street. The exact length, width and type of mountable curb is subject to the approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. A public access easement is required for the portions of the secondary access point located on private property and shall be dedicated to the City of Petaluma prior to final map approval. The public access easement shall include language stating that once the street connection from Hopper Street to Copeland Avenue has been constructed and accepted by the City of Petaluma, such dedication shall be vacated and the right-of-way shall revert to the property owner and no longer serve as public right-of-way. 52. The westbound left turn lane on Lakeville Street at Caulfield Lane shall be lengthened to 250 feet and a raised concrete median shall be installed on the westbound approach to prohibit illegal left turn vehicle movements into and out of adjacent properties. Prior to the completion of said improvements, the Developer and City shall establish a reimbursement agreement, subject to City Council approval, by which future development within the area of improvement will reimburse the Riverfront Developer on a pro -rata basis. 53. Install intersection control within the subdivision as recommended by the W -Trans traffic analysis dated March 5, 2012 and as approved by the City Engineer. 54. The applicant shall provide funds, prior to recordation of Final Map, necessary for purchase and installation of a new bus shelter structure at the Caulfield/Lakeville intersection (southbound Lakeville) to facilitate transit usage for the residents, employees and visitors to the Riverfiont development. 55. Dedicate right of way for the future Caulfield Lane southern crossing on the final map. The exact location and width of necessary right of way shall be determined by the City of Petaluma during the final map and improvement plan review. Subdivision grading and bridge height shall be designed to meet requirements from the United States Coast Guard and shall be aligned vertically and horizontally to connect to the existing stub road near the Petaluma Boulevard South roundabout. 56. The applicant shall install all multi -use trails, with curb cuts and structural pavement sections sufficient to accommodate needed public access, at time of construction of adjacent, or nearest, public streets. 57. The applicant shall pay $50,000 to the City for contribution towards a future off-site trail extending from the property boundary to the western limit of the area graded by Caltrans for the Highway 101 bridge project. 58. Recordation of all documents related to the off-site Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) including easements and grant deeds shall be completed concurrently with Final Map approval. The construction of the off-site EVA shall be completed prior to any vertical construction occurring on the site. This includes the construction of the new public access roadway at D Street, improvements to Hopper Street to meet fire access requirements, installation of EVA on adjacent URS/Pomeroy property (A -PN: 136-010-024) and all related signage, gates and other appurtenances related to the EVA Recordation of all 4 �t documents related to the EVA including easements and grant deeds shall be completed prior to Final Map approval. 59. The applicant shall dedicate a public access and utility easement on the westerly side of lot 135, adjacent to the City Pump Station property (APN: 007-171-016). 60. Final Park designs, including an all weather field to increase usability for the Active Park, shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and Planning Manager upon reconmiendation of the Recreation, Music & Parks Commission prior to Final Map approval. The Riverfront Park shall be reviewed and approved by the State Lands Commission prior to City approval. 61. The Central Green (Parcel B) shall be constructed and operational prior to final occupancy of the office building, hotel or mixed-use building; whichever occurs first. The active park (Parcel A) shall be constructed and operational prior to the 40th certificate of occupancy being granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. The Riverfront Park shall be constructed and operational prior to the 80th certificate of occupancy being granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. 62. Parcel A (Active Park), Parcel B (Central Green) and Parcel C (Public Path Parcel) shall be dedicated to the City through the final map. All or some of the property owners, as selected by the applicant, and approved by the City, shall be responsible for the maintenance of Parcels A and B through a maintenance agreement to be executed prior to final map approval. 63. The "Small Craft Facility" parcel (Parcel D) shall be dedicated to the City. All utilities shall be stubbed out to serve the potential future Boat House. 64. Special paving at intersections and mid -block crossings shall be required as shown on the preliminary landscape plans as well as additional locations as required by the City Engineer and Planning Manager. Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons shall be installed at all mid -block, uncontrolled crossings. 65. A Landscaping & Lighting District shall be established prior to recordation of Final Map to provide for the on-going maintenance of all publicly owned land with landscaping, including streets and parks, and all lighting within the public streets, paths and parks. 66. A funding mechanism, such as a homeowner's association or maintenance agreements, for long term maintenance of shared facilities such as, parking, driveways, utilities and drainage systems shall be established and funded for each phase of the project. 67. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes, resolutions and ordinances. Technical review deposits shall be required at the time of application submittal. 68. Provide fornnal appraisals for developer contributions as required by GASB 34 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement 34). 4-17 69. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed per City Standards as well as Caltrans and MUTCD standards as determined by the City Engineer. 70. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall provide a fair share contribution in the amount of 21 percent of the total project costs for design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane. The City shall use the fair share funds in accordance with applicable State law. 71. The City of Petaluma is responsible for design and construction of the Caulfield Lane grade crossing exit gate system and related infrastructure required by the California Public Utilities Commission. The City has entered into agreement with the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District to perform this work. The developer of the Riverfront project, Basin Street Properties, has voluntarily agreed to fund one-half of the total project costs which are estimated to be $222,753. Basin Street's contribution is capped at $111,376. These funds shall be deposited with the City prior to acceptance of improvements and release of the surety for the first phase of the Riverfront project. 72. All public improvements shall be ADA accessible. 73. Public improvement plans and final subdivision map applications are required for each phase. The improvement plans and final map shall be approved prior to construction of public improvements and prior to issuance of any building permits for on-site work. A subdivision agreement package including necessary bonds and insurance is required for each phase. 74. All public improvement work for each phase shall be completed prior to issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the last 20% percent of units of each phase, unless otherwise noted herein. 75. Access to all Hopper Street and other adjacent businesses shall be preserved at all times during construction of the Riverfront project, subject to approval by the City of Petaluma. 76. Traffic control plans are required for all stages of construction and shall be per latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. 77. Screening of Pump Station shall be provided. Install eight foot tall masonry wall with decorative brick veneer along south and east sides of the pump station to screen views of the pump station. Install significant landscaping including shrubs and trees. Landscape design to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager and Public Works and Utilities Department prior to approval of Final Map. 78. Landscaping in public utility easements shall be limited to ground cover and shallow rooted, low lying shrubs. Trees are not allowed. 79. The stonn drain system and calculations shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency, prior to issuance of any construction permits. 4— 80. Dedicate the necessary public right of way, public access and utility easements to the City of Petaluma on the final map. Any public easements located outside the boundary of the subdivision shall be dedicated via grant deed with a legal description and plat. 81. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66455, prior to the filing of any final map, obtain the consent of a public entity that has obtained a prejudgment order for possession of property pursuant to Section 1255.410 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 82. All landscaping shall meet City Standards for low water use. Irrigation must be installed for recycled water use. 83. Provide a 15 year and 30 year post settlement analysis on the sewer, water, and storm drain systems in the final geotechnical report submitted for building permits. Provide the geoteclmical reconmrendations on settlement with the exhibits on post development slopes and location of flex couplings for the utility systems. All public utilities shall be shown in plan and profile view. Sewer and water facilities shall be installed per standards in place at the time of construction. 84. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, provide reimbursement to the City for the design and construction of the PIPS Pump Station mechanical odor control unit. The amount of re -imbursement shall be determined by the City of Petaluma. The odor control unit shall meet current design criteria and be equivalent to the units installed at recent pump station upgrades within the City. The mechanical odor control unit is required to replace the odor control bed. 85. Provide an automatic controlled slide access gate to the PIPS Pump Station wide enough to allow a 55 foot long truck trailer access into the pump station. Provide a minimum 20 - foot wide lockable swing gate along the easterly side of the PIPS site near the comer of Hopper Street and lot 136. The truck movements and site improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for replacing any portions of the PIPS facility impacted by development of the Riverfront project, as determined by and subject to the approval of the City of Petaluma. Provide new site improvements at the PIPS facility including paving for replaced parking area, drainage, fencing, walls, and building protection as required by the City. All site improvements related to the PIPS pump station are subject to City approval and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Riverfront project. 86. Provide project impact analysis and protective plan for work over the sewer force main and large gravity sewer main on the east side of the development. 87. The trash enclosures with sanitary sewer drains shall be covered and not allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer system. 88. Overhead utilities along the street frontages, within the project site or traversing the site shall be placed underground. Mi 89. All existing unused water and sewer mains shall be identified on construction drawings and abandoned per City standards. 90. Joint trench plans are required with the public improvement plan submittal. 91. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. 92. The on-site stone drain water treatment system shall be privately owned and maintained. 93. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an operations and maintenance manual is required for the proposed storm water treatment system and shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The manual shall include annual inspection, by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, to ensure the detention and treatment systems are operating as designed and constructed as well as provisions to make any necessary repairs to the system. A signed and sealed copy of the report shall be provided annually to the Office of the City Engineer. 94. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall comply with the City's Phase II storm water management plan and State of California NPDES requirements including submittal of a notice of intent and storm water pollution prevention plan to the State and City. CONDITIONS FROM THE PEDESTRUN & BICYCLE ADVISORY (PBAC) COMMITTEE 95. Bicycle parking for tenants and employees of the office/retail buildings and the boathouse shall be provided. The future SPAR approvals shall require bike parking consistent with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and the IZO Section 11.090 — Standards for Bicycle Facilities. 96. Bicycle parking facilities shall be conveniently located near the main entrance(s) to the office/retail buildings. All racks shall be located in covered locations (under awning/overhang), in bicycle lockers, or indoors, to provide protection from the weather. Bicycle parking located inside any parking structures shall be in a safe well -lighted and open area. V 97. Bike racks shall be designed to keep the bike upright by supporting the frame in rivo places, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured with a U -lock, be securely anchored or heavy enough that it cannot be stolen, and durable enough to resist being cut or vandalized. The applicant shall follow the guidelines within the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for further bike parking design and placement standards. 98. There shall be no direct glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes along the multi -use path. Lighting shall be directed downward to minimize light pollution. 99. Benches shall be located along the multi -use path, with emphasis to locations along the river -facing segment, and at neighborhood park/playing field (Active Park) and Central Green. CMME 100. A drinking fountain, including a doggie fountain component, shall be provided along the multi -use path and at the playing field. 101. Accommodations for and connectivity to public transit shall be incorporated into the site plan and wayfinding / directional signage shall be provided for existing transit stops. 102. Curb cuts for ADA and crosswalks shall be provided at the entrance to the subdivision to connect pedestrians and residents to the multi -use path. 103. A Stop sign at the entrance to the subdivision shall be provided, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 104. The hotel entrance shall be designed to limit vehicular interference between cyclists and hotel guests. 105. Appropriate bicycle lane signage shall be provided along the major thoroughfare in the commercial area. 106. All Class III Bikeways within the project area shall be identified with appropriate signage. 107. A wayfinding signage plan shall be reviewed by the PBAC and shall include signs for the boat launch, the enhanced trail, the river trail, public transit, the SMART multi -use path and the local Park and Ride facility. 108. The surface treatment for the pathway from the housing development to the playing field shall be a concrete surface. Fire Marshal Access 109. Access Summary: The Holmes Fire Emergency Vehicle Access Assessment Report (FIFR) concludes that the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), as proposed, is adequate to facilitate site access and egress. Petaluma Fire Department (PFD) believes the technical information contained in the HTR is adequate and provided essential technical information and clarification to previously identified EVA challenges. The February 1, 2013 Steven J. Lafranchi and Associates (SJLA) "Phased Tentative Map for Riverfront" plan set shows the 22 foot EVA has been moved from City of Petaluma Property to the Pomeroy property (as depicted on sheet TM -12). In summary, Fire Department EVA and site access appears to be adequate. 110. EVA Minimum Width/Standard: The EVA minimum width located on the adjacent Pomeroy/URS Property (APN: 136-010-024) shall be a paved 22 feet. The EVA structural road section shall consist of asphalt/concrete and class 2 aggregate base material capable of handling a minimum of H2O vehicle loading, subject to City approval. 111. Technical Review: The EVA and other elements of this project may need further technical review depending on the magnitude of possible changes. We may request an update from Holmes Fire (or equivalent firm as approved by the Fire Marshal) if major changes come forward. This project will continue to need to be coordinated closely with both Holmes Fire and the Fire Marshal's Office. In addition, all easement agreements will need to be reviewed and verified by the City Engineer. 112. Other Aspects: PFD understands the City Engineer and Planning Manager will be responsible for many other aspects of this project that also have the potential to impact emergency ingress/egress, such as traffic, and PFD will continue to be involved in order to provide comments and maintain the functionality of the EVA. 113. Circulation/Fire Truck Access: Fire Apparatus Accessibility exhibits indicate that truck access throughout the project is adequate. However, as building heights and/or other changes to this project come forward, PFD reserves the right to add conditions and/or request additional information. 114. EVA Gates: All EVA gates and Opticoms will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal; electronically operated gates acceptable to the Fire Marshal will be required. 115. EVA Signage: The EVA will need to be posted with signs pursuant to CFC Section D103.6 and as recommended by Holmes Fire. All EVA road markings, signs, and possible warning lights will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office. 116. Phased Development: TM -8 shows a "Phased Tentative Map'; be advised, underground utilities including water lines supporting this development must be installed prior to bringing combustible construction materials on site. Hydrants must be operational prior to bringing any combustible materials onsite. Water Supply 117. Preliminary On -Site Utility Plan: The Preliminary On -Site Utility Plan and waterlines will need to be verified by the City Engineer and Water Department. Hydraulic calculations must be provided to verify adequate water for firefighting and domestic use. Proof of that required fire flow shall be provided to the Fire Marshal's Office prior to issuance of the building permit. The Fire Marshal's Office will not accept less than the minimum fire flow and pressure and it will be the developer's responsibility to make private and/or public improvements to the system to meet the water flow demands of the project. As previously mentioned, water supply must be acceptable to the City Engineer and Water Department. 118. Minimum Fire Flow: Minimum fire flow for buildings shall be calculated as specified in the 2010 California Fire Code, Appendix B: "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings". Please be advised that if building fire flow calculations cannot be made at the time of project submittal, the following fire flows shall apply: a. Residential (Single and Two Family Residential): 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual; b. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi -family: 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual. 4—Zz� 119. When building fire flows are submitted, these flows shall be adjusted in accordance with Appendix B except that for all fire flows, the minimum pressure shall be 20 psi. Fire Hydrants 120. Fire Hydrants: Development plans indicate that additional on-site fire hydrants will be necessary. The number and location of fire hydrants will need to be closely coordinated with the Fire Marshal and spacing shall not exceed 300 feet and/or 150 feet from the farthest structure. 121. FDC and P1V: FDC and PIV placement will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of the improvement plans. Sprinklers/Standpipes 122. Commercial Sprinklers: All commercial buildings (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA H3 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with a central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require three (3) sets of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. 123. Residential Sprinklers: For residential structures, fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-D are required; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet (or 3 feet deep), and other attached structures. These systems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. All systems require three (3) sets of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. No exterior risers or fire piping will be allowed. 124. Building Height: Class I standpipes shall be installed in buildings three (3) stories or above in height. Standpipes shall be provided with approved outlets provided on each floor level, including the roof when roof access is provided. Hazardous Materials 125. The Kleinfelder Phase II Soil and Groundwater Investigation dated January 17, 2001 provided a summary of findings. Section 7.2 (Site Development Considerations page 17) and Section 73 (Recommendations; page 18) are recommendations to be put in place during development of the site. The Kleinfelder report reconunends the development of a soil and groundwater management plan (SMP) to outline and describe the steps required of personnel during the site construction; therefore, a SMP shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal along with the Site Improvement plans prior to any site work. It must address all the elements specified in the Kleinfelder recommendations. Applicant shall confirm that copies of the Phase II were sent to the Sonoma County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region as reconnmended. ¢'Z,2�, 126. The PPD recommends that you "reconnect" with your Environmental Consultant as this project moves through the process to answer any questions regarding the Phase II report and/or if any questions come up regarding the results of analysis. 127. Hazardous Materials Business Plan: Some of the business uses are unknown at this time. If the facility and/or businesses use or store hazardous materials exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior to bringing hazardous materials on-site. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's Office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary contaimnent and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. In addition, PFD will require that the I4MBP be submitted electronically through the CERS on-line reporting system. Other 128. For the EVA, and other life -safety aspects of this project, the applicant shall contract with Holmes Fire (or equivalent firm as approved by the Fire Marshal), a Professional Fire Protection Engineering Firm, to assist the Project in meeting fire code requirements. 129. Phased Approach: As this project involves different phases, as depicted on the Phased Tentative Map, please be advised, a compacted base EVA is acceptable during the construction period of the initial phase; however a fully paved EVA and fully paved connecting streets are required prior issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the initial Phase I of this project. As mentioned, the waterline/utilities and fire hydrants must be fully installed prior to bringing combustible construction materials onsite for the initial phase and then prior to bringing combustible materials onsite for each subsequent phase being developed. All public improvement work for each phase shall be completed prior to issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the last 20% percent of units of each phase, rmless otherwise noted herein. ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-15 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FILE NUMBER: 11 -TSM -0130 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 136-010-027 WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties ("Applicant") proposes a mixed-use development consisting of up to 273 residential units, up to 90,000 sf of commercial uses, a 120 -room hotel, approximately 4 acres of parks and an approximately 3.8 -acre offsite riverfront park on adjacent state-owned property along the Petaluma River. The project applications submitted by the Applicant include a zoning map amendment and a tentative subdivision map to create 144 lots on 35.7 acres. The applications collectively comprise the "Project"; and, WHEREAS, the project site is located south of Lakeville Boulevard, west of U.S. Highway 101, north of the Petaluma River and east of the Pomeroy property; and, WHEREAS at a noticed public hearing on August 13, 2013, the Planning Commission directed staff move forward with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation was circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation of the scope of the EIR , pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Public Scoping Meeting was held at the City's Community Center on October 29, 2013 and provided an opportunity for public input on the scope of the DEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the Scoping Meeting, and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft EIR dated December 2013 (SCH No. 2013062004) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published in the Argus Courier on December 12, 2013 and mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, exceeding CEQA's notice requirements. The Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from December 19, 2013 to February 6, 2014; and, 5-1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-15 WHEREAS, a staff report, dated January 14, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Draft EIR for the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Draft EIR at a noticed public hearing on January 14, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission provided comments on the Draft EIR and recommended that staff move forward with preparation of the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS a staff report, dated February 3, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Draft EIR for the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Draft EIR at a noticed public hearing on February 3, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR and directed staff to prepare a Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Final EIR dated June 2014 containing written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments. The City carefully reviewed the comments on the Draft EIR, the responses and information developed in preparing the responses and determined that none of the comments, responses or information required recirculation under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and, WHEREAS, the Notice of Public Hearing for the Final EIR was published in the Argus -Courier on June 12, 2014 and mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, and the Final EIR made available for public review; and, WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Final EIR for the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Final EIR at a noticed public hearing on June 24, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including responses to comments) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis and constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The Draft and Final EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the planning department at City Hall during normal business hours, file 11 -TSM -0130; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and included in the Final EIR to ensure compliance with and implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. 5 -7i Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and hereby recommends as follows: 1. That the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, and that the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the Project 2. That the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the Final EIR. ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain' Benedetti-Petnic X Lin X Gomez X Marzo X Councilmember Miller X Vice Chair Pierre X Chair Wolpert X ATTEST: Heather Hines, Commission Secretary Bill Wolpert, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Andrea Viveshwara, Assistant City Attorney 5-3 Planning commission Resolution No. 2014-15 ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-16 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE PETALUMA ZONING MAP AND THE CPSP ZONING MAP IN SECTION 2 OF THE AMENDED SMARTCODE FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED USE PROJECT FILE NUMBER 11 -TSM -0130 WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties submitted an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed -Use (Project File No.: 11 -TSM -0130) allowing for the future development of up to 273 residential units, 90,000 square feet of commercial space, a 120 -room hotel, approximately four acres of on-site parks, and a system of multi -use trails located at 500 Hopper Street ("the Project" or the "proposed Project'); and, WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") which was approved by the City Council on June 2, 2003. The CPSP is implemented through zoning provisions in Appendix A, the SmartCode, adopted on June 16, 2003 and amended on July 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the Project remains subject to the 2003 SmartCode because it was deemed complete before the Amended SmartCode was adopted, except that it is subject to the administrative procedures/warrants section of the Amended SmartCode. The Project is subject to the Amendment procedures in Chapter 25 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance since amendments are not addressed in the SmartCode; and, WHEREAS, the Project proposes to rezone the 35.7 acre development area from the existing conceptual boundary area zoning of Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space to permanent zoning of General Urban (T-4), Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (C -S), as shown on attached Exhibit 1 which is incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to assess the potential environmental effects of the Project, including the rezoning. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and the City prepared a Final EIR providing written responses to comments received during the public review period. The Draft and Final EIRs are collectively referred to as the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Final EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission. The staff report reviewed conformity of the Project, including the rezoning, with General Plan 2025 and the CPSP and recommended approval of the Project. The staff report is incorporated herein by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-16 reference and available for public review in the Planning Department at City Hall during normal business hours; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Final EIR at a noticed public hearing on June 24, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution _ recommending certification of the Final EIR, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Department at City Hall during normal business hours; and, WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning would require amendments to the zoning maps in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan SmartCode and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, as described in the staff report, the proposed amendments to the zoning maps are consistent with the General Plan 2025 and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, the existing zoning shown within the Conceptual Area Boundary of the CPSP zoning map is conceptual and only for the purposes of determining recommended zoning designations and street layout; it is not intended to provide a detailed plan for future development in this area. The proposed rezoning would establish permanent zoning for the Project site and would provide the basis for developing the proposed mixed use community through the Tentative Map and future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits for individual buildings on the tentative map lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning and amend the zoning maps for the CPSP and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as shown in attached Exhibit 1, based on the following findings. A. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Maps are in conformance with the General Plan and CPSP, as further described in the staff report. B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare in that would allow development of the Riverfront Mixed -Use Project, which is an appropriate implementation of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. As further described in the staff report, the Project provides a compatible and complementary mix of uses on an infill site with an extensive network of sidewalks, multi -use paths, and a new bus shelter nearby. These improvements provide convenient and effective bicycling, walking and transit alternatives to automobile travel within and around the Project site. Zoning standards would be implemented through the Tentative Map to establish the infrastructure necessary to provide public services and to support the Project as a walkable community. The zoning standards Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-16 would be further implemented through future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits to ensure that each future structure, park or other improvement is an attractive element that integrates with the rest of the community both on- and off- site. Through the proposed public parks, trails and paths, and the linear Riverfront Park, the Project provides public access to the river while also providing protections to the river environment. ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: ATTEST: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Benedetti-Petnic X Lin X Gomez X Marzo X Councilmember Miller X Vice Chair Pierre X Chair Wolpert X Bill Wolpert, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Heather Hines, Commission Secretary Andrea Viveshwara, Assistant City Attorney 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-16 EXHIBIT 1 ZONING MAP DIAGRAM ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE RIVERFRONT PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL AREA BOUNDARY OF THE CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-16 ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-17 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 500 HOPPER STREET (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 136-010-027) SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, Basin Street Properties submitted an application for a Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed -Use (Project File No.: 11 -TSM -0130) allowing for the future development of up to 273 residential units, 90,000 square feet of commercial space, a 120 -room hotel, approximately four acres of on-site parks, and a system of multi -use trails located at 500 Hopper Street ("the Project' or the "proposed Project"); and, WHEREAS the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to assess the potential environmental effects of the Project, including the tentative subdivision map. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and the City prepared a Final EIR providing written responses to comments received during the public review period. The Draft and Final EIRs are collectively referred to as the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, a staff report, dated June 24, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Final EIR and the Project for the Planning Commission. The staff report reviewed conformity of the tentative subdivision map with General Plan 2025, the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP"), and applicable zoning and other regulations, and recommended approval of the Project. The staff report is incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Department at City Hall during normal business hours; and. WHEREAS the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Final EIR at a noticed public hearing on June 24, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2014-15 recommending certification of the Final EIR, Resolution 2014-16 recommending adoption of the proposed zoning amendments, and Resolution 2014-17 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for public review in the Planning Division at City Hall during normal business hours; and, WHEREAS, proposed Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map is subject to Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act, which regulate the design and improvement of proposed subdivisions. As described in the staff report, the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development tentative subdivision map proposes to subdivide the project site into 144 lots and 4 public parcels. The 134 single family Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 7_/ residences will each be on separate lots, the 39 townhouses and 4 live/work units will be on three lots, and the commercial and mixed use buildings will be on three lots. Parcels A, B, and C will contain an active park, the central green and multi -use path adjacent to Highway 101, respectively, and Parcel D will be dedicated to the City for a potential future boathouse facility along the Petaluma River. The proposed Riverfront Park is on a separate state-owned property adjacent to the development site; it is included in the project but not in the tentative subdivision map; and, WHEREAS, the proposed tentative map illustrates the overall site layout, proposed roadway improvements (roadway widths, bike and pedestrian facilities), master utility plans (water, sewer, and wastewater), grading plans, and stormwater treatment plans, among other improvements. The Project is proposed to develop in eight phases, for which multiple future Final Maps will be recorded for the purposes of development in accordance with the CPSP; and, WHEREAS, as discussed in the staff report, the proposed tentative map is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan 2025, the CPSP and with applicable provisions of the 2003 SmartCode. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows regarding the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Development. A. The proposed tentative map as conditioned, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure B. The site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed in that it a relatively flat, undeveloped lot within the Urban Growth Boundary that will serve to use land efficiently and promote infill at a residential density consistent with the vision of the SmartCode. C. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the Final EIR provided mitigation measures to reduce identified potential impacts on environmental resources, including biological resources and their habitat, to less than significant levels. All identified mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval to ensure implementation through the project. D. The design of the subdivision and the types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project proposes a vibrant, walkable mixed-use neighborhood on approximately 35.7 acres with a mix of residential, hotel, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 7-'v commercial and office uses, as well as approximately 4.0 acres of parks and trails providing access to the Petaluma River. No industrial uses are proposed and the Final EIR identified no significant health impacts. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that the project is proposing a grid network of public streets that will connect to the City's existing street network, including provisions for emergency vehicle access. Existing easements will be preserved or realigned to mesh with the subdivision design. The subdivision layout does not preclude the future Southern Crossing bridge over the Petaluma River connecting to Petaluma Boulevard South. F. The Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Tentative Subdivision Map proposes warrants pursuant to the CPSP and its implementing SmartCode to modify lot setbacks for rear garages, lot setbacks and coverage for townhomes, parking in first and second layers (front of Lot 134), and street sections as follows: • Reduced rear yard setback for garages on 92 single family lots in T-4 Zone (reduce rear yard setback for 2 lots to a minimum 12 feet, reduce rear yard setbacks for 14 lots to a minimum 10 feet, and reduce rear yard setback for 76 lots to a minimum 5 feet. • Reduced setbacks for townhomes in T-4 Zone for three lots. • Increased lot coverage for townhomes on three lots in T-4 Zone District to 80% from the maximum of 60%. • Allowed parking in the First and Second Layer (area in vicinity of front of lot and facades) on lot 134. • Modified Street Sections for local residential streets, a portion of the Caulfield Extension between the Pomeroy property and the Central Green, and the main street extending from the Central Green to the Petaluma River. These warrants are justified by the following SmartCode Intent provisions: The T-4 Transect Zone Description defines the zone as "consisting of a mixed-use but primarily residential urban fabric" with a "wide range of building types "including "single, side yard and rowhouses." It further states that "setbacks and landscaping are variable" and the Zone description shall constitute the Intent with regard to the "general character" of the development. The variable setbacks, lot coverage, parking and street section modifications allow the site design to facilitate walking and biking, as alternatives to automobile travel; by facilitating development of compact, pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods; and by adequately accommodating automobile travel while respecting and encouraging pedestrian movement. The requested warrants for variable setbacks, landscaping, road sections, bike lanes and parking in order to provide more space for landscaping, trees and pervious areas that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, and that also provide compliance with Fire Code requirements - all in accord with the Intent statement in the SmartCode. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Riverfront Mixed -Use Development tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements of Chapter 20.16, Tentative Subdivision Map, of the Subdivision Ordinance and with the Subdivision Map Act as further described in the staff report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Petaluma Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map dated February 1, 2013, and on file in the Planning Department, including the requested warrants, based on the findings above and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in attached Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference. ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Benedetti- Petnic X Lin X Gomez X Marzo X Councilmember Miller X Vice Chair Pierre X Chair Wolpert X ATTEST: Heather Hines, Commission Secretary Bill Wolpert, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: Andrea Viveshwara, Assistant City Attorney 7-1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Riverfront Mixed -Use Development Project File No. 11 -TSM -0130 June 24, 2014 PLANNING DIVISION Exhibit 1 1. Effective Date. The tentative map approval shall not be effective until the related zoning map amendments are adopted and effective. 2. Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan of other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval as notes. 3. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the plans date stamped June 16, 2014, except as modified by these Conditions of Approval. 4. The applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination ("NOD") Clerk's fee to the Planning Division. The applicant shall provide a $50.00 check made payable to the Sonoma County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office. The applicant shall also provide a check for the State Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental filing fee (as required under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (as of January 1, 2014, the fee is $3,029.75; contact the Clerk's office at (707) 944-5500 to confirm). 5. No building permits shall be issued for any buildings on the site until a Final Map has been approved. 6. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the developer/applicant shall record the following notice in the Official Records of Sonoma County (requirement of the EIR), and shall include the following notice in all sale, lease or rental agreements concerning any portion of such property: "This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased property or you are leasing or renting premises in an area where river - dependent and/or agricultural support industrial operations are located which may cause off-site effects including without limitation, noise, dust, fumes, smoke, light, and odors, and which may operate at any time of night or day. The nature and extent of such operations and their effects may vary in response to fluctuations in economic circumstances, business cycles, weather and tidal conditions and other conditions. This statement is notification that these off-site effects are a component of the industrial operations in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area of the City of Petaluma and you should be fully aware of this at the time or purchase, lease or rental." Prior to building permit approval for Residential buildings the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 or less) in compliance with General Plan policy 4 -P -15D (reducing emissions in residential units). 7--5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 8. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the project, in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. 9. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall record an irrevocable easement for shared parking purposes for the parking facility located on Lot 134 to serve the planned Office, Hotel, Retail and Active Park uses. The shared parking agreement shall allow for public parking for time periods approved by the City. The form and content of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 10. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre -wiring for solar facilities for each of the individual commercial and mixed-use buildings and are subject to staff review and approval. H. Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit, the applicant shall provide a lighting plan for planning staff reviewing and approval. The lighting plan shall include exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and brightness (lumens). All lighting shall be glare -free, hooded and downcast in order to prevent light pollution and glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes. 12. The applicant shall be subject to the following special development impact fees plus any other in affect at time of building permit issuance. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit (commercial uses) or occupancy (residential uses) at which time, other pertinent fees that are applicable to the proposed project will be required. 13. Signs are not approved as part of this project approval. Signs require a separate sign permit. A Master Sign Program shall be prepared and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for the commercial and mixed-use portions of the project prior to the issuance of any sign permits. 14. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. To the extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. 15. If the applicant elects to install Public Art on-site, the proposed locations shall be incorporated into SPAR plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Committee prior to installation. 16. All standpipes, check valves and other utilities shall be placed underground or fully screened from view by decorative screening structures or landscaping to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager. -7—& Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 17. 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). An erosion and sediment control plan will be required for the subdivision grading plans. The proposed subdivision grading and subsequent development phases that are over one acre in size will be required to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with City and State regulations, and all future development will be subject to City grading and erosion control regulations. 18. In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended and the following measures shall be undertaken: a. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted. b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. c. The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate. d. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American, and shall contact such descendant in accordance with state law. e. The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that human remains and associated grave goods are reburied with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to the most likely descendent. 19. The developer, through an agreement to construct public improvements, including all new on and off-site parks (the Riverfront Park, Active Park, Central Green) and the on and off-site paths, unless also serving as an EVA, shall be required to provide all required improvements. The developer shall be reimbursed for the cost thereof for on and off-site parks (the Riverfront Park, Active Park, Central Green) and the on and off-site paths, unless also serving as an EVA from the fees collected from the subdivision or from other subdivisions in the same manner as set out for land reimbursement by Section 20.34.110 of the Municipal Code. 20. Geotechnical investigations shall be required and recommendations implemented for each development phase in accordance with requirements of the California Building Code and City policies and requirements, 21. The applicant shall review and approve any site and architectural plans prepared for future phased development by others, including, without limitation, the residential portions of the project and the boathouse, prior to submittal to the City for Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR), in order to provide coordination and consistency of design intent as depicted in the Concept Plan and Architectural Intent Images on file with the Planning Division. 22. The applicant shall prepare a Supplemental Map Sheet for filing with the Final Subdivision Map to include and identify items that deviate from the 2003 SmartCode, consistent with the deviations/warrants shown on sheet TM -7 and TM -8A in the Tentative Subdivision Map. 23. The project description indicates a six year construction schedule and the Air Quality analysis assumes a more conservative five year schedule. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Planning Division on actual and assumed construction to ensure that the construction development schedule maintains consistency with the project description and analysis contained in the EIR for the project. 7-7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 24. Construction best management practices including exclusionary fencing for wildlife, barrier fencing, avoidance buffers, and personnel training shall be implemented during construction in proximity to the Coastal brackish marsh habitat located south of the Riverfront Park component. 25. When preparing the detailed acoustical report during the design phase, as required by mitigation measure NOISE -1, the project acoustical consultant should consider the following hierarchy of potential attenuation measures: a. Building and bedroom orientation b. Robust building shell construction c. Densification of construction d. HVAC and mechanical equipment 26. Mitigation Measure AIR -1: Require implementation of the following measures during construction: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12%. b. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph, c. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground -disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. d. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. e. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. f. All visible mud or dirt tracked -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. g. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. h. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. I. All paving shall be completed as soon as possible after pipeline replacement work is finished. j. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. k. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR) establishes a maximum idling time of 5 minutes). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. I. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. m. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. n. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. o. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 74 p. All roadways, driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be complete as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. 27. Mitigation Measure AIR -2: Include the following measures as part of the construction specifications (General Plan Policy 4-P-16): a. Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; b. Use alternative fuel construction equipment if available (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas); c. Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM through the use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; and d. Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. 28. Mitigation Measure AIR -3: Require that construction activities implement the following measures at the project sites to reduce construction equipment exhaust when building construction activities occur within 200 feet of any residential use. The contractor shall develop and the City shall approve a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower and on site for more than 2 consecutive workdays) to be used in project construction (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve an additional 60 percent reduction in exhaust particulate matter emissions, compared to similar equipment based on CARB statewide average emissions. Based on the CalEEMod modeling, a feasible method to achieve this objective would be the following: a. All diesel -powered construction equipment more than 50 horsepower used on-site during all construction phases for more than two days consecutively shall meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards for particulate matter emissions or substituted with alternatively fueled equipment (e.g., LPG fuel). b. Prohibit use of diesel -powered generators for more than two days when line power is available. c. All non-mobile construction equipment shall be alternatively fueled or meet U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards for particulate matter emissions 29. Mitigation Measure AIR -4: Provide reimbursement to the City for the design and construction of the Primary Influent Pump Station mechanical odor control unit. The odor control unit shall meet current design criteria and be equivalent to the units installed at recent pump station upgrades within the City. 30. Mitigation Measure BIO -l: To mitigate for the impacts to 0.24 acres of seasonal wetland habitat, the developer shall consult with agencies to identify feasibility of creating onsite mitigation areas through remediation within the Riverfront park area. If onsite mitigation is determined to be infeasible then, 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 general low -quality of the existing wetland habitat (e.g. presence of non-native species, disturbed soils) within the project site, a mitigation ratio of one acre mitigated for each acre impacted is recommended by the biologist. Prior to issuance of grading permit, proof of purchase of mitigation bank credit or verification of onsite wetland remediation to offset losses shall be submitted to the City and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. NM Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 a. According to information provided by the project biologist, the Burdell wetland mitigation bank, located just south of Petaluma, has mitigation bank credits available. 31. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Develop final Riverfront Park design that avoids and protects wetlands. The design shall also investigate the feasibility of creating wetland habitat as part of the proposed Riverfront Park, which could serve to offset losses in lieu of purchasing credits (See 3I0-1). Implement standard best management practices (BMP) to protect wetland areas during and after construction of the Riverfront Park to include, but not be limited to installation of protective staking and silt fencing to prevent inadvertent intrusion by equipment during construction. 32. Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Conduct vegetation removal within areas to be developed between September 1 and January 30, outside of the general breeding bird season. If this is completed, no further mitigation is required. Otherwise, if vegetation removal or modification occurs between February 1 and June 15, require pre -construction nesting surveys within 14 days prior to such activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If vegetation removal or modification occurs between June 16 and August 31, pre -construction surveys shall be performed within 30 days prior to such activities. If active nests are present, establish temporary protective breeding season buffers to avoid direct or indirect mortality of these birds, nests or young. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation and topography and shall be determined by a qualified biologist as appropriate to prevent nest abandonment and direct mortality during construction. 33. Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If during the course of ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to excavation, grading and construction, a potentially significant prehistoric or historic resource is encountered, all work within a 100 foot radius of the find shall be suspended for a time deemed sufficient for a qualified and city -approved cultural resource specialist to adequately evaluate and determine significance of the discovered resource and provide treatment recommendations. Should a significant archeological resource be identified a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction activities. 34. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: In the event that human remains are discovered, all work shall be suspended and the Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted in accordance with provisions of the California Public Resources Code section 5097.98-99 and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code 5097, so that the "Most Likely Descendant" can be designated. 35. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Require implementation of all recommendations as set forth in the geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013), including but not limited to recommendations for site and soil preparation, foundation designs, drainage and installation of utilities. Buildings shall require the following: structural foundation systems, such as mat slabs or rigid interconnected grade beams, able to resist the anticipated strong ground shaking and potential for differential movement caused by liquefaction and/or consolidation of the bay mud, b) soil improvement, c) deep foundation systems or d) other engineering techniques as recommended in additional geotechnical investigations of liquefaction hazards. All structures shall meet the California Building Code regulations and design requirements for seismic safety. 7-/d Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 36. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Implement the recommendations of the project geotechnical investigations and updates prepared for the subject property by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (dated March 2006, July 2009, August 2011, January 2013, December 2013)„ except as modified based on site-specific refinements. Settlement mitigation measures shall include use of structural foundation systems (such as mat slabs or rigid interconnected grade beams) for residential structures, which can withstand the potential total and differential settlements in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical investigations and deep foundations (driven piles or drilled piers) for heavier structures planned in the northern portion of the site. Ground improvement, such as with the use of Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAP), may also be appropriate at certain locations within the site. 37. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in accordance with City of Petaluma Improvement Plan submittal requirements and procedures, the developer shall submit construction plans along with Design Level Geotechnical Analysis that specifically addresses the thicker fills up to ten feet in the area near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge in the southern portion of the site. The Improvement Plans and design level Geotechnical analysis shall be subject to third party peer review in order to verify that recommended measures to address differential settlement of bay mud associated with thicker fills up to ten feet near the Future Caulfield Lane Bridge are adequate to accommodate potential settlement. In the event that peer review concludes that the recommended design measures will not sufficiently minimize the effects of differential settlement, the developer shall be required to implement one of the following standard construction techniques: 1) the use of lightweight fill material in place of heavier, existing soils on areas that require thicker fill, or 2) pre -load areas that require thicker fill and allow settlement to occur prior to construction. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of the peer review and the City's Public Works Department shall coordinate the scope of service and approve findings of the peer review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 38. Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-1: Require that the quality of the stockpiled soils be reaffirmed / tested prior to use for onsite fill, which shall be done following the Clean Imported Fill Material Information Advisory prepared by the DTSC (DTSC 2001) in accordance with the recommendation set forth in the 2013 Iris Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 39. Mitigation Measure HAZMAT-2: Prepare and implement a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that provides the procedures to properly manage site groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. The plan shall address procedures for discovery of any unknown features or environmental conditions that may be encountered during activities that will disturb site soils. The RMP shall include, but not be limited to the following components as set forth in the 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report: a. Soil management: Provide guidelines for identification and analysis of unknown environmental conditions and define responsibilities for management of discovery of unknown features or site conditions. b. Groundwater management: Prohibit use of groundwater encountered during construction activities for dust control and allow discharge of groundwater to surface waters only pursuant to a permit issued from applicable regulatory agencies. All permit conditions must be satisfied prior to discharge. c. Preparation and implementation of a site-specific Environmental Health and Safety Plan by the general contractor to ensure that appropriate worker health and safety measures are in place during redevelopment activities. Elements of the plan must Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 7✓// include all practices and procedures necessary to comply with all new and existing Federal, California, and local statutes, ordinances, or regulations regarding health and safety. Specific components of the EHASP must include the following: identification of site hazards; assignment of specific health and safety responsibilities for site work; establishment of appropriate general work practices; establishment of control zones and decontamination procedures; job hazard analysis / hazard mitigation procedures; air monitoring; required personal protective and related safety equipment; and contingency and emergency information. 40. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: Prepare final drainage plan as part of the Subdivision Improvement Plans that provide calculations and documentation that the site storm drain system and discharge culverts have adequate capacity to serve the project and watershed area at full buildout. The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. 41. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the developer shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for grading and construction of subdivision improvements. The SWPPP shall also include provisions for the offsite Riverfront Park. All subsequent development phases over one acre in size shall prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP shall address erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction, storage and use of fuels, and use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. The SWPPP shall prohibit fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of equipment except in designated areas located as for from the river as possible. As a precaution, require contractor to maintain adequate materials onsite for containment and clean-up of any spills. The developer shall provide approval documentation from the RWQCB to the City verifying compliance with NPDES requirements. Acceptable proof of compliance is the Notice of Intent with a WDID number or other equivalent documentation. 42. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -3: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for the subdivision grading and each subsequent development phase site plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed development. The erosion control plan 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 plan shall also prescribe treatment measures to trap sediment, such as inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. Catchment and settlement ponds will be constructed to contain silt being deposited at temporary outlets. Temporary outlets will be rocked with silt control. Fiber rolls, silt fences and fiber mats will be installed on all slopes. 43. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -4: The applicant shall prepare and implement an erosion control plan for construction of the offsite trail and improvements for the Riverfront Park, including, but not limited to: installing hay bales or appropriate temporary silt fencing adjacent to the perimeter of the work area to prevent inadvertent 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. 44. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -5: Subsequent development phases over one acre in size shall submit plans and detailed calculations to show that requirements for post - construction runoff treatment have been met in accordance with the City's stormwater management regulations. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 45. Mitigation Measure NOISE -1: Pursuant to General Plan Policy 10 -P -3C and the CPSP EIR Mitigation Measure 10-1, a detailed acoustical report shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical specialist as part of design phase to determine the noise control treatments for the residential buildings, offices and the hotel to meet local and state standards. Noise attenuation measures shall include as appropriate thicker walls, stucco siding, sound insulating windows and/or doors, building and bedroom orientation and other measures pursuant to the detailed acoustical report. To achieve the noise reduction requirements, some form of forced air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building official, would be required in all residential units and the hotel. Special sound rated building elements such as windows and doors may also be necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the train noise given that typical noise levels could reach 95 dBA Lmax outside the nearest townhomes if Quiet Zone status is not approved. 46. Mitigation Measure NOISE -2: In accordance with Mitigation Measure 10-2 of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, require implementation of the following measures during all phases of project construction: a. Construction Scheduling. Limit noise -generating constructions activities to daytime, weekday hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and 9 AM to 5 PM on weekends and holidays. When construction is occurring within 100 feet of existing residences, then construction shall be initiated no earlier than 8AM during weekdays, 9AM on Saturdays, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and Holidays. b. Equipment. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. c. Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. d. Equipment Locations and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generally equipment, such as air compressors as for as practical from existing nearby noise sensitive receptors. e. Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. f. Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a project construction supervisor as "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator at the construction site and submit to the City of Petaluma Building and Police Departments. g. Notification. Notify nearby residents (within 300 feet) in writing of the construction schedule. 47. Mitigation Measure TRAP -1: If SMART rail service (and the supplemental safety measures that may be needed for it) is delayed to such an extent that the Riverfront project is built first, require installation of the supplemental safety measures at the existing Caulfield Lane at -grade crossing to include 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. The exit gate and related items shall be installed by SMART's contractor and funded by the City. The applicant shall contribute funds equal to half the cost of construction. 48. Mitigation Measure CUM -1. Require payment of the project's 21% pro -rata share of the cost of signalization at Hopper Street/Caulfield Lane in the future when an extension of Caulfield Lane over the Petaluma River is completed. 49. Mitigation Measure CUM -2. The Applicant shall lengthen the westbound left turn pocket at Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane to approximately 250 feet, and install a raised median Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 -//3 on the westbound approach to physically prohibit illegal left turn movements into and out of adjacent properties, as recommended in the project traffic report, in order to improve capacity and safety at the intersection. PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES Section 20.16.420 of the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the City Engineer shall prepare a written report of recommendations on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions of the Map Act. The following list of Engineering Division conditions constitutes the required report. The following conditions shall be addressed at the time of final map and improvement plan application. 50. Pursuant to the Petaluma Bicycle & Pedestrian plan, all multi -use trails shall be designed to Class 1 bike path standards as contained in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual. The minimum width of the two-way paths shall be eight to 10 feet, depending on location, expected usage and site constraints. Both sides of the paths, where space exists, shall have two -foot graded shoulders to provide clearance from poles, trees, walls, fences, guardrails and other obstructions. Final path design, including widths and surfacing materials shall be completed on the subdivision improvement plans prior to recordation of the Final Map, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Manager. 51. Hopper Street shall be a minimum of 20 -feet wide. Two-way, public access, from D Street on all of Hopper Street is acceptable. The proposed access point at East D Street shall be limited to right turn in and right turn out only for passenger vehicles. Install a raised, 2 -foot wide max, mountable (for emergency vehicles) concrete median, or other median type as approved by the City of Petaluma, on East D Street. The exact length, width and type of mountable curb are subject to the approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. A public access easement is required for the portions of the secondary access point located on private property and shall be dedicated to the City of Petaluma prior to final map approval. The public access easement shall include language stating that once the street connection from Hopper Street to Copeland Avenue has been constructed and accepted by the City of Petaluma, such dedication shall be vacated and the right-of- way shall revert to the property owner and no longer serve as public right-of-way. 52. The westbound left turn lane on Lakeville Street at Caulfield Lane shall be lengthened to 250 feet and a raised concrete median shall be installed on the westbound approach to prohibit illegal left turn vehicle movements into and out of adjacent properties. Prior to the completion of said improvements, the Developer and City shall establish a reimbursement agreement, subject to City Council approval, by which future development within the area of improvement will reimburse the Riverfront Developer on a pro -rata basis. 53. Install intersection control within the subdivision as recommended by the W -Trans traffic analysis dated March 5, 2012 and as approved by the City Engineer. 54. The applicant shall provide funds, prior to recordation of Final Map, necessary for purchase and installation of a new bus shelter structure at the Caulfield/Lakeville intersection (southbound Lakeville) to facilitate transit usage for the residents, employees and visitors to the Riverfront development. 55. Dedicate right of way for the future Caulfield Lane southern crossing on the final map. The exact location and width of necessary right of way shall be determined by the City Planning Commission Resolution No. 2074-17 7-'/ of Petaluma during the final map and improvement plan review. Subdivision grading and bridge height shall be designed to meet requirements from the United States Coast Guard and shall be aligned vertically and horizontally to connect to the existing stub road near the Petaluma Boulevard South roundabout. 56. The applicant shall install all multi -use trails at time of construction of adjacent, or nearest, public streets. 57. The applicant shall pay $50,000 to the City for contribution towards a future off-site trail extending from the property boundary to the western limit of the area graded by Caltrans for the Highway 101 bridge project. 58. Recordation of all documents related to the off-site Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) including easements and grant deeds shall be completed concurrently with Final Map approval. The construction of the off-site EVA shall be completed prior to any vertical construction occurring on the site. This includes the construction of the new public access roadway at D Street, improvements to Hopper Street to meet fire access requirements, installation of EVA on adjacent URS/Pomeroy property (APN: 136-010-024) and all related signage, gates and other appurtenances related to the EVA Recordation of all documents related to the EVA including easements and grant deeds shall be completed prior to Final Map approval. 59. The applicant shall dedicate a public access and utility easement on the westerly side of lot 135, adjacent to the City Pump Station property (APN: 007-171-016). 60. Final Park designs, including an all-weather field to increase usability for the Active Park, shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and Planning Manager upon recommendation of the Recreation, Music & Parks Commission prior to Final Map approval. The Riverfront Park shall be reviewed and approved by the State Lands Commission prior to City approval. 61. The Central Green (Parcel B) shall be constructed and operational prior to final occupancy of the office building, hotel or mixed-use building; whichever occurs first. The active park (Parcel A) shall be constructed and operational prior to the 40th certificate of occupancy being granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. The Riverfront Park shall be constructed and operational prior to the 80th certificate of occupancy being granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. 62. Parcel A (Active Park), Parcel B (Central Green), and Parcel C (Public Path Parcel) shall be dedicated to the City through the final map. All or some of the property owners, as selected by the applicant, and approved by the City, shall be responsible for the maintenance of Parcels A and B through a maintenance agreement to be executed prior to final map approval. 63. The "Small Craft Facility" parcel (Parcel D) shall be dedicated to the City. All utilities shall be stubbed out to serve the potential future Boat House. 64. Special paving at intersections and mid -block crossings shall be required as shown on the preliminary landscape plans as well as additional locations as required by the City Engineer and Planning Manager. Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons shall be installed at all mid -block, uncontrolled crossings. 65. A Landscaping & Lighting District shall be established prior to recordation of Final Map to provide for the on-going maintenance of all publicly owned land with landscaping, including streets and parks, and all lighting within the public streets, paths and parks. Planning commission Resolution No. 2014-17 66. A funding mechanism, such as a homeowner's association or maintenance agreements, for long term maintenance of shared facilities such as, parking, driveways, utilities and drainage systems shall be established and funded for each phase of the project. 67. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes, resolutions and ordinances. Technical review deposits shall be required at the time of application submittal. 68. Provide formal appraisals for developer contributions as required by GASB 34 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement 34). 69. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed per City Standards as well as Caltrans and MUTCD standards as determined by the City Engineer. 70. Prior to final map approval, the developer shall provide a fair share contribution in the amount of 21 percent of the total project costs for design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane. The City shall use the fair share funds in accordance with applicable State law. 71. The City of Petaluma is responsible for design and construction of the Caulfield Lane grade crossing exit gate system and related infrastructure required by the California Public Utilities Commission. The City has entered into agreement with the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District to perform this work. The developer of the Riverfront project, Basin Street Properties, has voluntarily agreed to fund one-half of the total project costs which are estimated to be $222,753. Basin Street's contribution is capped at $111,376. These funds shall be deposited with the City prior to acceptance of improvements and release of the surety for the first phase of the Riverfront project. 72. All public improvements shall be ADA accessible 73. Public improvement plans and final subdivision map applications are required for each phase. The improvement plans and final map shall be approved prior to construction of public improvements and prior to issuance of any building permits for on-site work. A subdivision agreement package including necessary bonds and insurance is required for each phase. 74. All public improvement work for each phase shall be completed prior to issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the last 20% percent of units of each phase, unless otherwise noted herein. 75. Access to all Hopper Street and other adjacent businesses shall be preserved at all times during construction of the Riverfront project, subject to approval by the City of Petaluma. 76. Traffic control plans are required for all stages of construction and shall be per latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. 77. Screening of Pump Station shall be provided. Install eight foot tall masonry wall with decorative brick veneer along south and east sides of the pump station to screen views of the pump station. Install significant landscaping including shrubs and trees. Landscape design to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager and Public Works and Utilities Department prior to approval of Final Map. 78. Landscaping in public utility easements shall be limited to ground cover and shallow rooted, low lying shrubs. Trees are not allowed. %--Mo, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 79. The storm drain system and calculations shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency, prior to issuance of any construction permits. 80. Dedicate the necessary public right of way, public access and utility easements to the City of Petaluma on the final map. Any public easements located outside the boundary of the subdivision shall be dedicated via grant deed with a legal description and plat. 81. Dedicate to the State of California, a 25 -foot wide Maintenance and Access Easement across the northerly section of Parcel C and a second 25 -foot wide Maintenance and Access Easement across the southerly end of Parcel C or within Parcel D. The exact locations of the easements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Transportation Authority and Caltrans and shall provide Caltrans Maintenance and Access in perpetuity. The Riverfront developer shall be responsible for providing curb cuts and structural pavement sections sufficient to accommodate the necessary Caltrans maintenance vehicles in the easement areas. 82. All landscaping shall meet City Standards for low water use. Irrigation must be installed for recycled water use. 83. Provide a 15 year and 30 year post settlement analysis on the sewer, water, and storm drain systems in the final geotechnical report submitted for building permits. Provide the geotechnical recommendations on settlement with the exhibits on post development slopes and location of flex couplings for the utility systems. All public utilities shall be shown in plan and profile view. Sewer and water facilities shall be installed per standards in place at the time of construction. 84. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, provide reimbursement to the City for the design and construction of the PIPS Pump Station mechanical odor control unit. The amount of re -imbursement shall be determined by the City of Petaluma. The odor control unit shall meet current design criteria and be equivalent to the units installed at recent pump station upgrades within the City. The mechanical odor control unit is required to replace the odor control bed. 85. Provide an automatic controlled slide access gate to the PIPS Pump Station wide enough to allow a 55 foot long truck trailer access into the pump station. Provide a minimum 20 -foot wide lockable swing gate along the easterly side of the PIPS site near the corner of Hopper Street and lot 136. The truck movements and site improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for replacing any portions of the PIPS facility impacted by development of the Riverfront project, as determined by and subject to the approval of the City of Petaluma. Provide new site improvements at the PIPS facility including paving for replaced parking area, drainage, fencing, walls, and building protection as required by the City. All site improvements related to the PIPS pump station are subject to City approval and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Riverfront project. 86. Provide project impact analysis and protective plan for work over the sewer force main and large gravity sewer main on the east side of the development. 87. The trash enclosures with sanitary sewer drains shall be covered and not allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer system. 88. Overhead utilities along the street frontages, within the project site or traversing the site shall be placed underground. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 7✓17 89. All existing unused water and sewer mains shall be identified on construction drawings and abandoned per City standards. 90. Joint trench plans are required with the public improvement plan submittal. 91. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. 92. The on-site storm drain water treatment system shall be privately owned and maintained. 93. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an operations and maintenance manual is required for the proposed storm water treatment system and shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. The manual shall include annual inspection, by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, to ensure the detention and treatment systems are operating as designed and constructed as well as provisions to make any necessary repairs to the system. A signed and sealed copy of the report shall be provided annually to the Office of the City Engineer. 94. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall comply with the City's Phase II storm water management plan and State of California NPDES requirements including submittal of a notice of intent and storm water pollution prevention plan to the State and City. PEDESTRIAN 8 BICYCLE ADVISORY (PBAC) COMMITTEE 95. Bicycle parking for tenants and employees of the office/retail buildings and the boathouse shall be provided. The future SPAR approvals shall require bike parking consistent with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and the IZO Section 11.090 - Standards for Bicycle Facilities. 96. Bicycle parking facilities shall be conveniently located near the main entrance(s) to the office/retail buildings. All racks shall be located in covered locations (under awning/overhang), in bicycle lockers, or indoors, to provide protection from the weather. Bicycle parking located inside any parking structures shall be in a safe well -lighted and open area. 97. Bike racks shall be designed to keep the bike upright by supporting the frame in two places, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured with a LI -lock, be securely anchored or heavy enough that it cannot be stolen, and durable enough to resist being cut or vandalized. The applicant shall follow the guidelines within the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for further bike parking design and placement standards. 98. There shall be no direct glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes along the multi -use path. Lighting shall be directed downward to minimize light pollution. 99. Benches shall be located along the multi -use path, with emphasis to locations along the river -facing segment, and at neighborhood park/playing field (Active Park) and Central Green. 100. A drinking fountain, including a doggie fountain component, shall be provided along the multi -use path and at the playing field. 101. Accommodations for and connectivity to public transit shall be incorporated into the site plan and wayfinding / directional signage shall be provided for existing transit stops. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17✓/� 102. Curb cuts for ADA and crosswalks shall be provided at the entrance to the subdivision to connect pedestrians and residents to the multi -use path. 103. A Stop sign at the entrance to the subdivision shall be provided, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 104. The hotel entrance shall be designed to limit vehicular interference between cyclists and hotel guests. 105. Appropriate bicycle lane signage shall be provided along the major thoroughfare in the commercial area. 106. All Class III Bikeways within the project area shall be identified with appropriate signage. 107. A wayfinding signage plan shall be reviewed by the PBAC and shall include signs for the boat launch, the enhanced trail, the river trail, public transit, the SMART multi -use path and the local Park and Ride facility. 108. The surface treatment for the pathway from the housing development to the playing field shall be a concrete surface. FIRE MARSHAL 109. Access Summary: The Holmes Fire Emergency Vehicle Access Assessment Report (HFR) concludes that the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), as proposed, is adequate to facilitate site access and egress. Petaluma Fire Department (PFD) believes the technical information contained in the HFR is adequate and provided essential technical information and clarification to previously identified EVA challenges. The February 1, 2013 Steven J. Lafranchi and Associates (SJLA) "Phased Tentative Map for Riverfront" plan set shows the 22 foot EVA has been moved from City of Petaluma Property to the Pomeroy property (as depicted on sheet TM -12). In summary, Fire Department EVA and site access appears to be adequate. 110. EVA Minimum Width/Standard: The EVA minimum width located on the adjacent Pomeroy/URS Property (APN: 136-010-024) shall be a paved 22 feet. The EVA structural road section shall consist of asphalt/concrete and class 2 aggregate base materials capable of handling a minimum of H2O vehicle loading, subject to City approval. 111. Technical Review: The EVA and other elements of this project may need further technical review depending on the magnitude of possible changes. We may request an update from Holmes Fire (or equivalent firm as approved by the Fire Marshal) if major changes come forward. This project will continue to need to be coordinated closely with both Holmes Fire and the Fire Marshal's Office. In addition, all easement agreements will need to be reviewed and verified by the City Engineer. 112. Other Aspects: PFD understands the City Engineer and Planning Manager will be responsible for many other aspects of this project that also have the potential to impact emergency ingress/egress, such as traffic, and PFD will continue to be involved in order to provide comments and maintain the functionality of the EVA. 113. Circulation/Fire Truck Access: Fire Apparatus Accessibility exhibits indicate that truck access throughout the project is adequate. However, as building heights and/or other changes to this project come forward, PFD reserves the right to add conditions and/or request additional information. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 114. EVA Gates: All EVA gates and Opticoms will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal; electronically operated gates acceptable to the Fire Marshal will be required. 115. EVA Signage: The EVA will need to be posted with signs pursuant to CFC Section D103.6 and as recommended by Holmes Fire. All EVA road markings, signs, and possible warning lights will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office. 116. Phased Development: TM -8 shows a "Phased Tentative Map"; be advised, underground utilities including water lines supporting this development must be installed prior to bringing combustible construction materials on site. Hydrants must be operational prior to bringing any combustible materials onsite. 117. Preliminary On -Site Utility Plan: The Preliminary On -Site Utility Plan and waterlines will need to be verified by the City Engineer and Water Department. Hydraulic calculations must be provided to verify adequate water for firefighting and domestic use. Proof of that required fire flow shall be provided to the Fire Marshal's Office prior to issuance of the building permit. The Fire Marshal's Office will not accept less than the minimum fire flow and pressure and it will be the developer's responsibility to make private and/or public improvements to the system to meet the water flow demands of the project. As previously mentioned, water supply must be acceptable to the City Engineer and Water Department. 118. Minimum Fire Flow: Minimum fire flow for buildings shall be calculated as specified in the 2010 California Fire Code, Appendix B: "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings." Please be advised that if building fire flow calculations cannot be made at the time of project submittal, the following fire flows shall apply: a. Residential (Single and Two Family Residential): 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual; b. Commercial, Industrial, and Multi -family: 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual. 119. When building fire flows are submitted, these flows shall be adjusted in accordance with Appendix B except that for all fire flows, the minimum pressure shall be 20 psi. 120. Fire Hydrants: Development plans indicate that additional on-site fire hydrants will be necessary. The number and location of fire hydrants will need to be closely coordinated with the Fire Marshal and spacing shall not exceed 300 feet and/or 150 feet from the farthest structure. 121. FDC and PIV: FDC and PIV placement will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of the improvement plans. 122. Commercial Sprinklers: All commercial buildings (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with a central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require three (3) sets of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. 123. Residential Sprinklers: For residential structures, fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-D are required; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet (or 3 feet deep), and other attached structures. These systems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. All systems require three (3) sets of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. No exterior risers or fire piping will be allowed. -7—zo Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 124. Building Height: Class I standpipes shall be installed in buildings three (3) stories or above in height. Standpipes shall be provided with approved outlets provided on each floor level, including the roof when roof access is provided, 125. The Kleinfelder Phase II Soil and Groundwater Investigation dated January 17, 2001 provided a summary of findings. Section 7.2 (Site Development Considerations page 17) and Section 7.3 (Recommendations; page 18) are recommendations to be put in place during development of the site. The Kleinfelder report recommends the development of a soil and groundwater management plan (SMP) to outline and describe the steps required of personnel during the site construction; therefore, a SMP shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal along with the Site Improvement plans prior to any site work. It must address all the elements specified in the Kleinfelder recommendations. Applicant shall confirm that copies of the Phase II were sent to the Sonoma County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region as recommended. 126. The PFD recommends that you "reconnect" with your Environmental Consultant as this project moves through the process to answer any questions regarding the Phase II report and/or if any questions come up regarding the results of analysis. 127. Hazardous Materials Business Plan: Some of the business uses are unknown at this time. If the facility and/or businesses use or store hazardous materials exceeding state threshold planning quantities (55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of gas, or 500 lbs. of a solid), the facility will need to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) pursuant to Health and Safety 6.95 and the California Fire Code. A completed plan must be submitted prior to bringing hazardous materials on-site. Forms and guidance are available from the Fire Marshal's Office. In addition, all hazardous materials storage locations will be required to have secondary containment and NFPA 704 placards (firefighter diamond) denoting expected hazards. In addition, PFD will require that the HMBP be submitted electronically through the CERS on-line reporting system. 128. For the EVA, and other life -safety aspects of this project, the applicant shall contract with Holmes Fire (or equivalent firm as approved by the Fire Marshal), a Professional Fire Protection Engineering Firm, to assist the Project in meeting fire code requirements. 129. Phased Approach: As this project involves different phases, as depicted on the Phased Tentative Map, please be advised, a compacted base EVA is acceptable during the construction period of the initial phase; however a fully paved EVA and fully paved connecting streets are required prior issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the initial Phase I of this project. As mentioned, the waterline/utilities and fire hydrants must be fully installed prior to bringing combustible construction materials onsite for the initial phase and then prior to bringing combustible materials onsite for each subsequent phase being developed. All public improvement work for each phase shall be completed prior to issuance of a final inspection/certificate of occupancy for the last 20% percent of units of each phase, unless otherwise noted herein. 7-Z-/ Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-17 DATE: TO: FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: June 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 8 AGENDA ITEM NO.9A Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner Jackie Turner, AICP, LEED AP, Principal Planner Heather Mines, Planning Manager RIVERFRONT MD(ED-USE PROJECT 500 Hopper Street File No. 11 -TSM -0130 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and adopt the following resolutions: Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Project (Attachment A); and ® Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from T-5 (Urban Center), T-6 (Urban Core), and Civic Space zoning designations to T-4 (General Urban), T-5, T-6 and Civic Space (Attachment B); and Resolution recommending the City Council approve a 144 lot Phased Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) for the Riverfront Mixed Use Project, APN 136-010-027 (Attachment C). BACKGROUND Site Characteristics The subject property is located north of the Petaluma River and west of Highway 101 near the Lakeville Highway interchange (Attachment E, Sheet TM-1).The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor is located adjacent to the property's northern boundary. Adjacent uses include the City of Petaluma's former wastewater treatment facility and the former Pomeroy Corporation cement plant to the west just south of Hopper Street. Surrounding uses include commercial and industrial uses north of the SMART corridor, single family residential uses across q— 1 the Petaluma River to the west, and a marina and business center to the east on the other side of Highway 101. The land between the southern property boundary and the bank of the Petaluma River is owned by the State and managed by the State Lands Commission (3.67 acres). The project site is currently undeveloped and has relatively level topography. Historically the site has been used for storage of dredged materials from the Petaluma River and for the crushing and storage of roadbed materials. The site's frontage along the Petaluma River has been dedicated to the State and a Riverfront park is proposed at this location as part of the project. History The project site falls within in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) area. The Riverfront site has been the subject of several development applications since 2001. The site has limited street access and past development scenarios attempted to provide additional access by way of a new southern crossing bridge over the Petaluma River. Ultimately, these development plans were financially infeasible due to the expected cost of the bridge, ranging from $40 to $60 million. A subsequent development application for predominately residential land uses did not gain staff support and was eventually withdrawn. The current proposal is the result of discussions with staff about the mix and intensity of uses considered consistent with the CPSP and the constraints of the site in terms of access and location as mentioned above. One access issue was resolved by gaining final approval of the existing at -grade railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane near Hopper Street north and west of the site (Sheet TM -2, Attachment E and Figure 1-1 of the DEIR). The City Council adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for permanent Public Utility Commission (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 has been under preliminary planning review since 2009 with a formal application filed on February 8, 2011 by Basin Street Properties. 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 2003 SmartCode. A new Station Area Master Plan and amended SmartCode were adopted by the City Council on June 17, 2013. The Tentative Map, as a complete application, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act Section 66474.2(c), will continue to be processed under the 2003 SmartCode. Application of the updated 2013 SmartCode to the future Site and Architectural Review process would require significant redesign of the project including lot pattern and street system. Given that the applicant has committed significant time and money to develop the project plans to their current version, Basin Street Properties requested that the 2003 SmartCode; Section 4 — Urban Standards be utilized for the Site Plan & Architectural Review approvals and build out phase; for a period of time not to exceed six (6) years from the date of final SmartCode adoption. All other provisions of the Amended SmartCode, including administrative provisions and processes still apply. q— 2 Table 1. Recent Meetings Date Request June 17, 2013 CC approves on first reading the 2013 SmartCode revisions and "hybrid language" (see Section 2 below) July 9, 2013 PC public hearing for 11 -TSM -0130 and IS/MND 13, 2013 PC continues 11 -TSM -0130 to date uncertain October 29, 2013 NOP public scoping meeting February 6, 2014 Close of Public Comment period on DEIR 3, 2014 CC public hearing on the DEIR In June 2013, the City Council approved language providing a hybrid approach to the existing and amended SmartCode for the Riverfront Project as specified below: SmartCode Section 2. Section 2 of the ordinance adopting the Amended SmartCode provides as follows: "Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Amended SmartCode; provided, however, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Amended SmartCode, 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 SmartCode, until the earlier of: six (6) years following the effective date of the Amended SmartCode, 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 SmartCode upon the effective date of the Amended SmartCode, subject to applicable law." The above provision is limited to the Riverfront Project as currently proposed, as it is the only complete application within the plan area. Should the subdivision map not be approved, or the g— 3 project not be built out within six years of adoption of the Amended SmartCode, any future project proposal at this location would be processed under the Amended SmartCode. The Amended SmartCode allows for deviations from the standards within the code which may occur if the requested deviation remains consistent with the Intent Section of the SmartCode. Such deviations are defined as Warrants, the authority for which is Section 8.10.020.H. La of the Amended SmartCode. Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment (FEIA) On October 6, 2008, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-189 N.C.S. which requires preparation of a Fiscal and Economic Impact Assessment for projects involving general retail, grocery, hotel or building and landscape materials that standing alone, or in combination with any other uses, has a total floor area of 25,000 square feet or more. The Resolution requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider and discuss the FEIA prior to the granting of any land use entitlements. The FEIA for the Riverfront Project was prepared wider the City's direction by Keyser Marston Associates. The City Council reviewed the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis for the Riverfront project on May 6, 2013. The FEIA found that the project had a net positive fiscal impact to the City. Assuming full build -out, the net fiscal impact is estimated to generate a total annual increase of $616,000 for combined fund revenues (General Fund, Transit Occupancy Tax, etc.). Committee / Commission Review: The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the project at two separate meetings on October 12, 2011, and November 9, 2011. Their recommendations are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. In addition, the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission (RMPC) reviewed the project on January 16, 2013 and was generally supportive. Commissioners expressed a strong preference for an all-weather field to increase usability for athletics. Conditions recommended by these committees are included in Exhibit 1 of Attachment C - Conditions of Approval. Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) of architectural design, park and recreation amenities, landscaping and other design aspects will occur as an application for each component of the project is submitted in the future. Final approval of park design is at the discretion of the Parks Director and Planning Manager upon recommendation of the RMPC. Community Review: All public noticing for this project, has been sent to property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the project site, rather than the typical 500 foot radius. Comments received before each public meeting are attached to the applicable staff report. In addition, the public had the opportunity to provide comment: ® At a neighborhood meeting in early 2013 hosted by the applicant ® During the review of the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA) q"4 • At the Planning Cormnission hearing on the IS/MND and Tentative Subdivision Map, July 9, 2013 • During the EIR Notice of Preparation comment period between September 17, 2013 and October 29, 2013 • At the EIR NOP public scoping meeting on October 29, 2013 Most recently, the public had the opportunity to provide written comment during the following: • the DEIR comment period (December 19, 2013 through February 6, 2014) • Planning Commission on January 14a', 2014 • City Council hearings on February 3, 2014 Review Process The City Council will consider the project upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The Council will take action on the FEIR, the Zoning Map Amendment, and the Tentative Subdivision Map. Following City Council action, the next phase of project approvals would be Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for the individual land use components. Detailed site design and building plans would be prepared and submitted for staff review and then forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. As noted earlier, these reviews are expected to occur in phases over a period of several years. Specific building locations, parking layouts, landscape design and architecture would be reviewed and approved during this subsequent phase of project review. Project Description The proposed project consists of a mixed-use development on approximately 35.7 acres (39.5 acres including the offsite Riverfront Park). As proposed, a total of approximately 19 acres will be developed with a mix of residential, hotel, commercial and office uses, with approximately 13 acres for right-of-way dedication and 3.7 acres for civic spaces (Table 2 and Attachment D). Future development is 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 potential future development of a community boathouse adjacent to the Petaluma River by the Petaluma Small Craft Center. g -- 5 Table 2. Land Use Summary COMMERCIAL Office 60,000 s.f Retail/Restaurants 30,000 s.f Hotel - 120 rooms 40,000 s.f. Total Commercial Square Footage 130,000 s,f RESIDENTIAL Apartments 100 units over the Retail/Restaurants Townhouses 39 units (including 4 live/work units) Single -Family 134 lots Total Residential and Live/Work Units 273 Parcel A — Active Park 98,916 s.£ Parcel B — Central Green 16,448 s.f. Parcel C — Public Path 50,662 s.f. Parcel D — Future Small Craft Facility 6,878 s.f. Land Uses Detached single -fancily residential lots would occupy the majority of the southern portion of the site adjacent to the State-owned property along 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. In the 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 the potential future development of a community boathouse and launch for small craft access to the Petaluma River. The single-family lots average approximately 4,000 square feet and are arranged on a street grid including a frontage street adjacent to the State-owned property along the Petaluma River as shown on the conceptual site plan (Attachment D). The single-family homes range from approximately 1,200 to 2,300 square feet, with an average unit size of 1,790 square feet. The townhouse lots are served by an internal street that connects to the single -fancily development. m The proposed residential uses include 134 single -fancily residential lots, 39 townhomes including 4 live/work units on three lots, and up to 100 rental apartments as part of the mixed-use component. Thus, the proposed project would allow for a maximum project build out of 273 residential units. Commercial and residential mixed-use development would be located on approximately 1.18 - acre in the central portion of the site with 30,000 square feet of ground floor commercial 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. Offsite Improvements The project includes several off-site improvements including an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to connect D Street to Hopper Street, widening of Hopper Street to meet Fire Department requirements, and development of a "Riverfront Park," an approximately 3.7 acre passive use park on state-owned property which would include walking trails, overlooks and landscaping. Detailed design plans for the development of the Riverfront Park have not yet been prepared, however the riverfront pathway is expected to be approximately 10 feet wide and proposed conditions of project approval require that it be constructed pursuant to the Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plena and operational prior to the 80"' certificate of occupancy granted to the single-family detached houses and/or townhomes. The preliminary plan includes preservation of existing trees, the addition of overlooks on the future riverfront park parcel and plantings of additional riparian trees to enhance the area. The linear park will pass near the potential future community boathouse that will be designed and constructed at a later date and will be subject to environmental and Site Plan and Architectural Review. The onsite street grid also includes a trail 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 adjacent proposed offsite Riverfront pathway. Due to potential for odor complaints from the Primary Influent Pump Station (PIPS) part of the wastewater disposal facility on the adjacent City -owned property to the west, the applicant shall provide funds to replace the mechanical odor control unit. The mechanical odor control unit is required to replace the odor control bed. Due to proposed changes to Hopper Street, a number of changes to the PIPS facility would be required. These include an automatic controlled slide access gate to the PIPS facility wide enough to allow a 55 foot long truck trailer access into the pump station. Other site improvements at the PIPS facility would include site lighting, landscaping, irrigation, signage, paving for replaced parking area, drainage, fencing, walls, security system, and building protection as required by the City. Vehicular Access and Circulation Access to the project will be provided from Hopper Street via Caulfield Lane, with secondary access off of D Street as shown on Attachment E, Sheet TM -13. Typically the city requires two points of public access for projects with 50 or more residential units. Hopper Street will be g— 7 widened to 45 feet to accommodate two travel lanes, landscaping, and pedestrian/bicycle access from Caulfield Lane to the project site as proposed by the project. The project plans also provide an internal network of streets that consists of one primary north - south street and several minor north -south connections. Most onsite streets will provide on -street parking. The primary north -south street through the project site will provide for the future extension of Caulfield Lane through the site to Petaluma Boulevard South to the south of the Petaluma River as described in the Citys General Plan. Several grid -pattern streets would serve the residential uses in the southern portion of the site, including one running parallel to the north bank of the Petaluma River. Internally, the primary north -south road will be a segment of the planned extension of Caulfield Lane through the project site and in the undeterniined future, to Petaluma Boulevard South, located south of the Petaluma River. (In addition, the existing and future sewers together with proposed project utilities will be located in the public right of way and not an easement. The General Plan calls for a bridge across the river to provide a southern crossing. This future bridge would cross the Petaluma River in alignment with the proposed central roadway that extends from the Central Green and connect to Petaluma Boulevard South. Although the project will contribute to the construction of the southern crossing through traffic impact fees, the construction of the bridge is not part of this project. Until such time as the Southern Crossing Bridge is built, the required second point of emergency access would be provided through an emergency vehicle access (EVA) route from Hopper Street to a new EVA that enters the project site from the west via Pomeroy /URS property, south of the City -owned property (Attachment E, Sheet TM -12). 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. The EVA connection from D Street to Hopper Street varies from 26 to 30 feet in width. The at -grade crossing of the SMART rail tracks at Lakeville Street has been relocated to Caulfield Lane northeast of the project site and been given final California Public Utilities Commission approval. On -street parallel parking would be provided along both sides of all internal streets except for the alleys behind the retail -residential mixed use area, on the street between the Central Green and the frontage road along the river. Parking The project is within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries and is subject to the parking standards contained in Chapter 4 of the 2003 Smart Code until the six year period from the date of the Amended SmartCode adoption applicable to Riverfront concludes, as discussed previously. The 2003 parking requirement is one space for each residential dwelling unit, one parking space for each hotel room, and one parking space for each 300 square feet of commercial space (office and retail). The project requires 378 parking spaces for the commercial land uses (60,000 s.f. office, 30,000 s.f. retail/commercial and 120 room hotel). All of the townhomes and single-family homes will have two car garages, while each apartment will have one covered space. The preliminary parking layouts provided as part of the Tentative Map application provide 155 on-site parking spaces and 129 on -street parking spaces within the commercial areas for a total 284 spaces. The on -street parallel parking 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, is shown on the cross sections on Sheet TM -7 of Attachment E. The CPSP allows the frontage on - street parking to be counted toward the number of required spaces. There are an additional 280 on -street parking spaces within the residential portions of the project site. This results in a total public parking supply of 564 spaces. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity The project includes a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are consistent with the goals of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (1996), the City's Bicycle and Trail Plan (2008), and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (2003). An approximately 10 -foot wide, Class I multi -use path is proposed around the perimeter of the site and would connect to other planned paths in the area as illustrated on Sheet TM -5 of Attachment E. The proposed street through the middle of the site would serve as a Class 11 bicycle and pedestrian facility that connects the multi -use path within the proposed Riverfront Park to Hopper Street. There is an existing easement for general public vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access that runs north -south through the site that will be relocated to align with the Class Il path leading to the future bridge to connect to Petaluma Boulevard South. Transit Due to the proximity to bus stops located near the Caulfield Lane/Lakeville Highway intersection (1,000 feet walking distance to the site), the size of the project, and anticipated transit usage (348 jobs and 565 residents estimated by the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis for the project), there was sufficient nexus with the project to provide for the purchase and installation of a new bus shelter at the nearest bus stop to the site. Providing funds to purchase and install a new bus shelter at the Caulfield/Lakeville intersection (southbound Lakeville) to meet the transit usage demand created by the project is a Condition of Approval. This new bus stop and shelter will provide access to both the existing transit system and the planned SMART downtown station located .77 miles to the northwest, directly across D Street on Lakeville Highway. PLAN CONSISTENCY 2025 General Plan The property has a General Plan designation of Mixed -Use. The General Plan defers to the densities and FARs specified by the Central Petaluma Specific Plan for those properties within the plan area. The General Plan describes the CPSP as "aiming to bring together the eastern and western portions of the city while focusing on the river as an amenity and linkage within the city. While the plan is also aimed at supporting existing viable industrial uses, it advocates for greater densities and mixed-use opportunities, including ground floor retail." The following General Plan policies are particularly relevant to the Riverfront project. The statements in italic reflect staffs analysis of the way in which the project is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies. Chapter 1— Land Use, Growth Management and the Built Environment Policy 1-P-2: Use land efficiently by promoting infill development at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding land uses. The project is consistent with this policy because it is infill development at a density higher than surrounding land uses. Surrounding development is vacant m• single story structures with parking lots. The proposed development is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and includes onadtistory tollNlnhanres and mixed use development with floor to area ratios (FAR) of .5 or greater. The proposed single family development is ml small lots similar to traditional aa -ban residential neighborhoods of downtown rather than newer suburban development. Policy 1-P-6: Encourage mixed-use development, which includes opportunities for increased transit use. The project includes a robust mix of retail, office, hotel, park mrd residential uses Cold is withna walking distance of the bus stop at Caulfield and Lakeville. The project will provide a new bits shelter at this location. Policy 1-P-7: Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. The mixed-use buildings sm•romnding the Central Green are intended to be designed to accommodate a range of arses including retail, professional office and personal service conunercial. Policy 1-P-27: Encourage innovative site and building design to address parking solutions such as shared, structured, and/or underground facilities. The shared parking facility east of (behind) the hotel and the on -street parking will provide all innovative parking solution while maintaining a pedestrian scale. Policy 1-P-44: Develop the Petaluma River as a publicly -accessible green ribbon, fronted by streets, paths, access points, and open spaces, by implementing the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan within the context of the PRC Design Standards. The project implements more than a quarter mile of the planned riverli•ont park and pathway system along Petaluma River frontage. Policy 1-P-45: Development along the River shall include the creation and maintenance, in perpetuity, of public access sites. Amenities provided may include ramps, steps, docks or other means of access to the water. E The planed park along the river• will include a publicly accessible path, overlooks and other amenities. The formation of a Liglitirlg mrd Landscaping Assessrnernt District would prrovide.for ongoing 177ainte7wnce of pm -k aurenities. Chapter 2 — Community Design, Character and Green Building - Planning Subareas Policy 2 -P -4.B: Review all development proposals along the navigable portions of the river to determine that they are designed to encourage long-term retention of river -dependent uses to the extent feasible. The project as designed does not alter any designated river -dependent uses. Policy 2-P-8: Require single loaded streets along the Urban Separator and riparian corridors to ensure the creation of linear open space corridors with maximum public accessibility, visibility, and opportunities for stewardship. Much of the site is designed with single -loaded (!rousing on are side) streets for residential development which allows for maximum visual increased "eyes on the river" and physical access to the multiuse paths and trails, especially through the Rive? front Park. Providing trails with this level of accessibility increases the awareness and engagement by citizens and adjacent residents. People are nrm•e likely to monitor the care and upkeep to ensure riparian resources are protected. Policy 2-P-10: Provide for the extension of Caulfield Lane from Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South (Southern Crossing). The project street system has been designed to provide both short term acrd long term alignment for the Caulfield Lane extension. Policy 2-P-12: Support the establishment of pedestrian access to the River, including the provision of a facility to allow launching of small, lightweight waterborne craft. The project applicant has designated a parcel in the southeastern par4 of the project for dedication to the City for the site of a potential future Boat House for small waterborne craft. Policy 2-P-13: Meet the recreational needs of the increasing residential population through the development of a Community Park in the Lower Reach of the CPSP area. The project includes a community park that can be expanded upon development of the City owned properties or the Parneroy/URS property to the west. The project has been conceived and designed with these goals in mind and as a result is consistent with all of the applicable General Plan policies. S— 11 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan CPSP Guiding Concepts The CPSP identifies major planning concepts that provide a framework with which to consider new development for the portion of the City adjacent to the downtown and along the river. Many of these concepts are also General Plan policies, but others are unique to the CPSP area. Listed are the ones relevant to this project: • Consider 5,000 to 7,000 square foot national chains for the area, not "big -box" retail. • Encourage mixed uses: retail fust floor, office residential above. • Consider three to four-story buildings. • Concentrate on relationships and patterns; emphasize small-scale development. • Respect existing industrial uses. • Create a network of pedestrian/bicycle-accessible open space linkages that emphasize the river. • Discourage land uses that are highly dependent on automobiles for accessibility and encourage bicycle and other "low impact" transportation modalities. • Consider both east -west pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular connections as well as north - south connections. • Encourage public facilities, theaters, recreational uses, and parks. • Minimize streets. • Encourage riverside/riverbank development. • Plan for people, but organize spaces to make more people have a positive experience. • Provide larger areas for intensive landscaping and public use; create ecosystem opportunities. • Ensure that the local population and projected tourist/visitor populations can support proposed uses. The project is consistent with these guiding concepts through the distribution of land arses, the site design, and the planned developnennt pattern. CPSP Goals. Objectives & Policies The CPSP consists of two sections: a policy document and the SmartCode, the latter of which is the zoning for the Plan area. Below is a list of the Goals (broad and overarching), Objectives and Policies (more location and action oriented) from the CPSP which is relevant to the Riverfront project: Chapter 2 - Land Use Goals (Applicable to the entire Specific Plan Area) Goal 1: Support existing viable uses, and provide for new uses that complement and complete the urban fabric. �Z— 12 The site is currently undeveloped mrd the project includes new residential, commercial retail and office, hospitality and services and a Trost ofpublic amenities that complete the urban.fabric. Goal 2: Provide for a nnix of new uses. The proposal provides for a prix of new uses including retail, office, a hotel, townhouses, apartments, single-family homes and active and passive open space areas. Goal 3: Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The current proposal provides for a level of overall development intensification appropriate to the current and future cmntext of the site. The once planned Transit Station at Caulfield is no longer envisioned near the Riveif o nt site, but is instead located nearby at Lakeville and Washington Streets. The project will provide a new shelter along the existing bus line in order to facilitate the movement of visitors to the dowrntowrr station. Goal 4: Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the ability to change over time. The mixed-use building in the Central Green area provides the most flexibility to allow for charge over time in terms of types of uses contained within the buildings. The riveif ont park also allows for innovation and charge in how people interact with the river. As the river becomes more of destination, new outdoor uses will be activated such as boating, kite flying or other recreational pnn•suits. Goal 5: Orient activities to the Petaluma River. The riverf•mnt pa•kproposes associated walkways, benches, picnic tables, and observation decks that allow for a variety of outdoor activities to take place along the Petalnnna River. The rivei front frontage road also allows for• public access and observation of the river and various trails link to the river parkfr•oin elsewhere in the overall development. The project also dedicates a parcel that is envisioned for a potential future boathouse facility which would provide access to the river. for a variety of small craft Land Use Objectives and Policies (Applicable to the Lower Reach area) OBJECTIVE 5: Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region -serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river -dependent industrial uses. The proposed protect provides employment oppa41117ities (hotel, office and retail jobs), nrixed- use development and retail with the potential to become region -serving. The project site is not designated,for river -dependent industrial uses. Policy 5.1: Provide for continuation of the existing river -dependent industrial uses. g— 13 The proposed project is not designated for river -dependent uses mad does not affect the status of any of the existirng river -dependent industrial uses because the adjacent properties m•e either vacarnt or not occupied by river -dependent industrial uses. Policy 5.2: Locate a transit station in the vicinity of the Caulfield Lane extension. The 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan envisioned a futanre transit station at the intersection of Hopper Street and Cau�fleld Lane, approximately 500 feet north of the project site. HoaVever, SI URT rno longer plans a station at that location and the Amended SmartCode eliminated the Transit station from the Zoning Map. Instead, the station is planned approximately 0. 77 miles rno•thlrest of the project site. The project will provide a new shelter along the existing bus line. The project iaould not preclnnde a future station in the Caulfield Lane extension area. Policy 5.3: Allow for an intense Mixed -Use development on land not utilized for industrial purposes. Policy language specific to the subject property: "The southernmost 30 acres of the Pomeroy Corporation property have not been used by the company, and may be considered for new development. The plan allows for the redevelopment of this site consistent with the "smart code" regulations. Mixed use in this location would be an easy bicycle ride from many Petaluma neighborhoods, and could be accessible by the proposed passenger rail transit service. An employment destination at this location could capitalize on the amenity of the riverfront, incorporating public riverfront trails with restored riparian and/or wetland habitats. The plan encourages incorporating housing, restaurants, cafes, banking facilities, child care services, and showers and lockers and related services. Transportation alternatives are discussed in the Circulation element." The proposed plan provides far a vibrant mix of uses consistent with land uses outlined in this section of the CPSP. The Specific Plan, with the light rail station planned envisioned this area with office space, becoming an "employment center ". Even i-vith the elimination of the light rail station, employment generating connnercial office and hotel uses are viable element of the mixed-use project. Staff believes the intensity of office development proposed (60, 000sf.) and the employment opportunities it creates are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan. Additionally, given the proximity of the site to the planned downtown SMART station ( 77 mile), the rednired new shelter and proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the project, staff believes that the amount of development proposed fo• the Riverfront project to be appropriate to the context and constraints of the site while addressing the goals of the CPSP. Chapter 4 - Community Design: Goal 1: Enhance Central Petaluma's identity and unique sense of place. Goal 2: Create a strong sense of entry and orientation within Central Petaluma. Goal : Strengthen linkages to and along the river and to other districts of the city. Goal 4: Enhance the livability of Central Petaluma. Goal 5: Establish a pedestrian scale within the public realm. g— 14 Goal 6: Maintain visual landmarks. Goal 7: Emphasize creativity and sustainability in design. The urban design principles in the CPSP and the Srna tCode a -e reflected in the conmmnity design of the Riverf'ornt project. These goals a -e achievable with the current land use proposal. The comnnunity layout begins with a street grid oriented to the pedestrian experience. Block lengths are short and pedestrian "short cuts" are provided for convenience. The proposed land use mia creates walkable destinations for existing and future residents, as well as employees and visitors. Riverfront Park will create a high profile amenity along the river with pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the whole cio); especially behi�een Hopper Street/Lakeville Highway area and the Petaluma River. A number of these goals will require implementation during the design review (SPAR) portion of the project where building architecture, landscaping and detailed urban design plans are finalized Chapter 5 - Public Space and River Access Goal 1: Establish a continuous and interconnected system of public spaces along the river Goal 2: Utilize public spaces to extend the amenity of the waterfront inland Goal 3: Provide urban public spaces that serve multiple purposes Goal 4: Encourage a waterborne transportation system that interconnects the various waterfront public spaces Goal 5: Utilize public space to open up views and vistas from inland areas to the river and the mountains Goal 7: Complete a recreational loop on both sides of the river, including gathering areas of various sizes Goal 8: Enhance the public space character of city streets Goal 9: Promote art in public spaces The project includes design and construction of the Riverf•ont Park with 1,500 linea' feet of public access multi -use path as a key component of the CPSP public space and river access goals. The new trails within the rives front park will help irnplenrent Goal 7. Caulfield Lane, behi7eern the Central Green and the riverfront includes 15 foot parkways on each side which physically and visually connect the two public open spaces, and is planned to lead to the fnnture "Southern Grossing", a bridge which connects to Petaluma Boulevard South. The parcel to be dedicated for a potential fndure Boathouse is an important step towards activating the water f -ont. There are many opportunities_for placement or incorporation of art into the design of elements of the public spaces. Specific to the Lower Reach OBJECTIVE 4: Provide for major new public spaces extending from the river to inland areas. Policy 4.1: Provide for a major band of waterfront public space Policy 4.2: Establish an integrated network of public space Policy 4.3: Develop a central green within the new employment area The proposed plan satisfies the policies expressed above through the developnnent of the Riverfront Park, public access through the site to the Riverf•ont Park, and trails and space to launch small craft in the future to explore the river and other properties in the lower reach. g-15 Chapter 6 Circulation Goal 1: Support Diversity in the transportation system. Goal 2: Reduce the barrier effect of the diverse transportation corridors. Goal 3: Reinforce the role of Central Petaluma as a center for transit and non -vehicular modes of travel. Goal 4: Complete the urban pattern with a pedestrian -scaled grid of streets where it is fragmented in the river area. The project supports multi -modal transport including vehicular, bike, bus transit, walking and boating. The proposed multi -use paths reduce the barrier fanned by the railroad and the highimy by providing alternative connections to destinations including the river. The proxindly to a bus stop, less than a quarter mile mvay from the site (approximately 1,000 feet), and the condition to provide a transit shelter reinforces the role of Cental Petaluma as being a transit rich area. Finally, the street design is a pedestrian friendly grid network that disperses and calms vehicular traffic. Policies specific to the Riverfront property: Policy 1.3: Provide a transit station in the vicinity of Caulfield Lane. The transit station planned for this area has been eliminated by SAL4RT and relocated .77 miles away, however the project does not preclude a f azi e station in this area. The project mill enhance transit opportunities by providing a neN, bus stop and shelter less than'/a mile from the site. Policy 1.4: Pursue an additional at -grade railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane. An at -grade railroad crossing formally approved by the PUC, at Caulfield Lane connecting Lakeville Highway to Hopper Street has been in existence since 2011 and is being used to access the Riverf ont site and other nearby City facilities. Policy 1.6: Develop the potential of the river for local and regional transit. The new Riverfi-ont Park and dedicated parcel for a potential future Boathouse facility will increase the ability to utilize the river for transit as well as recreational use. Policy 2.4: Create new local streets to improve access and better serve potential development. The new streets shall have logical intersections, safe sight distance, and be at an appropriate scale. The rretm streets planned in the Riverf•ont project ar-e laid out our a grid with short blocks at a pedestrian -friendly scale tivhich is consistent with this policy. Intersection design will be reviewed in detail during the plan check stage to ensure clearance standards such as setback and height limits of structures or landscaping at corners are met. V-16 Policy 3.1: Provide a multi -use recreational bicycle and pedestrian trail along the Northwestern Pacific right-of-way, with connections to McNear Peninsula and the riverfront. The project provides a netiv trail along the railroad for the distance of the project frontage and extending to Caulfield Lane. This hail connects to two new hails on the site perimeter that lead to the planned Riverfront Park hail to the south. Policy 3.5: Provide on -street connections to the river trail (sidewalks, bike lanes and bike routes) to ensure a logical system of pedestrian and bicycle routes that link to citywide and regional systems. The riverfront hail is connected to the sheet system at several locations. Policy 3.6: Enhance street landscaping and design to improve the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Class I, Class II and Class III bicycle facilities are proposed to satisfy a variety of levels of experience for biking. Separated sidewalks with sheet h•ees and perimeter paths with more organic clusters of shrub and tree plantings, are proposed in order to create a safe and pleasing pedestrian environment. Policy 3.7: Provide facilities for bicycles in new commercial development and at transit stations. The project will provide bicycle facilities such as bike racks, lockers and showers _for new connnercial buildings consistent with the SnnartCode. Facilities will be reviewed through Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) with f duce project components. 2003 SmartCode The Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) is implemented through the 2003 SmartCode rather than the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is within a Conceptual Area Boundary on the SmartCode Zoning Map (i.e. "the area inside the bourndaly is conceptual and only for thep¢nposes of deternniniug recommended zoning designations and sheet layout"). The conceptual layout includes Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (C -S) zoning designations. The proposed zoning designations within the CPSP include General Urban (T-4), Urban Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (C -S). The purpose of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) is to replace the conceptual designations with permanent zoning districts that will implement the mixed-use project. These designations allow for a variety of residential, commercial office, retail and park uses consistent with the respective development regulations established within the CPSP. The intent of this zoning is to promote horizontal and vertical mixed use (i.e., a mix of uses within the same structure) wherever possible. These zones allow for a variety of permitted and conditional uses as illustrated in the Table 3.1: Building Functions Standards of the CPSP. The following table provides a summary of the 2003 SmartCode requirements for development in the zones proposed for the Riverfront project. g-17 Table 3. 2003 SmartCode Development Standards Development 2003 SMARTCODE REQUIREMENTS T-4 T-5 T-6 Standards 2,000 line 1,700 1,700 linear Block Perimeter feet max. linear feet feet max. max. 4,000 s.f. 2,000 s.f. 2,000 s.f. Lot Area average min. Run. 80% max. and 100% Lot Coverage 60% max. for 100% max. structured parking Edge, Side, Side, rear Building rear & court & court Rear & court Placement yard yard yard permitted permitted permitted Front Setback 0'-15' max. 0'-10' 0'-5' max. max. 5' min./30' 0' min./10' 0' min./10' Side Setback max. max. max. 20' min./5' S' min./5' Rear Setback to 0' min./5' to (except alleys) to outbuildin outbuilding outbuildings gs Density 25 du/ac 60 du/ac 60 du/ac max. (Units/acre) max. max. Principal Bldg. 50% min. 75% min. 90% min. Frontage Secondary Bldg. 30%min. 35%min. 50% min. Frontage 2 stories 3 stories nun. 3 stories min. Building Height max. 4stories 4 stories max. max. 1 space/ dwelling unit; 1 space/ 300 sq. ft. of commercial; I Parking - Required space/ hotel room Parking Location Permitted only in the3` layer 7-18 The Tentative Subdivision Map has been designed in accordance with most of these standards. The block perimeter is a measurement of the total distance around each block. The proposed subdivision complies with the block perimeter standards, ranging from 989 to 1,988 linear feet. The lot sizes within the T-4 zone have an average size of 4,715 s.f, consistent with the required average of 4,000 s.f. For project elements that do not conform to the 2003 SmartCode, the applicant is requesting warrants. Modifications may be approved through a warrant pursuant to SmartCode Section 8.10.020.H — Warrants and Variances. A warrant is a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of this Code but is justified by the provisions of the Intent of the SmartCode. Requirements related to buildings and improvements will be met through the future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits for each phase. The requested warrants addressed later in this report include: • Reduced rear setbacks for garages • Reduced side setbacks and lot coverage (townhomes) • Parking in first and second layers (Lot 134) • Street section modifications Pursuant to Section 4.70.030 of the CPSP, a mixed-use project shall comply with the following requirements. The Commission should consider the following in their consideration of the project: A. Design objectives. A mixed-use project shall be designed to: 1. Provide shop fronts along street frontages to maintain a pedestrian orientation at the street level. Residential developments, including live/work, shall be designed such that ground floor units may be converted to retail/commercial shop fronts and to establish a clear, functional design relationship with the street front. 2. Provide for internal compatibility between the different uses within the project; 3. Minimize the effects of any exterior noise, odor, glare, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on the occupants of the residential portions of the project; 4. Include specific design features to minimize the potential impacts of the mixed- use project on adjacent properties; 5. Ensure that the residential units are of a residential character, and with appropriate privacy; 6. Be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of site planning, scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping and signage. B. Location of residential uses. A mixed-use project that provides commercial and/or office space on the ground floor with residential units above (vertical mix) is encouraged over a project that provides commercial structures on the front portion of the lot with residential uses placed at the rear of the lot (horizontal mix). C. Maximum density. When residential units are combined with office, or retail commercial uses in a single building or on the sante parcel, the maximum density allowed by the applicable zone shall be calculated on the basis of the total area of the parcel. 8-19 D. Loading areas. Commercial loading areas shall be located as far as possible from residential units. E. Refuse and recycling areas. Areas for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be located on the site in locations that are convenient for both the residential and non-residential uses. F. Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not impact the residential units. G. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. H. Non-residential hours of operation. The review authority may restrict the hours of operation of non-residential uses within a mixed-use project to mitigate impacts on residential uses. A review of these design objectives provides a good framework for evaluating the location of uses in relationship to one another. Although some of these objectives may not be addressed until SPAR when more specific architectural and improvement plans are available, the lot pattern being approved through the Tentative Subdivision Map does not preclude any of these objectives in future SPAR review. More specific design issues will be reviewed though the SPAR process. The location of uses has been carefully considered and potential land use conflicts have been minimized by the use of open space areas, streets and orientation of parcels. 2008 Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) The proposed Tentative Map is subject to the 2003 SmartCode and the Subdivision Ordinance. However, any procedural or land use regulations not addressed in the SmartCode are subject to the IZO. Subdivision Ordinance The proposed Tentative Map has been found to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act by the City Engineer. Some single-family residential lots proposed in Riverfront do not meet the minimum lot depth of 100 feet per Chapter 20.28.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance but are in conformance with the underlying T-4 General Urban Zone District and further the intent of the CPSP. As such, Chapter 20.40.075 permits the Planning Commission to approve a modification to vary the minimum lot area required of a lot or lots created by the subdivision, or the minimum dimensions of such a lot. Parks and Open Space A total of approximately 7.5 acres of open space is incorporated into the proposed project. The "Central Green" (Parcel B) is approximately 16,448 square feet (0.38 acres) of passive park space encircled by the access streets to the retail and residential mixed use component. This area forms the mixed-use core of the development. A 1.16 acre public open space along the Highway 101 boundary (Parcel C) provides a multi -use path connecting to the Riverfront Park. A 2.27 acre public park is proposed between the single-family development and the hotel/office complex. This park (Parcel A), is proposed as a sports field, consistent with the General Plan's requirement for an Active Community Park. g— 20 The applicant proposes that the public park include a 180 x 310 foot high quality, sand -based natural turf soccer field with a small picnic area and tot lot at the southern edge, and with on - street parking along public streets internal to the development. The applicant is not proposing artificial turf as recommended by the RMPC. A condition of approval has been added to require artificial turf with final design of the park to be reviewed and approved by the Recreation, Music & Parks Commission. The property adjacent to the Petaluma River contains approximately 3.67 acres of land already deeded to the State and managed by the State Lands Commission. In collaboration with State Lands, the developer will be developing plans for a passive Riverfront Park, including a public Class I path providing access along the Petaluma River. Additionally, Parcel D, a 6,878 square foot (0.16 acre) parcel in the southeastern most corner of the site would be dedicated to the City for a potential future boat launch facility for small craft access to the Petaluma River. It is envisioned that the community boathouse facility would be operated by the Petaluma Small Craft Center Coalition (PSC3). Access Public access to the site is provided by an extension of Hopper Street. Typically the city requires two points of full public access for projects with 50 or more residential units. Thus policy is based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) reconmiendations, to provide intercomiected streets and to insure adequate emergency access. The proposed project provides two points of emergency access as required by the Fire Code. The project street system is designed to accommodate the future southern crossing bridge and would be aligned both horizontally and vertically to accept the necessary bridge alignment. The project will also pay Traffic Impact development fees that support the city wide traffic improvements necessary under the General Plan. The proposed installation of new street segment at D Street, improvements to Hopper Street, and installation of 22 foot wide EVA through the adjacent Pomeroy/URS property combine to create a continuous path of travel for both emergency vehicles and passenger vehicles in the event that an evacuation of the area is required. A third party peer review of this solution has been completed by Holmes Fire, a consulting fire and life -safety firm. This review found that the second point of EVA access was a satisfactory solution that provides the necessary level of both Fire Code compliance and practical protection of public safety. Therefore, the project complies with the city requirement for two points of full public access. Architecture The current application for a Tentative Subdivision Map anticipates but does not include proposed buildings. Architectural plans have not been submitted for consideration at this time and will be part of a subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review submittal prior to development of the property. The applicants have provided a conceptual rendering for illustrative purposes (Attachment D) as part of the map application in order to conceptually illustrate the architectural styles and desired level of detail the applicant intends to propose at the Site Plan and Architectural Review stage of the process. A condition of approval (No. 21) has been included to require the applicant to review any submittals for SPAR prior to City review and $ — 21 approval. This will assist both the City and the applicant in carrying out the overall architectural objectives even if certain phases are designed and built by separate entities, other than the applicant. Parking The project is within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries and is subject to the parking standards contained in Chapter 4 of the 2003 Smart Code which are one space for each residential dwelling unit, one parking space for each hotel room and one parking space for each 300 square feet of commercial space (office and retail). Therefore, the project requires 378 parking spaces for the commercial land uses (60,000 s.f. office, 30,000 s.f. retail/commercial and 120 room hotel). All of the townhomes and single-family homes will have two car garages, while each apartment will have one covered space which complies with the residential parking standard. For informational and comparison purposes only; the Amended SmartCode requires one space per 500 square feet of commercial floor area and would result in a total demand of 276 parking spaces. In addition, Section 6.10.070 of the 2003 SmartCode provided that after January 1, 2008 there shall be no minimum parking requirements for any use, notwithstanding the minimum parking requirements established. However this provision would not apply as only the 2003 SmartCode Section 4. Urban Standards, is applicable to Riverfront. This no minimum parking provision also was eliminated in the 2013 SmartCode. The City Council action enabling the Riverfront project to use the 2003 SmartCode, expires six years from the date of adoption at which time the 2013 Amended SmartCode standards will apply and the parking requirements will be less. The preliminary parking layouts provided as part of the Tentative Map application, Sheet TM - 15, provide 155 on-site parking spaces and 129 on -street parking spaces within the commercial areas for a total 284 spaces. The CPSP allows the frontage street parking to be counted toward the number of required spaces. There are an additional 280 on -street parking spaces within the residential portions of the project site. This results in a total public parking supply of 564 spaces for commercial land uses. In 2013, staff requested a time of use parking analysis based on peals hour estimates of types of land uses as an attempt to provide middle ground between the two plans. The analysis indicated that the maximum peak hour parking usage is at 10:00AM and that the total number of parking spaces needed is 304 as opposed to the 378 required by the 2003 Code. The 155 -space surface parking lot serving the hotel and office uses will also be available for parking at the nearby Active Park. The soccer field at the park will be most heavily used on the weekends when the office use is less. A condition of approval (No. 9) is included that requires a parking easement to accomplish this shared parking. Final parking count will be determined through the subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review process. The SmartCode provides opportunities to reduce parking requirements through the use of waiver of parking, on-site shared parking, off -hour uses, or if it can be documented that fewer spaces are needed for the proposed use pursuant to section 6.10.030 of the 2013 SmartCode. With the parking alternatives, the additional on -street parking within the g— 22 development, and the expectation that many users of the retail area will be within convenient walking distance, staff believes the amount of parking proposed is sufficient and consistent with the goals of the Specific Plan to create a walkable, livable and pedestrian -scaled area. Consistency with Other Adopted Plans In Addition to the General Plan and Central Petaluma Specific Plan the site is located within the boundaries of the Petaluma River Entrancement Playa and is also subject to the Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan provides a framework for preservation and restoration of the Petaluma River corridor. The Plan addresses corridor improvements, land uses, and accessibility along the 6.5 -mile section of the Petaluma River within the city limits. Its four major components include restoration of the rivers natural resources, construction of a multi -use trail, a vibrant waterfront district adjacent to Downtown, and nixed uses along the river corridor. One goal of the River Plan is to "expand public access to and awareness of the river," which is supported with a proposed continuous bicycle and pedestrian trail system along the entire 6.5 -mile corridor. Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan The project falls within the Downstream Segment of the Petaluma River Access & Enhancement Plan (PRAE) which depicts a future combined bicycle and pedestrian trail along the north river bank adjacent to the project site similar to the Class I multi -use path proposed in Riverfront Park. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the (PRAE) plan. Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The river trail also is supported in the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan which provides for the River Trail to extend along the entire length of the Petaluma River through the city. The Plan states that a critical gap exists between Washington Street and Lakeville Street. The other proposed multi -path trails along the perimeter of the site as well as the Class II bike lane through the center of the site are consistent with the bicycle facilities called for by the General Plan mobility chapter. Project plans identify a multi -use path along the river, consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian plan. FEIR Certification Prior to malting a decision on the proposed entitlements, the City must make a decision on the adequacy of the environmental review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council certify the FEIR. Certification of an EhR is a determination that it complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), was presented to and considered by the decision makers prior to taking action on the project, and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, as further described in CEQA Guidelines section 15090. The FEIR is discussed later in this report. Zoning Map Amendment Approval The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to provide specific permanent zoning within the area of the SmartCode identified as the Conceptual Area Boundary. The Conceptual Area Boundary zoning designations and street layout were conceptual and provided only for the purposes of determining recommended zoning. The Project proposes to rezone from Urban -7-23 Center (T-5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (C -S) to Urban General (T-4), Urban Center (T- 5), Urban Core (T-6) and Civic Space (CS) (Attachment B, Exhibit 1). Tentative Subdivision Map Approval The applicant requests approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map to create 144 lots and four common area parcels. The four parcels include an active park, central green, public path and a parcel dedicated to the City for potential future development of a boathouse. The public path is an approximately 10 -foot wide, Class I multi -use path around the perimeter of the site, as depicted in the 2003 CPSP, that connects to other planned paths in the project vicinity. The 134 single-family homes will be on individual lots and the 39 townhomes on three lots. The remaining seven lots will include the commercial, office, hotel and apartment uses. Warrants As part of the Tentative Subdivision Map approval, the applicant is requesting approval of warrants for site planning elements that do not conform to the 2003 SmartCode. These warrants are intended to create certainty and consistency in the application of site planning standards for the phased buildout of the Riverfront development. The requested warrants are incorporated into the Tentative Subdivision Map (refer to Attachment E) and will be carried forward as a Supplemental Map Sheet on the final map per Condition of Approval 22. The warrants serve the purpose of preserving the balance among (i) maintaining an appropriate project density and mix of uses, (ii) maintaining a walkable and inviting streetscape envisioned in the CPSP, and (iii) ensuring that the project is economically viable. Requirements related to building design, landscaping, signage and similar elements will be met through the future Site Plan and Architectural Review permits for each phase. The current request includes warrants for: • Rear yard setbacks (garages) • Side yard setbacks and lot coverage (townhomes) • Panting in first and second layers (Lot 134) • Street sections Request: Reduced rear vard setback for garages on 92 single family lots in T-4 Zone • Reduce rear yard setback for 2 lots to a minimum 12 feet. Affected lots 55 and 142. • Reduced rear yard setbacks for 14 lots to a minimum 10 feet. Affected lots 56-59, 94-97, 101, 102, 115, 116, 139, and 140. • Reduce rear yard setback for 76 lots to a minimum 5 feet. Affected lots 3-5, 10-13, 18-26, 30-32, 44-46, 51-52, 60-64, 67-68, 73-75, 78-86, 89-93, 98, 103-114, 117-124, 129, 130, 141 and 144. The T-4 Transect Zone Description, as contained in the Intent Section of the SmartCode, defines the zone as "consisting of a mixed use but primarily residential urban fabric" with a "wide range of building types' including "single, sideyard and rowhouses'. It further states that "setbacks and landscaping are variable." The language describing Building Placement and Frontage Types focuses on the relationship of the home to the public street; the language provides no description of, nor specific direction on the size or use of the rear setback. Furthennore, Section D.1 of the Intent Section states that the "Transect Zone Description shall constitute the Intent of the code g— 24 with regard to the general charactef' of each of the transects. Thus, the modified rear setbacks are consistent with the T-4 Zone description and balance the competing needs to: o Achieve the desired densities of the CPSP ® Create a walkable interconnected neighborhood that provides access to alternative transportation corridors and modes (bike, bus, pedestrian) ® De-emphasize the auto by placing garages accessible by alleys at the back of lots The inclusion of smaller residential lots to achieve appropriate density is consistent with the intent of the CPSP. Compliance with the 20 -foot rear yard setback standard would be possible for nearly all lots in the Riverfront project if garages were moved to the front of each lot. Such a design, however, is at odds with the fundamental tenet of the CPSP to de-emphasize the automobile and maximize the pedestrian -oriented nature of the streetscape. Request: Reduce setbacks for townhomes in T-4 Zone ® Reduce side yard setbacks to zero (0) for townhomes on lots 131, 132 and 138 in the T-4 Zoning District. The T-4 Transect Zone Description, as contained in the Intent Section of the SmartCode, defines the zone as "consisting of a mixed use but primarily residential urban fabric" with a "wide range of building types" including "single, sideyard and rowhouses". It further states that "setbacks and landscaping are variable." Providing townhomes is consistent with Intent Statement B.6 which calls for "a range of housing types and price levels shall be provided to accommodate diverse ages and incomes." Townhomes or rowhouses are attached single-family structures that share a common party wall with other townhomes and which require a zero (0) side yard setback. Request: Increase lot coverage for townhomes in T-4 Zone ® Increase lot coverage for three townhome lots 131, 132 and 138 in the T-4 Zoning District to 80%. The 2003 SmartCode sets a maximum of 60% for lot coverage. The T-4 Transect Zone Description, as contained in the Intent Section of the SmartCode, building types" including "rowhouses". Providing townhomes (attached single-family units) which traditionally consume most of an individual lot in exchange for landscaped common areas and open space is consistent with Intent Statement B.6. Request: Parking in the First and Second Laver ® Allow parking spaces within the surface parking lot adjacent to the hotel and office complex and north of the active park to be located within the first and second layer. The T-4 Zone does not permit parking in the first layer (the area between the frontage line and fagade line) or the second layer (the area from the fagade line to 20 feet back from the fagade). The SmartCode permits parking only in the third Layer. The applicant is requesting to provide parking within all three layers on Lot 134 north of the proposed active use park and west of the proposed hotel. Intent Statement B.8 calls for civic and commercial activity to be embedded in downtowns, not isolated in remote single -use complexes. The nature of the mixed-use project and the central location of the playfield (civic use), hotel, office and mixed-use components require that surface parking be visible and conveniently located to all three uses. Specifically, I? — 25 visibility of the surface lot from the playfield is paramount to the success of the parking being utilized by playfield attendees to avoid overburdening the neighborhoods during high use periods. Landscape improvements or a low wall and/or trellis for climbing vines may be used to partially screen the vehicles and to create a more urban edge (streetwall) as described in Section 6.10.020A.4. Request: Modified Street Sections ® The Riverfront mixed-use project proposes street sections that differ from those illustrated in the SmartCode. More specifically, variations are proposed for the local residential streets, a portion of the Caulfield Extension between the Pomeroy property and the Central Green, and the main street extending from the Central Green to the Petaluma River. The overall width of the right-of-way required for these streets is consistent with Section 5 Thoroughfare Standards of the SmartCode requirements. However, Basin Street Properties proposes modifications for the various components within the right-of-way as detailed in Table 4 below and as illustrated on Sheet TM -7 of Attachment E. In addition, the extension of Hopper Street requires modifications to the right-of-way and components within the right-of-way due to physical constraints (City sewer pump station and SMART right-of-way) and the desire to provide a Class I bike/pedestrian path along the north side of the Riverfront site. The applicant has worked closely with Fire, Public Works and Planning staff to develop street sections that meet the intent of the SmartCode while also meeting other code and design requirements. The justification for granting warrants for these modifications includes references to the Intent Section of the SmartCode Pages 6-8, and the Thoroughfare Design Section 5.10.030. The street layout is consistent with the requirements with regard to total right-of-way (ROW) as illustrated on Sheet TM -7 of Attachment E, and staff believes that the proposed deviations are justified to meet Fire and Public Works standards and code requirements as well as create a pleasing streetscape while still meeting the intent of the SmartCode to provide a pedestrian and bicycle -friendly environment. For example, the neighborhood streets are called out in the CPSP as having 12 -foot sidewalks with four foot tree wells. The proposed sidewalks for the neighborhood streets have been designed with five-foot sidewalks and a continuous five-foot wide park strip that provides more space for trees, ground cover and pervious area that reduces run-off. The elimination of tree wells on the road adjacent to the railroad allows for a full width path that accommodates pedestrians and bikes. The elimination of parking on Caulfield Lane south of the Central Green creates more of a parkway by providing room for an extra wide planting strip. This design is more consistent with a single-family residential area and provides a physical separation between the pedestrians and the vehicles using the streets. The design also fulfills Intent Statement C.1 which states that "...landscaping shall contribute to the physical definition of Thoroughfares as Civic place." 00-26 On the Caulfield Extension, the bike lane is reduced by one foot in order to increase the width of the parking lane to 8 feet to comply with the Fire Code. Similarly, the increase from 32 feet to 36 feet for the curb to curb width provides better access for fire equipment. Table 4: Warrants Required for Streets — See Attachment E, Sheet TM -7 for Street Sections (Bold — proposed deviations) Street SmartCode Proposed Reason Caulfield 72' ROW 72' ROW Fire code requirement Extension 11' travel lanes 11' travel lanes for 8' parking lanes 6' bike lane 5' bike lane 7' parking lane 8' parking lane 12' sidewalk with 4' 12' sidewalk with 4' tree wells tree wells Caulfield Same as above 72' ROW To create a more Extension 11' travel lanes pleasant 5' bike lane parkway/boulevard No parking lane streetscape approach to 15' planting strip future bridge 5' sidewalk Central Loop No standard 56' ROW To create central green 16' travel lanes area with one way traffic 5' bike lanes loops 8' parking lane 5' sidewalk & 14'sidewalk Two-way edge 5T ROW 5T ROW Consistency with park drive with open 10' travel lanes 10' travel lanes strip design for space on 1 side 8' parking lanes 8' parking lanes residential streets 12' & 9' sidewalks 7' sidewalk with 4' tree wells 5' park strip 9' sidewalks with 4' tree wells Two-way edge 57' ROW 57' ROW Provides for drive with 10' travel lanes 10' travel lanes continuation of the Railroad tracks 8' parking 8' parking multi -use path on one side 12' & 9' sidewalks 12'sidewalk & 9' with 4' tree wells multi -use path Neighborhood 56' ROW 56' ROW Parking strips for more streets 12' sidewalks 5' sidewalks residential appearance, less 32' curb to curb 5' planter strips hardscape and increased curb to curb dimension to meet 36' curb to curb 2003 CPSP SmartCode. Public Improvements Riverfront proposes to utilize a strip of land currently owned by the City of Petaluma (donated to the City of Petaluma by the Pomeroy Corporation on December 11, 1972) to create the extension $-- 27 of Hopper Street (a required street listed in the CPSP SmartCode). Because this land is currently owned by the City and is utilized for access purposes, the applicant proposes to merge the access strip into Hopper Street to create a City -owned public street. Riverfront proposes no change in ownership of the land as this would be a public improvement to an existing public street. Hopper Street is proposed for dedication as a public right of way and street. The existing and future sewers together with proposed project utilities will be located in the public right of way and not an easement. Phasing The overall Riverfront Mixed -Use Project is proposed in eight development phases. The first phase or phases of development for the Riverfront Project likely will include single-family units and the Hotel. Following the first phase(s), the applicant anticipates project build out over a 4-6 year period with the goal of submitting for and recording a final map phase each year following the initial commencement of construction. The phasing is not "locked in" and would be subject to real estate market conditions. For this reason, conditions of approval have been added that require that the public parks be completed prior to the completion of certain milestones, (Condition of Approval No. 58), such as the number of residences completed. Public improvements such as roads and utilities to serve a portion or phase of the project would be required prior to the cominencement of any portion or phase of the project. 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 will 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 other infrastructure will be sized appropriately to accommodate ultimate build out. IMPACT AND DEVELOPMENT FEES Impact and development fees are assessed on the final entitled project based on the most recent impact fee studies, which were conducted in 2012. The current development assumptions proposed for the Riverfront project were included in the 2012 update. The Riverfront Mixed -Use project is subject to the following special development fees plus any other fees in effect at time of building permit issuance / certificate of occupancy for residential: • City Facilities • Coimnercial Development Housing Linkage • Affordable Housing In -Lieu Contribution • Open Space Acquisition • Park Land Acquisition (Quimby Act Projects) • Park Land Development • Wastewater Capacity, Water Capacity and Water Connection • Storm Drainage g— 28 • Public Art (Ordinance No. 2202 N.C.S.) • School Facilities • Traffic Mitigation • Central Petaluma Specific Plan In an effort to respond to questions raised as part of the public hearing process on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, development fees have been estimated for the project as proposed, the 'No Project' alternative, and two other alternatives representing varying levels of development intensity. Refer to pages 5-14 to 5-18 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for a full description of the alternatives. The estimated development impact fees for each of the alternatives are as follows: • Proposed Project $16,2241852 • Alternative 2 - Modified Subdivision Layout $15,919,896 • Alternative 3 - Reduced Project Size $14,988,618 • No Project $ 0 The development impact fees are due at time of issuance of building pennit (cominercial uses) or occupancy (residential uses) at which time, the estimated fee will be updated and other pertinent fees that are applicable to the proposed project will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Background 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 and posted with the County Clerk on September 17, 2013. After receiving the NOP, all responsible or trustee agencies had 30 days in which to continent on how, in terms of scope and content, the DEIR should treat environmental information related to the agency's statutory responsibilities. The City also held a Public Scoping Meeting, on October 29`h, 2013. Comments on the NOP were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 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.) The Draft EIR for the Riverfront Project was subsequently prepared and made available for a 45 - day public continent period on December 19, 2013. A notice of completion and availability was published in the Argus Courier and sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties, individuals who submitted comments on the NOP, the State Clearinghouse and the Sonoma County Clerk. During the public review period there were two public hearings; one before the Planning Commission on January 14, 2014 and one before the City Council on February 3, 2014. Commissioners and Councilmembers provided comments on the DEIR and public comments $ — 29 were heard at the Planning Commission meeting. There were no public comments at the City Council meeting. By the close of the public review period (February 6, 2014) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverfront Project, staff received written comment from the following agencies, organization and individuals: 1. California State Clearinghouse 2. California State Lands Commission 3. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) 4. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 5. Rachel Starr DEIR Summary The Draft Enviro mental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Riverfront Project identifies potentially significant impacts to the following categories: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic Circulation/Transportation. Analysis in the DEIR includes an overview of the existing conditions compared to the proposed project and applies thresholds of significance based on CEQA guidelines and other regulatory criteria to assess whether or not the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. The DEIR finds that all of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The DEIR did not identify any potentially 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. FEIR Summary The FEIR has been prepared in order to address all comments raised on environmental issues, and provide clarification and revisions to the Draft EIR where appropriate. As indicated above, a total of 5 comment letters were received during the 45 -day public continent period. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR, a record of oral comments made at the Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 2014 and the City Council meeting on February 3, 2014, are contained within the Final EIR. Additionally, the FEIR includes responses to all continents received. In addition to comments and responses, the FEIR includes Appendices A-E. Appendix A contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which identifies each mitigation measures and sets forth the requirement for implementation and identifies the party responsible for ensuring compliance. A Geotechnical Peer Review Letter is included in Appendix B and provides an independent third party assessment of the adequacy of the geotechnical report and the feasibility of the proposed geotechnical reeomnnendations. A supplemental Air Quality Memo and Noise Review are included in Appendices C and D respectively. The additional modeling provides documentation to further support findings of the DEIR and approach in methodology and assumptions. Appendix E contains responses from Iris Environmental that addresses comments raised relating to Hazardous Materials. The Appendices <?— 30 to the FEIR are included to provide clarification on comments raised and do not identify any new impacts or result in substantial new information not previously identified in the DEIR. No new significant impacts or other information requiring recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments. The FEIR concludes that the clarification provided in response to specific comments do not meet any of the tests for recirculation in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 as no significant new information has been added, no new significant impacts identified, and no considerably different mitigation measures have been added. The FEIR states that none of the changes, revisions, and clarification result in significant new information that would warrant recirculation. See Response to Comment 4-37, (pg. 4-140 of the FEIR) regarding recirculation. Overriding Considerations There are no significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed project that would result in need for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Charges to Draft EIR The FEIR Chapter 3 identifies text in the DEIR that has been changed and specifies s�rikethrough for deletions and underline for insertions. Minor modifications to the DEIR include clarification on the project description, specific wording to Air Quality, Geology and Noise mitigation measures, and updated text and tables for air quality emissions and screening levels for hazardous materials. Additionally, the narrative for the geology and soils discussion was expanded to include the findings of a peer review that was conducted and the hydrology and water quality discussion was enhanced to include additional information on sea level rise. The changes to the DEIR were promulgated pursuant to comments received and are intended to provide clarification, update information, and enhance understanding of the site conditions, potential impacts, and efficacy of mitigation. None of the proposed changes constitutes substantial new information nor were any new significant impacts identified. Thus, as mentioned above the changes to the DEIR set forth in the FEIR do not warrant recirculation. Overview of Comments and Responses Chapter 4 of the FEIR provides all comment letters and identifies each continent by number. An individual response is provided for each conunent following the comment letter and the oral continents heard at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Several of the comments received generally fall into the following categories: • Air Quality/GHG • Noise • Hazardous Materials • Sea Level Rise • Geotecluiical Conditions The following discussion provides a brief summary of the detailed response to comments on each of these topics as set forth in the FEIR. g— 31 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Concern was raised that the air quality methodology was inadequate and that the population figures for the per capita GHG threshold were improperly applied. In preparing response to continents, staff coordinated with Illingworth & Rodkin on the technical aspects of the modeling programs to supplement the methodology discussion in the DEIR. The assumptions utilized to quantify emission projections for the project are largely consistent with the default parameters established by CalEEMod. Where modifications to the model were made, such as extending the default schedule, a rationale is provided to justify each adjustment. It should also be noted that Ca1EEMOd requires the inclusion of a narrative explanation whenever an adjustment is made to the default. The Air Quality analysis and Appendix C to the FEIR include CaIEEMod output tables which contain user entered comments and non -default data notes that provide the required narrative explanation. One of the adjustments made in CaIEEMod was to the project's CO2 intensity factor resulting from electricity consumption. As described in the DEIR Appendix C-1, the CaIEEMod default is based on 2008 data whereas the adjustment accounts for the latest available science including requirements to achieve compliance with AB32, CPUC data and updated infomlation from CARB. Accordingly, it was determined that the CaIEEMod adjustment correctly accounts for the anticipated reduction in CO2 emissions as modeled. The project's population and employment forecasts figures were used to assess the per capita GHG emission levels. These figures were based on the 2010 US Census data for population and the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the workforce population. The response to comment provides an explanation of the assumption used to project population figures. The intent is to reasonably capture the expected population growth which is then used to calculate per capita greenhouse gas emission level. The per capita estimate utilizes reasonable figures based on best available information and supports the DEIR finding of a less than significant impact. The Air Quality and GHG analysis was performed in a good faith effort to quantify expected emissions from the proposed development project and the DEIR fully discloses potentially significant impacts and provides feasible mitigation measures that would effectively reduce impacts to levels below significance. Response to comments on the adequacy of the modeling, justification for the assumptions utilized, and minor corrections are provided on pages 4-104 through 4-112 of the FEIR. Noise Comments regarding the analysis of noise impacts include the adequacy of the methodology and the concern regarding mitigation measure Noise -1, which called for no or reduced sized windows. The methodology used to capture noise levels onsite are clarified in the FEIR response PH 1-1 (pg. 4-154). The response explains the approach in collecting noise measurement data and clarifies the noise levels at various heights. Highway noise levels were captured during free flow traffic conditions as this type of activity on the freeway produces the greatest sound levels (as g— 32. opposed to peak traffic periods where congested conditions result in reduced traffic speeds and lower noise levels). The height of the noise measurement collection point is specified at five feet, which is intended to reflect the average height of a human's ear for ground level conditions. The noise levels on the second floor of the proposed Townhomes were presumed in the DEER to result in an increase of 1 to 2 dBA. The FEIR includes supplemental noise modeling (Appendix D to the FEIR) consistent with the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model to confirm the presumed difference in first and second story noise exposure. It was determined that the second story noise level would be 1.6 dBA higher than the first story. Thus, the presumed 2 dBA factor used in the DEIR is affirmed and appropriately captures the second story noise exposure. As described in Chapter 3 page 3-13 of the FEIR, Mitigation Measure Noise -I has been modified. The amended text for Noise -1 removed the references to small or no windows, as there are sufficient design measures and noise insulation techniques to ensure that interior noise level standards are achieved while retaining normal sized windows, even on building facades with direct line of site to linear noise emitters. Also see response to comment PH 1-3 on page 4-157 of the FEIR. Hazardous Materials Several commenters brought up concerns about the sites history and the reliability of the sampling that was conducted to screen for the presence of contaminants. In particular, connnenters expressed concern relating to worker health and exposure risks. Response to comments 4-20 through 4-28 (pg. 4-116 through 4-132) as well as comment PH 8-1 (pg. 4-167) provide clarifying information regarding screening levels, methodology used to detect contaminants, and the evaluation of the site's potential to contain hazardous materials. As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.4 (page 3-4) of the FEIR, following release of the DEIR, the RWQCB revised the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for TPH as motor oil (TPH-mo) on December 23, 2014. The ceiling value dropped from 500 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg. As explained in the amended text section, the ceiling values are not based on human health effects, but are driven by nuisance concerns such as odor. Other ESLs values for residential land use were not changed and remain the same as those in effect at the time the DEIR was released. Testing conducted as part of the Phase II investigation found that TPH-mo was not detected in 12 of the 39 samples and that concentrations in the other 27 samples ranged from 6.3 mg/kg to 220 mg/kg, with an average of 32.8 mg/kg. Table 4.5-1B on p. 3-7 of the FEIR provides the revised ESLs and shows that the nuisance ceiling value is 100 mg/kg, while the Human Health value for residential land use is 10,000 mg/kg and the value for construction workers is 28,000 mg/kg. The concentration of TPH-mo detected onsite is well below health based screening levels for both residents and workers. A concern was also expressed regarding the stockpiled materials onsite. The DEIR text describing stockpiles onsite has been amended to include an expanded discussion of each of the sources of stockpiled material, pursuant to Appendix C-5. The evidence shows that stockpiled g— 33 soils were tested prior to being placed onsite. Additionally, a majority of these soils have already been removed and any remaining stockpiles are expected to be removed prior to development. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure Hazmat-1, which requires soil testing in the event that any remaining stockpile soils be used for onsite fill and Hazmat-2, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Risk Management Plan including an Environmental Health and Safety Plan that establishes practices and procedures to protect worker health in conformance with all existing and new state, federal, and local regulation. As described in the DEIR, implementation of measures would reduce potential impacts due to exposure to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. Sea Level Rise Continents regarding sea level rise were brought up by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) and at the two public hearings. The concerns relating to sea level rise include the potential for inundation, exposure of new residents and infrastructure to flooding, and impacts to hydrology and water quality. Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of the FEIR (page 3-8) includes an expanded discussion of Sea Level Rise to the Hydrology and Water discussion of the DEIR. The new text provides an understanding of the site specific elevations relative to the projected sea level rise scenarios. The finished grade elevation of the site ranges from 15.1 feet in the northwest to 25.7 feet in the southwest (1988 NAVD). The base flood elevation for the Petaluma River is at 9 feet (1988 NAVD). Accordingly, the site could accommodate up to 6.1 feet of sea level rise without exposing new residents, infrastructure or other improvements to inundation. Based on BCDC projections a reasonable assumption for the range of sea level rise is 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches (4.6 feet) by 2100. Projecting future sea level rise beyond 2100 becomes more and more speculative. Nonetheless, up to 6 feet of sea level rise was considered in order to assess future year conditions and the site's susceptibility to inundation. The evaluation of impacts related to sea level rise in the DEIR is further substantiated with the expanded text and a new Figure 4.6-1, which shows that the project site is sufficiently elevated to preclude substantial adverse impacts due to sea level rise flooding onsite. The response to comments 2-12 and PH 4-1 also address sea level rise. The setbacks from the river afforded by the proposed Riverfront Park and multi -use path within Parcel C provide for flexibility and opportunities to incorporate adaptive management strategies in the future consistent with the State of California Sea -Level Rise Guidance Document, which emphasized adaptive capacity in planning for sea level rise. This naturalized buffer zone would tolerate sea level rise without exposing residential buildings, or other occupied structures to inundation risk. Another sea level rise comment was raised regarding the site's elevations and susceptibility relative to the downtown area. In order to provide a context for this comment, Index Maps were generated using the NOAA Digital Coast Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer. The Index Maps are shown on page 4-165 of the FEIR. The Viewer provides a preliminary look at areas that are potentially susceptible to sea level rise and flooding impacts. It is a screening level tool that shows inundation potential during the highest high tide. $— 34 Given that the Petaluma River is tidally influenced, sea level rise has the potential to result in elevated tidal events that could result in inundation. The Index Maps provide a preliminary view of lands in proximity to the Petaluma River that could potentially be susceptible to inundation under future year sea level rise scenarios. The subject Riverfront site is well elevated and would remain outside of the inundation area even under 6 feet of sea level rise. However_, the Index Maps show that other areas near the project site could be inundated. Geotechnical Conditions Concerns were raised regarding the presence of the Bay Mud onsite and the need for up to 10 feet of fill in the southern portion of the project site. It was noted that fill of this scale could result in settlement of up to 2 feet. The DEIR identified site conditions, potential impacts, and set forth mitigation measure to reduce impact based on recommendation provided by the project geotechnical engineer (Miller Specific Engineering). Measure Geo -3 as set forth in the DEIR called for a peer review of the geotechnical findings. The required peer review was completed as part of preparing responses to the DEIR comments. The FEIR changes text in the DEIR as set forth in Section 3.3 by including the results of the peer review that was conducted. The peer review of the Geotechnical Report and Geology and Soils discussion of the DEIR was conducted by RHG Consultants in May 2014. The Peer Review Letter from RGH is included in the FEIR Appendix B. The peer review affirms that the methodology and data obtained from the preliminary geotechnical investigations performed is sufficient to adequately identify geoteclutical constraints onsite. It further verifies that the expected settlement potential and compressibility of Bay Mud of up to two feet in the southern portion of the site is a reasonable estimate. The peer review concurs that the suggested geotechnical techniques and site design recommendations are consistent with standard industry practice and would reasonably be expected to mitigate potential impact onsite. It is noted that the Geotechnical reports provide preliminary recommendations that have been incorporated into the mitigation measures, and that subsequent design level engineering will need to be conducted. However for CEQA purposes, the geotechnical concerns onsite have been identified and disclosed and a range of reasonable design options have been provided including deep foundation systems, remedial methods, requirements for piles, site grading, and seismic structural design requirements. Additionally, measure Geo -3 has been amended to address submittal of design -level geotecluiical analysis and the use of light -weight fill, and or pre -loading in the event that recommended design measures are determined to be insufficient at the design level stage. The details of exactly where each type of mitigation will be applied will be further determined upon completion of the final engineering design. All of these measures are standard, accepted and proven engineering practices that address settlement of Bay Mud, are known to be feasible and have been successfully implemented throughout the Bay Area. Thus, the DEIR correctly concludes that potential impact due to settlement can be reduced to less than significant levels. g-- 35 Planning Commission Hearing on the FEIR Per the City's CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commmission requested that the FEIR return to the Commission for consideration. The Commission's discussion is expected to focus on the changes in the DEIR and the responses to public comments on the DEIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b). The Planning Commission will decide whether or not to recommend the document to the City Council for certification. Subsequent Actions on the FEIR At a noticed public meeting, the City Council will consider whether to certify the Final EIR and take other CEQA related actions. If the proposed project is approved, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the conditions of approval, unless the City Council identifies alternative mitigation measures or determines that mitigation is not feasible and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PUBLIC COMMENT A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier and notices were sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties who requested notification. The project file and FEIR have also been made available for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 11 English Street in Petaluma. Future Actions Required if Approved Current actions requested of the Planning Conmlission are described above under Recommendations however the Riverfront Mixed -Use Project will require additional actions upon recommendation by this body as follows: • FEIR Certification by City Council • Project consideration by City Council • Final Map Approval -- City Council • Park Improvement Plans— Reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Committee, State Lands Commission and Caltrans • Multi -Use Path Improvement Plans & Signage — Reviewed by the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee • Site Plan and Architectural Review for each firiure component — Planning Commission • Building Permits ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Resolution recommending certification of the Final Environmental bmpact Report Attachment B: Resolution recommending approval of the Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit 1: Revised Zoning Map for the Conceptual Area Attaclunent C: Resolution recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Conceptual Site Plan ,00— 36 Attachment E: Tentative Subdivision Map Set FEIR: Previously provided (includes Draft EIR). -3-37 ATTACHMENT 9 Riverfront Conceptual Site Plan w wimis ;.: li,u k t$. i, IC4 �. ' t er, 1 i "� Wt. ,,.!r „__ , ___„ .., . __.. , , .,, „.. .----,, „,..., • -- _ ...._4, T_ 1 s�} d JJ.1)J'JJJ'J T�'f , 3 J J _�J7L-. 1♦ yr 4,'1 ":, X14 [ "7 �� „,...lpi_ * .-ie,' ' r�__vvq��g '`�r•-�Jqa.1 J J J..},-J`-r ,.p.1:y-��`"v, ) + .r It L srJ .3J JJJJ )---"--) _ y F nor f; 9-I ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO DANIEL L CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THOMAS A. ENSLOW ATTORNEYS AT LAW TANYA A. GULESSERIAN MARC D. JOSEPH 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 ELIZABETH KLEBANER RACHAEL E. KOSS SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 JAMIE L. MAULDIN ELLEN L. TRESCOTT TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 elves ca It (a atlam,bre atlwoll.com June 24, 2014 VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 ATTACHMENT 10 SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000 SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 TEL: (650) 589-1660 FAX IS 50) 569-5062 Re: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Riverfront Mixed -Use Proiect (SCH 42013062004) Dear Chairman Wolpert and Planning Commissioners: We are writing on behalf of Petaluma Residents for Responsible Development regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared by the City of Petaluma ("City") for the Riverfront Mixed Use Project ("Project") proposed by Basin Street Properties, LLC ("Applicant"). The Project requires a Tentative Subdivision Map and Zoning Map Amendment for the development of a new mixed-use community on 39.4 acres of riverfront land. The Project includes 273 residential units (single-family homes, apartments, and townhomes), a 120 -room hotel, 60,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of retail space, and 4 acres of parks. It also includes an emergency access route along Old Lakeville Street, a 3.65 -acre riverfront park on state-owned property, and the dedication of land for a community boat house and boat launch. The City prepared an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project after receiving comments from Petaluma Residents for Responsible Development and others, which raised concerns about the impacts associated with the Project. The City's FEIR, however, does not adequately address the concerns raised in prior comments, and does not commit the Applicant to mitigation measures that would reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels. As explained more fully below, the FEIR is significantly flawed and does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), Public 2912-0111 b? pfimed on eaeyCISC paper 10-1 June 24, 2014 Page 2 Resources Code section 21000 et seq. The Planning Commission should not recommend Project approval until these flaws in the FEIR are remedied. We are reviewing the recently released FEIR and its technical appendices with assistance from technical consultants, to analyze the new data and analysis in the FEIR, before it is considered by the City Council. I. INTRODUCTION A. Interest of Commenters Petaluma Residents for Responsible Development ("Petaluma Residents") is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The association includes Mitch Clarey, Frank Cuneo, Richard Kenney, Roger Burk, the Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, its affiliated local unions, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Petaluma and Sonoma County. - Individual.members of Petaluma Residents-and.its affiliated organizations__ _ live, work, recreate, and raise their families in Sonoma County, including the City of Petaluma. They would be directly affected by the Project's environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. Petaluma Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there: B. Summary of Comments As explained below and described in detail in prior comment letters, the Project will generate a multitude of impacts in a number of impact areas, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, and geologic hazards. The FEIR either oris -characterizes, mis-analyzes, underestimates or fails to identify 2912-008j 10-7- June 24, 2014 Page 3 many of these impacts. Furthermore, many of the mitigation measures described in the FEIR will not in fact mitigate impacts to the extent claimed. The EIR must be revised to resolve its inadequacies and must be recirculated for public review and comment. 1. Inadequate analysis of air quality impacts during construction The FEIR relies on two contradictory air quality analyses. The first one looks at the whole project and adds over 700 working days to the construction schedule for projects of similar size. This includes over 400 days of building and almost 300 days of painting. Even though the air quality model encourages agencies to "overlap" construction phases such as building and painting, the FEIR explains that the stand-alone painting schedule was extended to accommodate for interior building. (The painting phase produces much lower air pollution emissions than the building phase.) ® The second analysis looks at all construction except the single-family homes, and does not extend the construction schedule at all. The FEIR unsuccessfully tries to explain why both of these analyses were proper, even though they are contradictory. In the first analysis, the effect of extending the construction schedule, particularly the painting phase, is to reduce the "average daily emissions," which allows the Applicant to avoid construction -related air quality mitigation (cleaner burning engines, greater dust control measures, etc.) The effect of not extending the construction schedule in the second analysis is to reduce the reported health risks to nearby residents from construction - related diesel fumes and other pollution, which also allows the Applicant to avoid mitigation. The air quality analyses are not supported by substantial evidence. Both analyses must be revised to reflect a realistic and consistent construction schedule. 2912-oosi 10 -3 June 24, 2014 Page 4 2. Persistent failure to address geotechnical problems like sinking bay mud. and a new mitigation measure that itself would cause impacts Six successive geotechnical reports were prepared for the Project. Each one identifies issues with sicking bay mud as a result of increased weight from the Project buildings and infrastructure. ® Most of the proposed measures to mitigate for sinking bay mud have already been expressly rejected as too time consuming, costly, or infeasible. New mitigation has been added requiring a further (seventh) geotechnical study and the development of mitigation later. Not only is this an improper deferral of mitigation under CEQA, but one of the possible measures would require removal of existing fill and replacement with lightweight fill, which would have air quality and traffic impacts that have not been analyzed. 3. Greenhouse gas analysis relies on speculative guesses to avoid mitigation ® Even though the City Council has conditioned the Project's exemption from the 2013 SmartCode on obtaining a certificate of occupancy by 2019, the greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions analysis in the FEIR relies on an occupancy date of 2020. This is inconsistent—the GHG analysis should be based on occupancy no later than 2019. The FEIR also uses speculative 2020 GHG emissions estimates from a document published by PG&E "for informational purposes," which is "not to be used" for regulatory compliance. The estimates in that document have not been accurate in recent years, as they do not take into account the very real effects of California's drought on PG&E's GHG emissions. The FEIR cannot rely on this speculative informational estimate, and must be revised. 4. The FEIR must require soil testing closer than four feet from the surface to confirm the absence of soil contamination 2912-008j Pictures taken at the Project site several years ago depict dozens of barrels of fuel and unidentified chemicals, some tipped over, some without lids, and fuel storage tanks. This is in the area now proposed for an active park and ball field. June 24, 2014 Page 5 The only soil samples in this area that were tested for contaminants such as lead were collected from four to six feet beneath the soil surface.- At four feet, a lead concentration of 75 mg/kg was detected, which is very close to the human health threshold of 80 mg/kg. At six feet, the lead dissipated to only 15 mg/kg. Despite numerous requests, the City has refused to test soil samples from this area at a depth of less than four feet from the surface. There is a risk of near -surface soil contamination that could affect workers, residents, and future users of the active park. The FEIR must be revised to properly analyze and mitigate this risk. 5. The proposed location of the community boathouse presents many challenges to development ® The Applicant has designated a small area on the southeast Project site for a potential future community boathouse. The Draft EIR said that although the boathouse was not part of the Project, "the City has included it in this environmental analysis to help facilitate future development." The Final EIR, however, retreats from this statement and notes that the boathouse is not evaluated in the EIR. The boathouse site has a number of challenges to development: (1) a portion of the site will likely be inundated by sea level rise; (2) development of the site may impact the "fully protected" salt marsh harvest mouse; and (3) the site is within the 100 -foot buffer area that is susceptible to soil lurching, and therefore a future boathouse would require a very deep foundation beneath the bay mud to bedrock, which is a costly endeavor. In sum, it now appears that the designated boathouse site may be too close to the Petaluma River, and should be set back a reasonable distance to accommodate for future sea level rise, soil instability, and potential habitat impacts. The City should require the Applicant to dedicate a site free from such substantial problems before it approves the Project. 2912-0081' 10-5 June 24, 2014 Page 6 6. New "voluntary" biological mitigation measures must be mandatory. enforceable. and specific The California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW ') has requested mitigation measures in the EIR for development adjacent to salt marsh vegetation, which is known to support the protected salt marsh harvest mouse. The FEIR states that the requested measures will be "implemented voluntarily by the applicant," and does not incorporate them as binding mitigation measures. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be mandatory, enforceable, and specific, and the proposed "voluntary" measures are not. The measures are clearly mitigation measures agreed to by the Applicant in response to concerns about potential impacts by CDFW. Courts will not hesitate to find that if something walks like a mitigation measure and talks like a mitigation measure, it is a mitigation measure. The FE IR should be revised to include these measures as mandatory and enforceable mitigation. C. Request for Recirculation CEQA requires recirculation of an EIR for public review and comment when significant new information must be added to the EIR following public review, but before certification.' The CEQA Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if the EIR "is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect "2 The purpose of recirculation is to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it.3 As discussed below, the EIR does not adequately analyze the Project's impacts, the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that are not analyzed in the EIR, and there are feasible mitigation measures available to reduce significant impacts that have not 1 CEQA, Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1. '- CEQA "Guidelines," 14 Cal, Code Regs. § 15088.5. 3 Save Our Peninsula Comm. o. Monterey County.8d. of Supervisors (1981) 122 CalApp3d 813, 822. 2912-0081 I C)4 June 24, 2014 Page 7 been required in the EIR. These changes must be addressed in a revised EIR that is circulated for public review and comment. H. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS; THE FEIR FAILS TO INCORPORATE ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO REDUCE SUCH IMPACTS TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE A full description of CEQA's requirements was provided in our previous comments on the Draft EIR for the Project, and those comments are incorporated herein by reference. A. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate Significant Air Quality Impacts The air pollution analysis was improperly manipulated to avoid mitigation. The FEIR estimates that the Project will be constructed over a period of five years, and will be in active construction for more than 1,300 workdays. The FEIR relies on two analyses of construction -related air pollution generated by the Project. The first reviews construction of the entire Project, and assumes that it will take twice as long to construct the Project buildings, and ten times as long to paint the buildings, compared to similarly sized projects. The analysis adds 440 building construction days and 290 painting days to the Project construction schedule, for a total schedule of 1,320 construction days. As a result, the Project's construction emissions are spread over a longer period, with fewer "average daily emissions." Based on these low average daily emissions, the Project does not exceed the CEQA threshold of significance and does not require mitigation. The FEIR explains that the reason for adding more than 730 workdays to the construction schedule is that "the various components of the project .(single-family homes, town homes, mixed use building, hotel and office building) will be built at different times given the proposed phasing," which "will increase the overall period of construction of the project compared to constructing all five components of the project at the same time."A A FEIR p. 4-105. 2912-0001 10-7 June 24, 2014 Page 8 The second analysis reviews construction of all Project components except the single-family homes. The purpose of the second analysis is to analyze the health risks of diesel fumes and other air pollution if the single-family homes are constructed and occupied before the remaining Project components. The second analysis does not add any building construction or painting days to the construction schedule, and the total schedule for constructing the hotel, townhomes, apartments, and office and commercial buildings is 520 construction days. As a result, the calculated amount of toxic air contaminants that will adversely affect human health is lower than it would be if the construction schedule was extended. The second analysis concludes that no thresholds of significance are exceeded and no mitigation is required. The FEIR explains that 520 construction days is a reasonable schedule for constructing four of the five Project components, and 800 construction days is a reasonable schedule for site preparation, grading, and construction of the single- family homes, because "the single family homes are by far the largest single portion of the project.5 . Each of the two air quality analyses uses different assumptions about the construction schedule in order to avoid a finding of significant impacts. The FEIR, provides inconsistent justifications for -these differing approaches: --first, the FEIR--- states that the construction schedule was extended by more than 730 days because the Project involves five components and will be built in phases, and second, the FEIR states that four of the Project components will not be built on an extended schedule and only one component, the single-family homes, requires the 730 -day extensions These inconsistencies cannot be reconciled. The FEIR must be revised to accurately reflect air quality impacts and health risks during construction. The FEIR is incorrect when it states that "[e]xtending the length of the construction period for the project does not necessarily result in a reduction in daily emissions.."? First, as the FEIR acknowledges, an increased construction period results in lower estimated emissions and associated impacts because emission rates e FEIR p. 4-109. 6 FEIR pp. 4-108 to 4-109. 7 FEIR p. 4-108. 2912-008j June 24, 2014 Page 9 for construction equipment are assumed to decrease over time.9 The more the schedule is extended, the fewer total emission are estimated. Second, the painting phase has much lower daily emissions than any other phase, and therefore adding 290 days to the painting phase results in a much lower average daily emissions rate. The Draft EIR ("DEIR") estimated that emissions during the painting (or "architectural coatings") phase total 0.65 unmitigated tons of Nitrogen Oxides ("NOx") over 325 construction days; an average of 0.002 tons per day.9 In comparison, unmitigated emissions of NOx during the building construction phase average 0.02 tons per day, which is 10 times higher than the painting phase.'() Unmitigated emissions of NOx during the site preparation phase average 0.03 tons per day, 15 times higher than the painting phase. Unmitigated emissions of NOx din -Ing the grading phase average 0.04 tons per day, 20 times higher than the painting phase. By calculating the Project's construction emissions under an assumption that the painting phase will take up 25% of the total construction schedule (this phase normally takes only 3% of a construction schedule), the average daily emissions are greatly reduced, which allows the City to avoid a finding of significant impacts, and allows the Applicant to avoid air quality mitigation measures during construction. The FEIR states that the painting phase was extended because the Applicant suggested to staff that painting buildings and striping roads and parking lots for this Project would take much longer than predicted, and because interior construction work would overlap with the painting phase." There is no substantial evidence why painting the Project buildings and parking lots should take ten times longer than a similarly sized project. Moreover, it is perfectly fine to overlap phases of construction when modeling air quality impacts, such as the building phase and the architectural coatings phase.12 It is unacceptable and inaccurate, however, to not overlap these phases and instead extend the painting phase by ten times its anticipated length, simply because that work will overlap with interior building 81bid. 9 DEIR, Appendix C-1, Attachment 1, pp. 10, 27, and 29. 10 DEIR, Appendix C-1, Attachment 1, pp. 10, 17, 19, 21, and 23. 11 FEIR p. 4-110. 12 BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA Guidance, pp. 8-2, 8-5, available at: ht p://www baaamd Eov/--/media/Files/Planning°/20and°/2OResearcWCEQABAAQMD°/20CEQA°/9 0 Guidelines%2OMav%202011. ashx?la=en 2912-9983 June 24, 2014 Page 10 construction. The CalEEMod model is the computer program used to calculate air quality impacts. It specifically defines the building construction phase and architectural coatings phase.13 The City lacks substantial evidence for its presumption that the architectural coatings phase for the Project will take 290 working days longer than predicted by the CalEEMod model. Because the air quality model was improperly manipulated, the FEIR concludes that the Project will not exceed thresholds of significance for construction air quality, and does not require mitigation for criteria air pollutants or for fugitive dust during and after mass grading of the Project site, which the BAAQMD would otherwise require. Thus, the Applicant gets a double windfall—avoiding full mitigating for equipment exhaust, and for dust generation. The result is a cost savings for the Applicant but an undue threat to the health and air quality of the City's residents and workers. This section of the EIR must be revised and recirculated. B. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate Significant Impacts Regarding Geotechnical Problems on the Site Six successive geotechnical reports were prepared for the Project between - 2006 and 2014, and the Applicant still cannot provide the City with a concrete plan for avoiding the problem of sinking bay muds on the Project site.la In the southern portion of the Project site where bay muds are thickest, the Applicant and its consultants have rejected the three main recommended measures fiom the geotechnical reports: preloading the soil (too time consuming), using deep foundations (too deep), and using rammed aggregate piers (not feasible). The most recent geotechnical report predicts that the greatest potential problem with sinking bay muds will be in the areas that require the most soil fill, particularly around the future Caulfield Lane Extension Bridge. The only solution suggested in the FEIR is a new mitigation measure, which would requires a further geotechnical report to verify what measures are available 13 CalEEMod User's Guide, p. 25, available at www.caleemod.com. 14 FEIR, Appendix B, Geotechnical Peer Review, and Appendix C-4 (note that the most recent Geotechnical Peer Review in Appendix B mainly focused on the first geotechnical study, and did not address the fact that most of the identified mitigation measures in that study were subsequently rejected). 2912-0081 June 24, 2014 Page 11 to address this impact.15 However, under CEQA, deferral of the formulation of mitigation measures to post -approval studies is generally impermissible.ls A lead agency cannot defer to a later date its responsibility for developing feasible mitigation measures, with measurable standards for compliance, i7L the FEIR itself, not after Project approval. An agency may not call for an unspecified mitigation plan to be devised based on future studies,17 or rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.18 The proposed mitigation in the geotechnical studies is acknowledged to be of uncertain efficacy and feasibility, and the City cannot put off a full assessment until a later review. Furthermore, revised Mitigation Measure GEO-3 suggests that up to ten feet of lightweight fill may be required around the future Caulfield Lane Extension Bridge, instead of redistributing existing soils from the north of the Project site to the south.19 The FEIR also suggests that soils may need to be excavated from this area and replaced with lightweight fill.20 This mitigation measure would itself create impacts that are not analyzed in the FEIR, including air quality and traffic impacts associated with importing lightweight fill and exporting existing soils from the north of the Project site if they cannot be redistributed on site. The FEIR must be revised to analyze these potential impacts. C. The FEIR contradicts itself because it acknowledges that the Project must be occupied by 2019, but analyzes greenhouse gas impacts using a 2020 occupancy date In Section 2 of the City's recently adopted 2013 SmartCode, the City granted a specific exemption for the Project. One of the limitations on this exemption is that the Project must be built and ready for occupancy by 2019, within six years of the 2013 SmartCode adoption. As stated in the FEIR, "[elssentially, certificates of occupancy would need to be obtained by July 2019 in order to strictly comply with 15 FEIR p. 2-9, Mitigation Measure GEO-3. 16 Sundstrom u. County of Mendocino (1958) 202 CalApp.3d 296, 308-309; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). 17 City of Long Beach u. Los Angeles School Dist. (2009) 179 Cal.AppAth 889, 915; Communities for a Better Enu't v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 CalApp.4th 70, 95; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. u. County of Merced (2007) 149 CalApp.4th 645, 669. 18 Kings County Farni Bur. u. County of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-28. 19 FEIR p. 2-9. 28 FEIR p. 4-170. 2912-0083 W-0 June 24, 2014 Page 12 Section 2 of the Amended SmartCode."21 If the Project is not constructed and ready for occupancy by that time, the site will need to be redesigned.22 However, despite repeated comments urging the City to remedy its GHG emissions analysis, the FEIR continues to rely on a 2020 occupancy date, and also relies on speculative figures for electricity -related GHG emissions in 2020. The use of these figures is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed in Petaluma Residents' prior comments, the use of PG&E's speculative future GHG emission factor for 2020 is not appropriate under CEQA. The FEIR relies on a PG&E guidance document from April 2013, which is based on a GHG "calculator" developed in 2010. The guidance document specifically states that it is "for informational purposes only" and is "not to be used" for regulatory compliance.23 It estimates that by 2020, PG&E's GHG emissions factor will drop to 290. Instead of relying on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CBAAQMD") approved value of 641 pounds for the GHG emissions factor associated with PG&E's electric energy, the EIR reduces this factor by 55%. This is despite the fact that in PG&E's guidance document, in addition to stating that it should not be used for regulatory compliance, talks repeatedly about the "third party verification" process that PG&E goes through in order to verify its GHG emissions factor each year. The guidance document also explains that the GHG emissions factor will vary from year to year depending on how much precipitation falls in California, which is directly correlated with the availability of clean hydro power. The currently approved PG&E emissions factor of 641 is the most accurate, verified, and up-to-date number that has been reported to the BAAQMD by PG&E, and it is the number that is used and recommended in the most recent 2013 Ca1EEMod program -24 As described in the CalEEMod User's Guide, this emissions factor is "based on Table G6 of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) Local Government Operation Protocol version 1.1 or the latest public utilities inventory 21 b'EIR p. 4-181. 22 Ibid. 23http://www.nFe.com/includes/docs/pdfs/sharedlenvironment/calculator/uee ehe emission factor inf a sheet.udf 24 See Ca1EEMod User's Guide, Appendix D, Default Data Tables, Table 1.2, available at: htto://www.caleemod. com/ 2912-993j I() -IZ June 24, 2014 Page 13 reports," and "is consistent with recommendations in the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures document."25 The BAAQMD has endorsed the use of a PG&E intensity factor of 641 pounds. PG&E's unverified estimate of 290 pounds by 2020 is unlikely to be accurate given the extreme drought conditions that California has faced in recent years.. For example, PG&E's lowest verified GHG intensity factor was 393 pounds in 2011, due to extremely wet conditions that allowed for significant hydropower generation.28 That intensity factor rose 12% in 2012, to 451, due to a drop in hydroelectric output and an increase in gas -fueled power generation.27 This year, that number will undoubtedly rise again. The California Independent System Operator recently released a report stating that the "main impact from the drought during the 2014 summer will be an increase in natural gas generation, which could result in an increase in energy prices, and increased greenhouse gas emissio13s.."28 This shows that the estimates in PG&E's guidance document are not accurate and should not be relied upon when performing a significance analysis under CEQA. Although the FEIR is correct that the GHG emissions calculator can be used to predict future GHG emissions factors for utility companies, there is nothing to suggest that the calculator predicted the current severe drought when it was released in 2010. There is no evidence to support the use of a GHG intensity factor of 290 for the Project, particularly because it is so much lower than PGE's lowest verified intensity factor, which was 393 in 2011, and because drought conditions have become much more severe since that time. The City's calculations of the GHG emissions that will be associated with the Project's energy consumption are not supported by substantial evidence. 25Ibid., Appendix A, Calculation Details, p. 2. 26 htto7//on bna com/env nsflid/avio-9k2tuk/$File/PGE°/ 20comment pdf p. 1, fn. 4 ("The GHG intensity of California's electricity correlates strongly with the amount of hydropower used by the state .... The GHG intensity of California electricity peaked in 2001 and reached a low point in 2011, a particularly wet year.") 7http://wwwpgecurrent com/2014/02/06/new-numbers-confirm-nee00/E2°/S0°/99s-energy-amona- the-cleanest-in-nation/ 28 httn://www.natu.lalEgsintel.com/articles/93351-with-less-hvdxo-cal forma -to -lean -more -heavily -on - gas -fueled power 2912-O98j 10-13 June 24, 2014 Page 14 D. The FEIR must require soil testing closer than four feet from the surface, to confirm the absence of soil contamination Pictures taken at the Project site several years ago depict dozens of barrels of fuel and unidentified chemicals, some tipped over, some without lids, and fuel storage tanks. This is in the area now proposed for an active park and ball field. The only soil samples in this area that were tested for contaminants such as lead were collected from four to six feet beneath the soil. surface. At.four feet, a lead concentration of 75 mg/kg was detected, which is very close to the human health threshold of 80 mgfkg. At six feet, the lead dissipated to only 15 mg/kg. Despite numerous requests, the City has refused to test soil samples from this area at,a depth of less than four feet from the surface. The FEIR's only response is that despite the lack of shallow soil testing in the vicinity of the former hazardous materials storage area, other samples collected "throughout the project site" show no evidence of shallow soil contamination.29 This response is inadequate, as samples from other areas on the 39 -acre Project site are not reflective of potential contamination in this particular area, which has a history of hazardous materials storage. -- There is a risk of near -surface -soil contamination that could affect workers, residents, and future users of the active park. The FEIR must be revised to properly analyze and mitigate this risk.- E. isk. E. The community.boathouse would be located in an area with challenges to development To provide community benefits anticipated by the City's General Plan, the Applicant has designated a small parcel in the southeast corner of Project site ("Parcel D") for dedication to the City as the potential site for a future community boathouse. The DEIR stated that. although the boathouse is not part of the Project, "the City has included it in this environmental analysis to help facilitate future development." 30 The FEIR, however, retreats from this position and now states that 29 FEIR p. 4-124. 30 DEIR p. 3-8. 2912-008j June 24, 2014 Page 15 the boathouse is "not included as part of the proposed Riverfront project or evaluated in the DEIR."31 A number of potential barriers to development of the boathouse parcel have arisen during the course of environmental review of the Project. First, new analysis in the FEIR shows that a portion of Parcel D will very likely be inundated by sea level rise.32 Second, Parcel D is adjacent to a brackish marsh area that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife believes may support the protected salt marsh harvest mouse. The development of Parcel D may have significant impacts on this fully protected species.33 Thud, Parcel D is within the 100 -foot buffer from the Petaluma River and its associated banks, which is susceptible to soil lurching. A future boathouse would therefore require a deep foundation that extends over 30 feet into the bay mud to reach the bedrock, which is a costly endeavor.31 The community benefits proposed by the Applicant included the dedication of a viable site for a potential community boathouse. It now appears that the designated site may be too close to the Petaluma River, and should be set back by a reasonable distance to accommodate for future sea level rise, soil instability, and potential habitat impacts. The City should require the Applicant to dedicate a site free from such substantial problems before it approves the Project. F. The FEIR introduces new biological mitigation measures in the form of "voluntary" measures, but does not make them mandatory, enforceable, and specific In response to the DEIR, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") submitted comments requesting that avoidance measures be required for those portions of the Project that are developed adjacent to salt marsh vegetation.35 Salt marsh vegetation supports the salt marsh harvest mouse, which is a fully protected species under the California Endangered Species Act. CDFW believes that the mouse may occur in the marshland adjacent to the Project site, which is why CDFW requested mitigation. 31 FEIR p. 4-21 (emphasis added). 32 FEIR p. 3-19,. Figure 4.6-1; FEIR p. 4-163. 33 See FEIR p. 4-27. 34 FEIR pp. 4-138 to 4-139. 35 FEIR p. 4-25. 2912-0081 June 24, 2014 Page 16 The FEIR disagrees that there will be any impact on the mouse, even though some development will occur adjacent to marshland habitat. The FEIR states, however, that the measures suggested by CDFW "such as wildlife fencing and construction personnel training about sensitive wildlife will be implemented voluntarily by the applicant."36 CEQA requires that mitigation measures be mandatory, enforceable, and specific, which the proposed "voluntary" measures are not. Also, the measures are clearly mitigation measures agreed to by the Applicant in response to concerns about potential impacts by CDFW. Courts will not hesitate to find that if something walks like a mitigation measure and talks like a mitigation measure, it is a mitigation measure.37 The FEIR should be revised to include these measures as mandatory and enforceable mitigation. III. CONCLUSION The Project presents significant environmental issues that must be addressed prior to Project approval. The FEIR fails to include an adequate analysis of and mitigation measures for the Project's potentially significant impacts, and its conclusions lack substantial evidence as required by CEQA. The EIR for the Project must be revised and recirculated. Sincerely, E*en Trescott ELTJjl * Internet links to all other references are provided herein. Paper copies of these documents will be promptly provided to the City upon request. cc: Olivia Ervin (oervin@ci.petaluma.ca.us) 3s FEIR p. 4-28. 37 Lotus u. Dept. of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.AppAth 645. 2912-0083 ATTACHMENT 11 BASINSTREET July I, 2014 To: Petaluma City Council From: Basin Street Properties RE: PROPOSED NATURAL GRASS FIELD AT THE ACTIVE PARK IN THE RIVER@MONT PROJECT In the following outline we have detailed our intentions for the development of the Active Park at the Riverfront project. We have also noted some comparisons both from a cost and a use perspective for the natural turf vs. the artificial turf. In reviewing this analysis it is important to note that over the last three years, as Basin Street has consistently proposed a natural grass field at Riverfront, there have been changes in the availability of artificial turf fields for all weather use of the athletic leagues in Petaluma. Three years ago there was only one such field available, but that is no longer the case with the planned opening of the East Washington field complex. There are also additional artificial turf fields available (St. Vincents) and proposed with the planned conversion to artificial turf of fields at Prince Park and the conversion of the PHS and Casa fields in 2015 and 2016. There are two reasons why we believe the Riverfront Active Park should be natural grass. 1. The Riverfront Active Park is a single field facility square in the middle of a residential and mixed use neighborhood at Riverfront. It will be a focus of that community, not a multi -field complex like Lucchesi or the new East Washington complex. The Park's primary neighbors are apartment, single family and townhome residents and having a picnic on a 100° rubber surface is not a picnic. 2. The costs of installation for the natural grass park will be roughly one-half the cost of an artificial turf field (see numbers following). And that doesn't consider the fact that every 10 years or so, the artificial turf has to be replaced. It is a petroleum product and must be disposed of (at considerable cost) along with the purchase of the new turf field. PROPOSED NATURAL GRASS FIELDS AT RIVE RFRONT I. THE NATURAL GRASS ACTIVE PARIC: Ownership, Maintenance and Management: A. The land in the Active Park will be dedicated to the City of Petaluma. B. The Active Park will be fully managed and maintained by the Riverfront commercial property owners. The same association will manage the Riverfront Park, the Central Green and street front landscaping where required. I. There will be no maintenance costs to the City. tI'D CSpsmt P_�niwri CA 9l9;i !rfvVi!. BAFIN-,E, MEET.CUiv1 July 1, 2014 Page -2- BASINSTREET N=of=_:-ri e 2. There will be partial reimbursement for maintenance of the Active Park from: The residential property owners at Riverfront. The athletic leagues based on their level of use of the Park. C. The Riverfront Active Park is not intended to be a full time/full use athletic field like those at East Washington or the Little League fields at Luchese. There will be no: I. Microphones or loud speakers 2. No food service (other than possible restaurants in the commercial area) 3. No bleachers 4. No lights D. The Active Park will be available to the athletic leagues in Petaluma, although not at the intensity of the other full time/fill use facilities. It is intended that the level of use by the athletic leagues be at a reduced to level such that the Active Park will be readily available also to the neighbors at Riverfront and other Petaluma residents who choose to enjoy the fields in a non-competitive atmosphere. II. CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURAL GRASS ACTIVE PARK: Please refer to Exhibit A for the construction details of the Riverfront Active Park construction. The Active Park will be planted with Bermuda Grass or other similar low water use natural grass and will employ smart water control technology to minimize the water needs. Further the field will have a wire mesh barrier installed at certain locations as detailed in Exhibit A to minimize any gopher and other varmint intrusion. III. COST COMPARISON: Natural Grass vs. Artificial Turf We have consulted with local contractors and landscape architects and with those who have installed both natural grass and artificial turf fields. The following estimates are based on their experience: A. Natural Grass Option: Estimated cost to install a well -drained natural grass field per Exhibit A: $470,000 B. Artificial Turf Option: Estimated cost to install an Artificial Turf field: $930,000 The cost of $10/square foot for the 93,000 square foot area seems to be a generally accepted number for complete installation. Artificial Turf requires replacement generally every 10 years at a cost estimated of: $900,000 11 'Z July 1, 2014 Page - 3 - C)r' BASINSTREET PROPERTIES IV. USE COMPARISON: Natural Grass vs. Artificial Turf A. Natural Grass Option: I. More reasonable installation cost. 2 Much more attractive as a park for use by non -athletic league users. 3. Renewable — low overall maintenance and negligible replacement cost. 4. May take several days to a week after a storm to use as a competitive playing field. B. Artificial Turf Option: 1. Expensive installation cost. 2. Can be very hot and uncomfortable to use in the summer. 3. Good for quick use after a storm and very good for athletic league's constant use. 4. Low water usage. But still need to be washed down and often sprayed to cool down in summer. 5. Replacement costs amortize at $90,000 per year ($900,000 every 10 years). Best regards, L WILLIAM C. WHITE CHAIRMAN BASIN STREET PROPERTIES Enclosure PAUL ANDRONICO VICE PRESIDENT BASIN STREET PROPERTIES 11-3 06.30.14 RIVERFRONT ACTIVE PARK Natural Grass Rainfall Drainage System I and or lepaoll filler fabric gravel \ Padaralad t Romlicpipa. undioluthod coil dial., to au el Typical Drainage Channel Specifications: 1. Around the west and south perimeter of the Active Park, a "root guard" type wire mesh barrier installed from surface level to a depth of 18" to 24" to protect the Park area from gophers and similar creatures. The paved streets on the north and east will serve the same function. 2. Throughout the Active Park, drainage channels (see typical, above) are installed 10' on center. 3. A filter fabric liner lines each drainage channel. 4. 4" diameter perforated pipe (holes down) are installed in each drainage channel. The perforated pipe drains to solid pipe which goes to the drainage system. 5. Gravel (or sand) is placed in each drainage channel around the perforated pipe and below the sod or topsoil. Waau11r_1 11-4 Via Email July 10, 2014 Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner City of Petaluma Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 ATTACHMENT 12 Re: Subsurface Site Investigation Report Petaluma Riverfront Project Petaluma, California Dear Ms. Ervin: Iris Environmental has prepared this letter report to present the results of a soil investigation conducted at the Petaluma Riverfront Project (the Project) on July 3, 2014. This investigation was undertaken to provide additional soils data regarding the potential presence of metals including lead in soils shallower than depths of 4 feet near former boring K-2. These results indicate that the tested Project soils are safe for residential/unrestricted land use, including intrusive construction work. The Project and surrounding area are depicted on Figure 1. Soil samples were collected in the vicinity of a historical (July 2000) soil boring (K-2) where lead was detected at a concentration of 75 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in a soil sample collected at a depth of 4 feet below ground surface (bgs)1. The current subsurface investigation further characterizes Project soils in the vicinity of boring K-2 for the presence of lead and 16 other metals. As discussed further below, the current lead standard for unrestricted land use is 80 mg/kg. SAMIPLING PLAN Iris Environmental proposed the advancement of nine soil borings (L-01 through L-09) in the immediate vicinity of historical soil boring K-2. The nine borings comprise a three -by -three grid, with the center boring (L-05) coincident with historical boring K-2, and with the step -out borings spaced 10 feet apart. Sampling locations are depicted on Figure 2. At each boring, three discrete soil samples would be collected and analyzed for Title 22 Metals (17 metals including lead) by a California State -certified environmental laboratory. These metals are also known as CAM 17 metals. t Kleinfelder. 2001. Phase II Soil and Grovnnchrater Itnvestigation, Pomeroy Site, Petahona, California. January 17. 1438 Webster Street, Suite 302 • Oakland, California 94612 • (510) 9344RIS - (510) 334-4199 fax • mAm,insemv.com I v— Ms. Olivia Ervin -2- July 10, 2014 Prior to drilling, a utility clearance request from Underground Service Alert of Northern California, Dig Alert was completed on July 1, 2014. A private utility locator was also contracted to clear individual boring locations prior to drilling activities. The utility locating and clearing was conducted on July 2, 2014. The requirement to obtain a drilling permit was waived by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services because the proposed borings were less than 5 feet deep and would not encounter groundwater. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS On July 3, 2014, nine soil borings were advanced to a target depth of 4.0 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a direct -push Geoprobe drill rig operated by a C-57 licensed drilling subcontractor. Samples were collected at three discrete 6 -inch intervals from each boring: 0.5 tol.0. 2.0 to 2.5, and 3.5 to 4.0 feet bgs. A total of 27 discrete soil samples were collected from the borings. The discrete soil samples were collected in 6 -inch acetate sleeves and transferred into laboratory supplied glass containers, which were labeled with an identifying job number, the sample collector's name, the date and time of sample collection, the analyses requested and a unique sample number. Down -hole sampling equipment was decontaminated between borings. Following labeling, the samples were immediately placed in an iced cooler. Samples were submitted to Curtis and Tompkins, a California -certified laboratory, for analysis for Title 22 Metals by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6010B/7471A; and for moisture content via the USEPA Contract Laboratory Procedure (CLP). A copy of the chain of custody (COC) is included in the attached laboratory report. Soil sampling results were reported on a dry -weight basis for appropriate comparison to published screening levels. No significant analytical problems were encountered. SAMPLING RESULTS Evaluation Criteria Soil sampling results are presented in Table 1 (samples collected at 0.5 to 1.0 feet bgs), Table 2 (2.0 to 2.5 feet bgs), and Table 3 (3.5 to 4.0 feet bgs). The soil sampling results are compared to conservative health -protective screening levels consisting of Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) published by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RW QCB)'. The data are evaluated against two sets of ESLs, as follows. • Soil sampling results are compared to "Tier -1" screening levels for shallow soil under residential (unrestricted) land use, where the underlying groundwater aquifer is not a current or potential source of drinking water (ESLs Table B-1). Tier -1 screening levels are protective of human health, i.e., are protective of direct soil exposures (soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, and dust inhalation) under residential land use; and are also protective of ecological receptors (terrestrial and aquatic habitats). • Soil sampling results are also compared to screening levels for soil that are protective of direct soil exposures (soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, and dust inhalation) to intrusive construction workers (ESLs Table K-3). Cal/EPA. 2013. December 2013 Update to Environmental Screening Levels. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). San Francisco Bay Region. December 23. IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL 17,—Z Ms. Olivia Ervin -3- July 70, 2074 Both sets of soil screening levels are presented in Tables 1 through 3. The Tier -1 residential screening levels are lower (more conservative) than the intrusive construction worker screening levels. Discussion of Results As summarized in Tables 1 through 3, with the exception of arsenic, all metals concentrations sampled (including those for lead) are below conservative agency -published soil screening levels. These results indicate that the tested Project soils are safe (notwithstanding arsenic, discussed below) for residential/unrestricted land use, including intrusive construction work. Arsenic Arsenic was detected in every soil sample, at concentrations ranging from 2.3 to 14 mg/kg which is to be erected since arsenic occurs naturally in soils. The average of the 27 arsenic results is 5.4 mg/kg . The arsenic results exceed the Tier -1 screening level of 0.39 mg/kg; and one of the 27 arsenic results (from boring L-09 at depth 3.5 feet bgs) also exceeds the intrusive construction worker screening level of 10 mg/kg. The arsenic levels detected in Project soils are consistent with backeround conditions. A representative background arsenic concentration in urbanized San Francisco Bay Area flatland soils has been estimated to be 11 mg/kg4. The average arsenic concentration of 5.4 mg/kg is well below the background level. Lend Lead was detected in all 27 soil samples, at concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 68 mg/kg. The average of the 27 lead results is 20 mg/kg; and the average of the nine surface (0.5 feet bgs) results is 9.5 mg/kg. All lead results are below the Tier -1 soil screening level of 80 mg/kg and the intrusive construction worker screening level of 320 mg/kg. These results are consistent with those from the previous subsurface investigation conducted in July 2000 by Kleinfelder, which reported lead concentrations of 75, 15, and 13 mg/kg in three soil samples from boring K-2. CONCLUSION A total of twenty-seven (27) soil samples were collected from nine soil borings advanced in the immediate vicinity of historical soil boring K-2, where lead had been detected at a concentration of 75 mg/kg in a soil sample from 4 feet bgs. The 27 soil samples from the current investigation were tested for 17 metals. With the exception of arsenic, all soil sampling results from the current investigation are below conservative screening levels. Arsenic was detected in all samples at concentrations that exceed the Tier -I screening level for unrestricted land use, but are consistent with background conditions. All lead results are below conservative screening levels. These results indicate that the tested Project soils are safe for residential/unrestricted land use, including intrusive construction work. The findings of this investigation are consistent with and 3 Average concentrations cited in this report are 95 percent upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (UCL95) concentrations calculated using the USEPA statistical software program ProUCL 5.0. Duverge, D.J. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. December. IRIS ENVIROMTENTAL IZ'3 Ms. Olivia Ervin -4- July 10, 2014 fully supportive of the conclusions presented in our response to comments dated March 6, 2014 provided to the City of Petaluma regarding the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (510) 834-4747 should you have any questions concerning this report. Sincerely, IRIS ENVIR ONMENTAL G�.a��c-rte- �� •�� ��.,�,— v'��-�---'l', Sandra H. Stevens Gregory S. Noblet, P.E. Principal Senior Manager Attachments: Figure 1 — Site Location Figure 2 — Site Layout and Sampling Locations Table 1 — Comparison of Soil Sampling Results to Risk-based Screening Levels — Soil Samples 0.5-1.0 feet bgs Table 2 — Comparison of Soil Sampling Results to Risk-based Screening Levels — Soil Samples 2.0-2.5 feet bgs Table 3 — Comparison of Soil Sampling Results to Risk-based Screening Levels — Soil Samples 3.5-4.0 feet bgs Appendix A — Curtis & Tompkins Report No. 258704 cc: Stephanie Strelow, Strelow Consulting IRIS ENVIRONMENTAL I z �Z 5 2--ta IL-7 v v v m P h n 7 O r ry v v v P v 6 v c c v v v m z v v v c a rv- ry c rn n- 0 9 v v a m a a ry c n c V 11 r rva_oo--n�-=seEe�� ZI o E G G o o U U Ci u2 L L Z m m > N ZI o m VINiIOjIIV:J'VWl21l/13d °Q1MMI 1.3 mmIn•etot4 k LZ0-0L01£I NdV 133211S 213dd0H OM LIC313K133b16alloo3ePI p e- H 3tlra0G 3a1V3N1 VNalV13e z g '' 2 o 0 1N021d213AR1 SN3NNV-Id ONVI-6N0A3AHAS ONVI-Stl33NION3 l4A13 1 ,�rE$ S 3NI`S31VIOOSSV V IHONVNAV1 T N3A31S 26 133HS 213A0� fi a R ixiit b ,r4 a -6,,,,,S,' N.,10%,, W a C < iiQ = s QU ziNWP R�A .2 1_,,,,. ci„, I t rIO. 2 .!;;E' wl s i§g.x=_ wN Z8 6 r s'-u,4 4ali c gill 5s mH$4w i41L1w mh11W %n1SLLu _STS s U tna SIL' 25 g 6m ` WZi:moi i'J / r t' i ,/ / '.. I 1°;!"?,``, • - `` X--` i'dilkoit \ V V • 'tti ewI rO C Q W O „ .:.. I i ;r ti I ap . N IiiIre 11( i ' t 1Vr a i Pi 2 I- 2 � .j d I�I. ¢ / a ,I . xM9 aN h W Z 1 �� PR'. 4„ilo vivo - s 9 W o r tar,.Hi Z 44 ,- X''' gi ! . 3 ,, r,$‘811ieli IC rte !.' q r t / I "70`i°tl4 `� < w . a G' F �i tZ ' H `< �Q �, ! Z o f r Pi = yr i a O g z W CC 7 1- 0 g § r gg in< &o& W 4 0” ' \ ' •rf W = E 3 sv $ € �! g S l v 1 \ CO S o. 9 0 CI > t h W /' r / = x _, r . a W^ ( ?-N. , y I -Y >11 'NFri; lav 4-,..,,,...,, ,,+. h'Q\ rl ,, ` O I 1 / i / ' '- "' it In; ,) 4 \ . , .i- i., 944%i,_ //.1 1 : • ........,,,, i , 1/1 , , &or ,,,n,v.Lit / _ la 1 i''--1.---:: 4/ !1E',' ' // 1 I ?foi -� i. a*, =-„,. e 1 4 � ) 1 1r I, 4 ir-.A.1 ' 0. i i ib- ?` gnat_ < ggggia. ma, ' 6 " OOOtR RR 3 s ` fl !i !I tE r m VINNOJI1VO'VWn1v1 d "TMK....1,.0i.w.M.eiou k i L 1L 311115 133N1S ON003S Ot t b N LZO OOltl NdV 133a1S 213ddOH 009 A 1NON3N3AIL! 3NV0053N1flSa01Yt3d b� g 11.0 S63NNVld ONV1 SNOA3A2MS ONtlI'SN3361064311A1� g : q/S S ` — NV1d IX31NOJ ONI'S3IVIOOSSV V IHHONVHAV1 f N3A31S 6 tl 111 b lg X4" # so a opo / l e .;�l p� ] ! y e nS �,7 i C , b g 3 b N 0 ^ I i L by bi. a o e .i4 R t ! ! ! ? ! mI r•.14.1' >r 8 G u u a =e it2 3. g k6a w I ' Y/� � 1.7;00, Q ��/' / ! n91 ! 7tagW ' •� ;6 , •' t . , ., , t. `I r 01 �. 'aye �� 12 `����_ ,. •.; I - ..� ,f' �.,'� o NpRtH % I •t f (,tri' e I �' yyy. @, teaj! / / /2 hi, 4;4 \ /* ,/, 44,/ „11 , , , 400 ,,,,,,"/" •/' i '',.,-` ". /,'-/ , o ' .., —„ . , ,..,,,,,,N, " .! #1 '-' ir ' 7 r:"' . kiie", ' + z M ; M lL4: aT ` :Sr:le*4 � lE :/: yy,� fps'' �/... /.7 - • \: �'�,� • t ,: .Fig/ •�( 4 • - J t,_r� . !f } .. tl ` ::Al,' i:''1/4::',...\\*, '`�yJ ,_ 4:44 -v �' q 1 +'1 / f' o• >{i! �,j' 1 t Cj ,depao, , • f. N+ .. f, /' CJ S40? slF; _ y ..11,,,.;,;" j' ,I ./ '.�, A\ .tl \ 4 iiii I' 1 /� sir c, f ,A4 ,' i "j i f / td +• " ,ditT � \ `4 '1 � '� 'f vS I I lo.e- `'' �A ..y.:::, - .i I 4 I .1'Y� •....4z` .Or. t l 1 >, 71,4 4 I r ;. I ;aB 1 -y \:y . 'N - •. f,. ..•' X9:.*" ,?•. ., ' '1, 1 - '' ' • 1 �; i F;Y� 1 4. L 0.T Y / P J0. j> T / ?�;' is • �( I_I / i' 1, - d` } -. 1 •Z.\ ��\'y`�l (. ..,i• : i > I \ ,� +• C It t , 1.+ t / '' `, 1 ..•• N 1 1, " � 44 � / ti , l L11t NT �7 oa �� f / s\---a--7.7:.r _ ` ' l • . i y ` V jd I Y1 i ,.111,1_,. .. s 7 �,4' ; cij- � r ��1 i r �' far Y , , :, >tV ' - 4 #41, -- if • • , lw 1.— It)i.ii., , . :It . , y _ tits; 0+.2 �r•� T e�`� Ilset' +lf.•^� -"•orl ~ .. •. N a� I 1. iv ist.+�.t 1t\ L ii {`'. U t Tom!' , , 1 , l!iiitirg • .• ip_____„111—"-.4,___.,4% r_41 _ ____,•„.1 :I' ' 'A--- T II�, .lay tS - a .,� 5 , - '`• c, 'l—I N' ~+ l- I Y o w a 3 1 ;1j I' . 1 �11Ar�r� Q .I •I r i o ¢ • r r, fi�' L ' l r I :r-ILL-- 1 I � lP. t } I �. , ` iii%%% • �1 r+4`I ,:Ig o Vic' _.-----' � 4. ,�., a L I. . . t ) s '., afro 1 7 �� 1 m VINaOJI1VO'VINl1 V13d suctiiitot19Yi ZZIhZ9tIi9/U i . Z9011.1..441.0•..14.i 0 LZ0-01,0-9£1.NdV 133211.9 a3ddOH 009 ZlZ3LfIS'ARILS 0N003Sfel ii s 'M mynas 3h11.0'3111 VrIVIVild S I . 07 1No8da3nlaib SN3NNVld ONV1-S1,1OA3AtlflS ONVI-SN33NI'JN31IAID R - 1�.1SE ' 1I8IHX3 9NINOZ NV-Id 3Id133dS ONI'S3IVIOOSSY'YIIHHONVHAVI'fN3A31S d i A V,G�eE(X • �� b 0. I A / i� b,§ , II `d r., b A a - w,4 ,,, o6 W! .• a r °`f5 5‘ t S/ z ei i $ 3g 3 a.. ` o 1 0 1 i 112 g 1 zRb ��, : 0 0 I h y 8t o • W6 'p 'g '1 i \' 1 Z YI ' <O SY I.. \i. N o a � \i) 4. 0 o • i �• ,\ 1 . t \ . I , \ , .-.•------"---------I..,2\ . . _2 \ M. i7.7": ' '''''.7".777eNN'e. . / I' ' • � Y r- e gY� '' r eri \\\: , t/ (z ' -.- ' . -- ....,,... ----. v'''''.....'.N..\\'\_\,- >--- ;" :./.' --------- --, , ..-- - , 1... \ ''1 I'T3 vii �I I �I 1 : - ! -- ' I `t , I I I i ~� .; —' ) )/)j \ i 0410,,A ;,'.: • : ! , r-`l '7 ✓ — ! `t _ .!( 11 . r , H ' .i. i • 1. , 1 .0 — — yI Z+ .:•0,. y *` ; `- E�' - s I1.7 �. ki • J .11114, t _ :Lwr, ,..:, _. : t' . . { :r ,• h�; to "'•'4"� ' '`'i' i .1 t f fti ,i.{� 11K17 ;I d _ 71 "414 . fp ,....._ ..,.., • 7a , u 4 I; it1b1 t . i i.,,,,, 71 v '1 'm YIN210dI1Y0 YWf 1 fld 6C2MVO.iW^MItl=...podlBn i LZ0-01.0-9£l NdV 133d1S 213dd0H 00S 214 3LOf'133tl1I aNJJ38 Ml yI3OIIf124 31LLY3N1 VWIl813i 0 Md213A1a :s.w 1NOStl3NNtlld ONVI•BtlOA3AM118 OW•Stl33Nl'JN3�NI� ,� ,�fi S I— E ONI'S9IYIOOSSY 4IHit AONYMdY1 C N3A31S 8 y 11 5 Q;6.- e 1181HX3 3dJ11 3S(1 QNb�I a i0" • `, t - 8 Rs § aRg x . r, RR 2i s Y N U 8 W' 3 4i w a3 w a V a S w tjn 3u IR Ii : !10, ! o S s e ' J tl / `---- 77 NTH \� qii \ - \ _,----.\ \, '111100 , , 111111 \ 9 \.- _-- \ • 0, * - \ ,,, %-;1 4 _....._.... 0 .---"- • - 0 1 O x z ''‘ \'`.... .......-.... \ 0 ----- .--- V.- \ .---- \14\\ __----A---I )---r----- I , / L_ 1 1 , j/ \ ii ,_, / ---\ --____\ l 1 I I y _ � �/' __:,--7*------- / \ ‘..0. I ,------ ul illin / W 2 f LL 0 2Y .-[ a I C a w w ? U a- y ][ C .1171-F71 ■ .Q W O _- _: , - - -- ■ Imo . L.-, J S w re . a O O u } O a u w 3 W � Y I m w It ,L! 1 ', m dIN80dI1V0 VWf 1Vl3d 6i1q{,C-L91 i�a aeou g Z5616�� LZO•OLO 5£l NdV 133211S LI3ddOH 005 lt 3tlrnos3tliYAK rwn1ri3a A 1N0)3del 3AI21 ;4 is N SN3NNVld ONV1•SNOA3ANOS ONVI•SN33NION311N0 g _ x f g s ONI'S3IVIOOSSV F II-ONVNAV1 T N3A31S { ,.3- i ce NVld N011Vlfl32ll3 NVIJI1S3O3d 4Ny 913A319 H32Ib' 5) iX01 A STM 1 5.c,.\--,,I—-'_.:.1.4,, ( \` ± i / . 4Ld'r0,(4,,,7,„1/4,,‘- ' ` }.- / t _ ii‘-''''ill . ''' ' ' i ', •:., . ,z'' ..•q../ . /--''-'-' ' , / ,. ',‘ //7.../(//'/.1111, 1.41, _.,,.. z ..: tlI ,, u L r 2,10e z i' , 0/ /Z .1 (I. / ' ' i 'N‘ 5,1 s\\ki, /,V. ' ,. f' -•- ca /i •t• S \ii I� , -- ---11-,.. .. '' fir : ' .0e4'itlii t$41\S # r i :''''.:',.:.. ...;; ,',1 ."!,;,-‘440.Sc((-00.100,44.11141:10)4111110‘111A‘ \ tc ..,' ,•:_\,\\\ , ogi IP il i ■■% %, r/t':!i',-Oromigi IMNNI Im■ \ .- °gra.iii . _III ifilyiy, _,, ,,., . ' ''' Ito ,....••• 4 l / '' L LiiF ((' SI;Ii.4 VI/1 r: - -- ii , +I .__ .. Air ,,,, , 1, 1 _ it .• '9""*.i ar::...7.. \ ' 1- '5 ' : .i. to ..- , 1 --- -- - 1 i 0 2 ,s1 q ! 1 a i 11. W EL � " I\ ,f^, j ' I I ! ' I 1 . I I ,-,---•________L_i,,.. ht ,. : [... —„I ..„ -.....:: , .......„___ ,__.j, p„.4\\---- . , .. . ,.. , , „, , .. .) c,,,,,a, Ire 1 Y f / /./ • -- ,1 ----. if"' A - ' 1 // _� avar •-:,....;.( i', I / • . , jiihr ,I .?••••_„,/,,r; " / • FI . // r r A�_ t 'f, ,/,,, p 1 L. I Ir �' � ::./.2, r lei 4./ / c !4 \" �, Ii_ , ! �,/ -2.- -�. I- _`_i iit ,.:a``� � ', ,; ' ,• / -ter t=�1 r '! kit/ 'f �' f r k :r �� I y fid" 1it � I mai _. ? j l"`� � ,� ; i �a , jam •. 1 / ' . - • 1 ''---/P ) / • 1?•-• , IL:---+.-___L. ` Y r rit :? `r I{ 1 / ,\ i �--... �! lj�' `1 ski. '� 1 i;r •r,•.a �J' 1 1a 1 r ' 1• { 1.r 6 , i\A • „1 I L. .i --21-=:--, 1,. ,.-.i_-.. !!,,. , .. 71.../: pi, ,,,,...... .„ ' it r� r f. i ' �''. i �r .E m VINHOII1VO'VWfi1Vl3d °CZm°;;.°o;,:;`WCs.:;iotl LZ0-0L09£L NdV 1.33HJS M3ddOH 009 Z`mmlo 3wre Vnnivie g V ? 1 C 2 1NONAN3AIN " • • m- S 6tl3NNYld ONY1'SNOA3ANf18 4NYl•Bil33NION3INY� � � ,� 119IHX3 SNOIJJ NO3 DNIISIX3 'ONI'S3IVIOOSSV V I�HONVaVl jY N3A31S 3 11 $l P g g IS g bv: 1 Ili o y� $ g dig gr g a .4 F Ae 1a g g g g e i g § b g gI, w S pg a21 g saga Ii IL: 1 41 ai o a a! g 'ib� v 4R i g g E� $b- a• x5: gl n 5 4A g g u" .a eg a l s LigSd a I _ IIWJ clip bga a i 11 i_ 2 q g /- 0 oLim lg I iii ea R! 4 8 R« " MO O a u ; a B ® ® D 1 0 g ® ® 10 11 ® 4 [11®I M 3 8 v g / IP g 1 ao 7.7 _s t5 2 by 4 ;an e a � $ SulA 11 p �� ` I � I 5 / / � ' D . I. , 0, II 7- 4 , , j „ .:, _:, /, , ____,,,. ...,” , \1 / , ., ,, , : ,.... \ :, , ,. ,,g , .,, ..,. ,i , .., ‘ ... . ....., , ..„z , ,„ . ,- , .. „ ,.., { \ ( I.4I I 24 , . ? _ \ \I s \ \ m \ _ I r 1/1 - -l l' --------- X11•? :,: i it ‘ \ ' C\ I 14 - _ � /� -� _ i' I I '_ +. Vi' ','.., / _ =fix ._ e — _ v /. — _ - I r 1 �,' -__ , -Y 1 j I , ll, I , • Ii - li,r.A L -/ � F I _ - _- / r - T , F' n, 1 j I I ' I 14 II1 h' >1 r — — SII ; i, ti 'I1 phi _ Ifll I / I1 I I� ori _k,- .f . 1 'I d II ' j II I 1' tI \ 1- I,I �i 0 1 li I .:, p go€ .g b y4� T Y $ g �( C EV I II il€ Ilg f! 3g 17I; 0 ; X.1 �¢Xy 45 1 55 �+[€ �� _„ I /6 r X8 gdg Rg42 2 11 8 x Ft l @ 1 60, R 4L” b - g' 1! g 14 Rig' : !I I it r_li --t--1- OW 1 tla§ 1 /1/t gg P Wig :, il;;els:11 : ; rs ! 1 ig ite g 1 I, !� ' I §�i y�v g ;s $ IA 10 Vile 'll 8 i a aR a e$ e w Caj;i = a g Y; O l A xtgi t t t R. Y Lena `ab - l - — —' I J�• Y yjI A' gb'b !It'd ' a IA a g a Y a k R A — _ - 1 �Q i! lgibill111 § bC1 ° 11gg` 111 1e i 2 • $ dill 3 g g � i ,i - I— LOD m VIN210311V3'VWf1lV13d NZ291t61 11”....1.+°•`<1 = LZ0'OL0.9£1.NdV 133211S 213ddOH OOS L1t 311116'Mille 0110335 AL i e V1 3tlV00P 3b1V3H1 V01 NVl3d 0 1NOM3213AI21 Sif3NNVld O .•S1VOA3A8f1B WW1-82133N10143 11A10 i 7 S '3NI`saLvioOSsv u1DNVtidVI'f N3A318 ti g Nd�d A3)1 133211S 311S-NO a o � ���ti; � b i1 :3..1-- jl p93, S b [ 4 8: Y h P I{�'. - 4a 1 �`1 ; ,„,!3'ilt b I — I ,tb--,,,''I 1 t r ` Y p i A z ffi' p l 1 [� a g ( 9 F .. L I y R 3 2 15 -- m `= ii ' ..c e _ -.- P �1:--_ a i 5 C C/ F ►, 5 :17 !1 1 r .,I • gl a i_VTzj `.1.9. I.-- f - -- - -- y9 1 S 1 OM MI EH 1 z ! �> i. 1 - if 1 il 9 / il 4, 01, i Pik ! I; i1 ilW `3 vp `; d �= g9� Ai Y F 9 9 8 9 W . a I S P f4 YS a HeA� a il il ii 111 W W W E IS n 0Y' p Ug;A 5 pl 0000000000 0 00 ti 4111* 0470 *0\ ♦ Nos" 1 �00\1111\•* I0A * S 1004 , ,- , moo. •% ♦% itw,.♦\z S. 1101411 01111A -.0 ..0._ ii_sk ..' opi. • ' 1Y .0 • 01111 i 0, a,, ,\ wr ♦O 'a Si" * % /1 16 t, I 0 ." C-) ME ', NMI 1 II' S% r% 1 4.0'366,-^, 1111111 all 1 1 • : L IS, 0 0, 4 O I far. o O iiii/o(Farit O01 1 � -- —_ - ��� 1 ■■■■ •1 AMMO ME P2 m VINaOJIIVO'VWf11V13d /CZM911[OZI XVI LE t C-z9Llmu ; E z9an n�tw!na•W�In.a M/9/�� �' Zit 311115'133tl1S 0X0035011 S W N" LLO OLO 9El NdV 133a1S a3ddOH 009 yy l 1 3wrn°s 3tl1r]X1 wwn,wl3a � T 0 11408ROANiii S113NNeld OtI l'StIOA3ANf1S ONVl-Stl33N19N311A1O k M 1ZR 2 m dVW 3AI1VJN31 03SVHd .ONI'S31V10OsSV V IIHHONVMAV1'C N3A31S o �g t Q 4 tl r i «+ ««««a � � �a0:1 - «««« «« ... NN 'N NNNN ... NNN - .... ««a« ««« « ! a12,• , i <3EsE:<xFkEa$A£F =lax saFx< :3:98'seaaRk��k akEkk�ag .<...<,.kFb�. x"�i ;: 11 i,; ae e 4°- 6 = as a a:aaa N4µ«« «aa« 1 s 'N ««««««««`«aa««`'«««aaa«« N -NN N - ''ANN N««N ««a««««««`« N « Naaa'.a aajafata ala H.aalal �a w N Ly W q g>e �_o!MnW$e'a!R'ssk?x;igiM a .ckkse"a.A3s0g A n k"agk.P'i#5;�R2�1eE'S M11 Ika2k1!Nif a WA!!� = t a € t I l i g RP w ., nn: .,., ., ry :n:1 .i N".,. .... N " nn^n N:r."� ..�., .,."" n':.n " s I..Q an,.i..R >r_R-aa" a-Sty 6 ats t i` e st• t t a t1.R if S . iCff ft 66gg55 § Olgei4ila y !Oil ; l'al:;211C�cps_pp255bb 5&6566y&6S';".a111i110141i�Jlll �323&65a66fi6b5tp`lpt:, 11 I'�pi?/FI/Ijl�p�ital�'/a18SS' Iti}I' I lgli11a1aa1g7.8�aaa6 aae%daa CD CD p ; Fw- a n� falli3l$aasaaa"" 3i1 fW401118aaaaaa8a 1/1043 3f4 §fiaw.3fff 3 "ii§¢�� f b5 ;i- COZ ; <g Z. §§§§§5333§ = Vg Y 1111111 aH ��� � m QE ¢ dIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIiil IlIIIIIIIit IIIIII � � II � � I I � IIIII I IsleIIIIII111 [ 1 it , S gills W Iw p1.x; o rr In b� BG�kGk�auGgGkswGGallniwGlom;;;;�Gn1Ggtm;G;;;v;glit'Rsissi!ffGuukkG� v.;; ;;;; ;;;.;;40.;;k tIlltiKlP1�9G�t mi - - vv 11 3�3�313(3d � 7@77Ati4AWAAA8. 73127:7LRCRRRCRRB:OOiiWIlt4A:212828Rs2E811"1 """" :R, RR $SSa44V4�R�101.1:''" s ,000o00000t....00000° s � OOroOOaOSOOOaOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOaOOO0000000000 ro os,M4/# / . 4 t- 4 0 1- J J «« «`« «««« «Na MN«N NNNN ®�w R< 4M <p!�a N;A. )igT't . IHEiaw iKh:::n �:_::" ..•::::ziii:.i.l%r�:i:r w.r :::N.rw a ..i« .« a « « s«««:aaaa�xa j °°'° RRR+�nn#kkokx�ag4RkRa{Q$aA1aRRk#.:kR$$gitt I g'!# °^',. \\ 3u §§€frfFF§ -ii 1 . ' \ y1111111a af8 -1 �sa�gt I' A1s11111 ' €§§S4§ # [if( t€g aa&a81 !!fr § € ® • 1. oa eai14 t 4 0 R to �< \ Vg * a � 'i5;&a;6kfuf6gggPPgPgf6g6kesgaLelilllt:;Pgga R W ® ?.p °9 A \ q, � y e, t°.a .1 • .O, ,06 t^ ,. -"`° '°°SO4`,xRR;RRRg43Rh,IRRY:7i7 y \ ..a _ �� 0000000000000000000000000'0000000e00o0000000000 - n \ b M / 00 R pQ V* ab DI i, o4. ,o m ^,\\ S 4dtl3{ Wi T a '� �1 jp0 \ .N 'tet g' 8 C7 < WI! • �p - 5 S ,oa $ tA'Y `\ n .R '.\ , '''..4..-t* y ,9a'a - 1 w W o- \ R a % �. ..y C CI l o ® a Brag«N! "#yM nA F >Pa ,00 co " \ - ,av G "L ]. Cq9, 'S g, too 1:® '' �w .. $ % " a ' �c cs40 .] ' 111111 vl o e, v. Idk • - �� / '� N ro 1"1 0ro1 ---.f- . ' - i9r't Ott... �. Aa' i I- . \ AN r ,____ _,,i_ 7,7)7 1 ' 'i..01 . • -i- '.. "' IC 8 "}'tea" / / 1,.° to % , : - +l 7.........,„...:- AO 1 �N.40,3./:___,-------„ i �0� g_ >f Y a tD •3 R S 11. .. on -0 _R ', �\ a e '� f/ Au Aro o& e x c •' • °.w aV ao In ti, o R *' 1. N. R t° to i • � a R I \ . XO : �� .. 1:11 m. 1 NI S It+ III' k 1 l \ Ii ],�P #C ,u nA. [_]t'A r` t Apx Awl m 1FA 'i t ,r/ T �./.1 I •' �.,1011(41(.."-.. _ �a,,/ - ,6-� 9�'.K i racil X y( I iel 1 I Ala Fcc c9 Au - / 1 I N i '! I I .1 S m a m 8 o 1 1 1 $ S tit 1 I Air, ..Lit _ Z'.r .C'ZS .9'19 .. I ./ WI _ 2 _ R n �9 i Ft1 yrs �0 } r .9u 'T -1a r s en ¢ en g to gig e 1 r n� M Ari h - •yp .0 = Aat fy.o S SS A 9roz j2 I m j°,:j_,, I N A-, Y R 4.-4 Sg c. gF 1 1\ I i - I E E 8 if \ 1^ \�_ c�9 C r---. - --- - gel /.cri l ,lU u OW 'n< . r \ t'- \ \ O Xnn F lewd X arotc I NI i .__I _ , 1 lr 1 t1w t I r.t aa1' "i '1 3111, T -.r- t -oval -kris Ill Y eij 1 1 1 tl i i I 1 .,..0-..!: 6 di g 5 i1"' 2 II 15i } eo 1. of Ilk _ �C i 1i A O e n ' 1 ° J I o b1RkR '�ig 4 ic�s'rsk z i R a k " @v n k a H k1 I _ ; ' `8ly ' Ii i; 1sd ° rk gi ; 2 gi rm,"d $ € l R PPie !gLi o z1 a '8a gillill € '5 O tI O 1- "g 6 >" Ad a 5tt � � +y� y w py O Y �p E 88 d 6 qSb �a' M A W k6Eig 4 0 .o 165 '0 IPis Y N Y Wggl$ : - 6 € ViR 1 be0 i W "1 . . , Xi , A Rg sso g g s � .§..- i" o ; s 9 Y g i / g i 9 g e k ti ;; e i 'i1 1 11 ya IF 11 4a = '8- W l' 53 4" p w F / !It 1 e ?ra ®1 N Rg I� pili ¢Q 8! 8 i; R i ' ii >3 R' gyg R a O 1p :� 1i g r 11 I P 1 0, 1 I T+ iXP 3k" Es g 01; ;9921 Ra g �RRt R. [rR�� a �Se AY 1?sA A±�@ O R3 ab eg Y - i 4 kr gq Q8� °Y w® 0 2 ®1 ® ® ® ® g 4 ® igg e Itl1 a® e ® r b W 6 �C . Cg 2€ if Q eCtt29[120L)YYa 221C.29L 1[0[1 L m dIN210di1V0'tlWflllll3d 99rsn,ay.r.w�1•1.a X 2tC31105133tl1S4NOJ3S 09L LZO OLO 9EL NdV 133 2115 213ddOH 009 3nvnos3N1r3111rNmr13d a ' - 1N021d213/1121 k , ,yyg_g 2 Stl3NNYld ONVI-SNOA3Atlf1S fl V-Stl33NION3 IIAI� DNI'S3IVIDOSSV Y IHDNV21dV1'1 N3A315 ¢-Wt- . $s 1- 118IHX3 NM/813S s I MM b v.--9nn__ _.-..nnnnn.-na_bbb.,.,„__„nnnnnnon..nnnnb.9.-x!I.nw ab:bnicitL,,-..n _ nn _nnnnann z •:aazzzzz 'n•bnz:zz ab i __ §b bbb'a _ t<tt: 4Y _1 11 1 ann :; lblblb;Wblibnn„nnbnnnnbnnbbblbbbbbb'wbb n. b nb n n , ,, bb :bnnnnnglIII „ nn b: nn .n::, ll ::: ibbbbbcabbbbbb T . bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbab'.bblbbtt abo?bo ,1jtl11,1.1 b_ aabbbbil o : < bbbbo iliio 4. It ,aaaAllialliltA4ZatCia0R4140:.klet RRiei@iYi:%iiI A444ttasaa1”" '” ttttR6q "404R4544A4+1;114szi�i l Ate h w g 000'"''''mHJ..,gIS!acubcccaccrr.,§I$C'.b oea...[�9.sas,a00000000 oog,ineb0000a I II .'.a�,S�93�ss�000 000000000 r rc U, I'[7 m' 1 1 L ! I I.H. I 1 2 y NI t^_ n _.. nn _ •nnni,bbbDbbbrnnnnwbbbbb;bbbbbbwlbWilq,W L I r b:,- -.,,,:,•,,:,,,,nnnnnnnnnnannnnnnnnnnw;bb1blbblbin'nb1wl 1 3 /bbbbbbbbbbbbb'bb Obbbbbb:bblbbbb"b'bbb'bbb�lbll'L'bbbb'bb.bl I s ; t .E: a tt2S'R>ti0:`4N4tik ,454 1tti44iiII.4,11 1 g • .aeaasasaaaeaoaaaaaaaaaaeassossaaasssas4'64Ots § 5 �` / N o4 . ,, '...--\---. 011.- ' 2VIII 2Qi 1p uM ---"\-----O. \ ..--, S yp ap ` \ a \,..-- , P" ..-1 (-- n \ 73 \ \\ - --. ` -- -1, .. , \ ,_ \ ,- ''''\\\ ..„ 1 i'" ,....1 r \ ,. -..„.. ...1_ -.\ 0_,___ o ,, \ ...-- ......-\ /\ gi 1 Nart� ////1:-M\ ,l 1 ` :r: \ ....- !z A #111 l8 `1 -- \ --- .w X\ ...,...''' -- „- 3 1,-1.', ---- \ _ .„.........\\ 00\ i, /(* ... \ , ,\ , \ pl A 7_..-'I:\ 2 0' O ✓ \, 0 r---— \ .• 0 a / 1 1 J 1 li \ t.....- — 404 1 .11":"\, \ • \\,....., sa----;-\ ) ------; 1 1- -7.--\\ \, 2 2 l111 15 et / y l NI-J L_ 1 I I 21,, ''1 am itii L I 1 2 gin ._ 11 eg I ' I ' 11 I 1 an 4 \ / I e` L ® OUP / , in,99,,,.. a / - ft I sL_r_I ,__,____I I I- - N I' I I 1 1 /7 1 1 1 I =�1- 11 r /. • I • / ,01/ - - L_-JL-___ L_ I i- �� I a 11 / — 1 r— I I _ -Jris 1 It le J -J L- _ N 1 2__ -1 r - 1 r _ _, of I I I I I -J I A i L — 8 I r1. 11 2 1 1 1I b� -_ I _ I I 11 I - q I J L - I _ R 11 - , a ...: l gu _- I Na 11 O 1 R R 1 gi• 0: A 1 - -II- - 0 _ --1 r— — .--g— 1 X6 tCwc: r.tt.9C.2�. 1® 1 a. I — I o b iw R . . lix „ # 1W RI a O _ 41 o Wit,. 2 y Ali w PI 1 d d ! i e !Ib1 1;1 i531 1 lis 141 ii Cillge illi gll , 1 Y 1 • £0 81 1 r 1 ® 8 0 ® ® ® ®® 6 ® CO 41 'm VINilOdI1YO'tlWflltll3d ex LOWS..1I...WOO...1.4,1 n m LO-OO-9EL NdV 133211S LI3ddOH 005 x3tlT0043tl1Y3Naims 1331i15iT1YlT 3,d 8 4 i 1NOadN3AI y S213NNY1d ONY1 S8OA3Adfl8 Own•Stl33NIDN3 1IAI3 'k d 9s 6 ONI'S314130944 41HONVNA41 f N3A31S !6. ,, Nt/1d JNIa`d 19 SSt/W 311S-NO J121t/NIW11321d 09 a i dX4111 4 �> R • Ott S2y S it@V b o e t A a m 1G pl Iwt a i a 9 ti: PO E4 dElhi i hi : ; 1ai it ct i lit ; 5 !i ; 1 i 1 ! w r Ai 1: pr wtia A r Y N � � � ? Hi f 11114 r Iti $ it 1 x I„ • .100 I e IT,- alb "(7" Z /-'27 4\.4s7Ligr' 011\c 1 .0",ellik I , -: . ' A ,- \ $0.„ \ 1 /00,$. :\ W.°I.A1V° \ -_ - ,--7 4.1 ',. \ OTIlk \ , Z I i '7" •• : 00-, \ ,,,,...-da- 010 0 ni\l, 4;, :14 \ .7-77---v ,,.., 40 0.4 040, t,„\\ ..,- ,,- Afte lirra e- f _ ,....... \\ -- _,-- II* 1114 \ rami. 110 s �. - t ....„,„ ,„ , , .,.......--- , ` -----A, ,..00, OW 1111.11X Ala \,,,_ '114, .4---- ,---,„44, ��lor: �`� t VIN , �tikfitill .. . .. '=, '0* - 111104./ ,Ila; W „.....21111:00 0 ___ ..,.,..i,---:"e` ...EA ..\.-. fik OP°VI--7 C4 I lilliW*4 o>g. III \A_ 'Et C‘ga ' 4Alk) 'OS ' mis404‘t , \'1, / - 1 '40OP' ,---1 "7") 1 - 0111111111 \ Was , ail 1 1 \ \ - -, ,,,-. ,,t ,,l, , .2 I , ., . i'L '' s\40 ' , .\ ,_,' ' _At illirlAIA iMIM I, \ ., "000. __...3",o'-\\,::\::10-';0:4.05‘'--4,\-,,- liw fr. I_ wirdio,,,.. \ :I.\ (0111°P 1111 r-oc---qp, - grm , 1 —11111 I II 4 l I _ ; i, IP11 _ .,, II \ i um � I� mi I1 _____ El I lje asiliiii.&;1 13110, 1 I • tlwflltll3d d0 ALO I NOILYNOd IO3 Aoa31'10d II ,01 tlIN?JOAI1 tl0'tlWfll tl1iizrzuu•airi meal lzoU i 3d zo3n�w.arno'•Ww•a Q h0-0I0-9t6 NdV 133)11Sztt 3LO4'133114 ONOMS Ml 1S?i3ddOH 009 3Nmo43Mlr3N1run 1r13a 6 ! 1 r N 1NONAN3AI I Stl3NNV1dONY1•StlOA3ANl8ONV1•Stl33NION311A10 1 , 141.1 M .- 3NI'S31vI3OSSY 41HONVNAV1'r N3A31S • 1181HX3 S31111NHf1D X2lOMHl?!V3 e a I 1 1 Iqi I— 16 I ll !K Ili III ;v ID - 1111 1 11 oitki all t l " l 6116 Z , N y il �� II.,. • oir,,,, go, ._iior. • • i, ... ,_ \ , • 'l l Wilk. 'II A * 10 \ *' 4111/11 1111k,iiirailit.0 10 1000411\ ' •• v „coommo � �i' I �• spilt .0 • ♦ / ,..400=43*-4--„4” , ok 000. , ors Cr f4a, -- ______-_____,---- ----M- Ilib. a___ _ _7.,=____„..=_ _....0 op,..._ 1 1 1 \T .--- ,,- 40- - --v- 00_ _......_. or (0,0- Plia 4 11, yl ----9 (el pA airs ST , ,\\,„' , fir i 404 01 I,,•,' .14 0.r% 1" 'A ") i \ to.rfr 4 I/ i 6 - ' i Ai -,,, ,gly 1 ill 1 ISINE 1 , im ciev - , iii 1 , , ,.„...:,,,, .00_0- ,„; , _Aim - .... , ,,,4 . ro, 1 ,if,:_. -27 \iik),,,,,,,#/„... re . _„,,,,, I . m,, 4 SIM WEN Elm ,,e 1:010"?..11.-#‘ 1 ritt . tok I P" ,16411kill im• 111. Nal t I r 1 \" Pterrilikill 'i I 14/ v,. �, 1 11,1 .w I lail. ... • ass iiift„---crior 4%.*----s-mal-p El 1 Tti_L_-wilyainiiiimi. illtw , ----------E-----„..,._ 4� _ wrril IIII Mil 1 '1111111t- 4Vr 1 sll. m' VINaOII1YO'tlWflltll3d same j NM.1.6wi.3i..14,1 ael it r 1I E LL0-0I0-9£1 NdY 133N1S N3ddOH 009 L,C 311111 133VI 011000irl3� i I ! i 1 r 0 1N021dL13AI m SN3NNY-Id ONYI•SUOA3Atlf18 0NY9•Stl33NIOM3lW0 k : y k k 7 rc NY1d .UIIIll A i VNIWI1311d -3Hl'S3IVIOOSSV1IIHHONVIIdtl1YN3A31S is 4} ! filth 1 s 1 41116\ 3 ",,3 • r . �. y1G61 / Gi f x r / 1 1 111111110 '0 k _, 1 -- • • • • • . _47-*\.. 0114 0 t�"' _ J 44 (1 VA i s. k -' IIIIII \t \ WA \\. W I '''''1'-'d \ 4::dillaSt' . W4S\‘„Itir\), iii 0t7.4111J11110*\.\. MIIIII\\.\ Ilie oo, ,:‘, \ , I W ., \ X' // ..'- '',-.'' EA0 \'‘,. W • ' ... all lk 1 0 , ,,...:21:..i.,,-,- w \\., 00,,:--- \. , .....-- . .:,,,,,. ill \'\ i % , . .,. \ 1A1 \,', ., OW \,' Sok \- , '; ,,, ,, __,- .._.- , loll ,,. wig ,‘,.., 0„,„„„ , . ,, la ii �,,, 1%,- �V. is ,7: \\ ' � �� . r �fi , ,.0 2 II 1eg y 1 ‘, yLC F. t, 111111 gill 1 ; , fOr-\\\ /10 $ 40-,---0*. I wiat 'IVA, -----7--- ji Om 71/1 rI lia., S [f f ][ IF : eilittag/I! , a P7/I LI II — I i will // 2 lir 1 : ee • R ja � i -- iii ` �k 11111. R I : :�-J _ __l,_ In____�____1_ __ ____L____„___1_,- - NOiYIOdSO3 AOa3WOd g P. I _ a t i I il , L. I a - ., ! .._ ._ •i .. __ l I !! R k w }it1i 14 Y L k z -e g i `<1 og �� k = i 4i ill ! di 1/ 4 , 111Ii_r - I I Ix l�g g„; a er '!-A git 1 mlEf1 �18 Gi o 8 19. s4 a Edd rk k 1 i 4pii il 11 Ipg i W $ � nP � k4 m � t VII illi kk Ii<i Ie $ ! $ iW Ai a = � `e raR L127.1 I . .•IOC ApIM m VIN8OdI1V0 tlWfl1Vl3d eazagaWMx 0....19,1i • LZO.060-9£L NdY 13R11.92i3ddOH 009 CLC 311A3'133tl1R9NOD3,On 6 A il E 1- 3AVf1U3 3111V3111 rlIl1V13d A Ip',� 3 0 1NOM3ZI3AR1 6313NNYldUNtll-SNOA3ANA194NV1'8A33N111N31IA13 k i �}�Ii 2 m 3 'ONI'S31tlI00SStl Y IIHHONtlildtll'f N3A31S k 9 4 3 6 IC, I b NH"ld A111181SS300b� Sf11H2lHdd`d 3211 4�31��f1H�lb3ddOH `dA3 311S-��Og i j _I ,77 1AI01I 1/3//81 „--- ‘c,,L, L, JL 2---11 k_tkt I _ �}/y- 5 1 i ( 6 3 �-I I - I I I-I5j�� •S`' W N p LI __j ° 4 Irl o I IW a 1 I L _ _ 1 L - im v ` I I I I I I 1 I I ( I I % •III NB I I �yyy � N �I NI'NN I / 4 �I m A / P a 1 I ii i N� � K W.- � �`y �� HltldNltld �o�,:- t �' gta. 3sn LLlnw 3■n LLlnv11) s g N .1 1,: I: I / N011 Y2JOdL00 NOIl YLOd8100 (', I /` W v AON3WOd AOd3WOd i 3NV1 ; I t g a / . 2 31d1f1 i ..r_ }Ima I I 4-.) _C�[ Y -71( t 1 gs IF NT -. !$ - ed3rvai_n_ ',w. 3Sf1-Illf1W•T1y1y • 1 _ _ _ :r r I KW >ii,e--- —i — `ER i ® 666 j ,' I � I- , lt,)R �/ a <I J •2 .du�4-.--- i _ : S I W W 1 U o r _ r Q a B W'I 4.^6 o 7 1 O J I Ct. l r F 1 �'a^ ~ti I Yui O I r Lam- j Ua II UWQ I 11 UK i _Ir0 1 I SI tz� W. E a •'f 9 4 J I .�sl I 1 / 0w w% 6 N ` - / YA3 d a z NO11 YI10dN00 NOIl YtlOd8N10 � AOL3WOd A0N31i0d ��" b 3 oY I - ? V14,117V13d YWn7g13d � i 0 ALIO - - �1,{ dO Alta // '[ W rif Fa 1 GE. ia I 5-- r 0 0, 6 Y w W I Y : al ,.- ....0 _ ---- _ S'a d) I ® J. 11 g �i — YA3 / ��� W cc a W. �.d� ® I �� W a I W a c�� O 1 3 8°-- , 1 O a .% i s L1 J ivk1 1 Ili 114 1 ! 1 1 j� tl 1 le U K !d K Y I I I r `L 1. / rcv I kill:: 'n. w-1ii b _f / � li a ig k _e! I iEt" . mo ; it I n0 r.,, v y : x il: . i QI ■[IC 1 0 .y `,. i,pk a Y it .li 3NY1 0131d1ntl0 - j"� =1l 3e '4 � Spy. w 111:1 I I a ! F 1¢ -" 4= 1@@¢7 Fi Ai11 is k63I ! jI ` ,Q —moi_ . x F a � = ageI IIii 's i `� s> s es Li 15 I , •0 5 lI " r �� qqrr O ® ® ®®® ©© { \ iCu� I I �g r ' i 17 $ 1' fit LJ , a - :0 -I - VINNOII1VO'V Vl llVl3d ..-z.z Ho[I x.,za,q.,(,o) - m ZSEM 9wgIRJ.�unl.Wd " i LZ0-0L0-9£L NdV 133a1S a3ddOH 00S t1C311fKY33tl, aNOONO•l r A § r 0 1N021da3AI I Rim's.11.11 ViVIIVI a - SN3NNYld awl-SNOA3ANflS ONYI-6N33NION3 IIAIO Q < } 5 g 2 m S 3NI'S3IVIOOSSV V IHONVa "f 3V1 N3A31S S1N3W3AO21dWl 1332115 A./3311A3MH3 3115-330 a3SOd021d ti k �l'iEi� I- b I ,,,Fs . `o NOaSN I I ! 8 X1111 = 4 Iz 0 u yI w i —I • I —i•-.. •,-,, 1 1 I.; =wv N1 I I / 1 11 \s/ as le g d N S1Aw3_AOadlw AO'mei _ u I gl !! • "Mit I 1'1—, i 1 i i5;:\ #.4.4ons " 'sk $• 3 iii x iii 1:% lili life 1 _ il$ 1i1 � i 1 • N `` CCC ' I 1 I <• I I • ` i °/ 1 i, IA I ' y , I i ill , I Ii I ` « I_. I I I t` \1 oU' II i I J Iw I I ! I I i f` r a d a ly la t , f I � I < 'L. I Q Y I- StQ I- w 3T N]MYci ✓tii Q w i w a 1-a �� I ` �� \ \ . • I I- I d O J I 1N I 1 3 -_- -_ I ,v 1 1 • 1 I _ I I N w Iw I U I e �S� Os` cc iI R R, wi ! I I W z II' 0 w iNI!"\\\S I l 1i h l 5^J f I i r e I I I - �r I 11�t I4TtIit~...).* -..:. .1....... • I, '' , 444/ 1/44 p 1 , r _ 7 ir c.,, ,.._.___ i• i r 'ai, 4�,-.3 .. VIN2Odf1VO`VWfl1Vl3d etlni(05XVJ`iZ1)/(mv m . � nsd s LZ0-040.9£I NdV 133a1S213ddOH00S LILaims'133a160.036M1 s A r 0 1N021j213AR1 3arne63alr3alremrlaa n b 0 S SN3NNVldONVI-SNOA3ANfSONVI-SN33NION3iIAIO « a 111-i ,& o SIN3W3A021dWI 133211S 2i3ddOH 311S-33O 43SOdO2id ONI'S3ivIOSSV'AViONvdavlrN3A31s p 6 4E WEEP . Y 11 gl k.i a git i > p ii L„ 1 ga ! F i l l 1`1 ' I I- I a e� 4 C' � y. f I I , le 11 iir d ; g ' il 7'- 6i ' ' R § - i , I1Ii ga as F II I 11 I'1 ) !Y'1 8. 86 tl nr y� 8< g by B O W 111 1ft '1 gS4 Ca !hliss., E 1gba3 a !b31; a ai I 1, i I1 1, �'1 a e e e ® ® © e O e e a ® e e e a 4q 33� A I f li t. \ t \\L o- III ,I - ' ';( , 1 ' 1 T • I -I , i'li; I., II 9 . 1 1 , ' : y _ I) i , , x E' pi I� , I I 1 t T .vis y V w , W I11 ', 111 .I I" y 1 o % liti'�I 1 ,II ', �, I it a y, ,�{'CL 1 pyo. +I I I VI, �l y 5 = I `b� Wad + I `' II I I ;• il g sa i tl ® (J p i� tt 1" ®W � ci @@ ao t I u 1 �f t _^ 8 F U /nml^ ', I I 1 _t 1/ N � ��I Imo., C, f A ! 1 1. _ t Q- U I �. t 4 _ •8 ifi �� . ( 1 1, I�J� J1liI ,r I/i ' I I� zQ I ;*' `i�g Fp - ® -1 _W o .. f'i I woq i y o F. c BiYO'7 �i W O~ iu I z�s j zFs f [I[l�q j� ® I � _¢ Nx i I III Hw yw _ � � it W i II l it ma h x� I Y ax Z I,g' I ! I t W S I 1,i 11 �',� 2 E5 .� I • I 11 II 1 I_ iIJ�— `� j$ ,, 111 1 �7 L 14 Q - � �� ... \<a t 4 `III I' I ! - W 1 �I — e Ii II ;f e III { 14 I _ I S 40 i ,, e 1 it I rl II �,J i `i n•` I _ - • .. • FIS , ® R w hi e t ® I OR'- 4.r1 y r I I I a ay' I 3 t �; 1- li E A Of 1 IllII o Q . 11 II I I III o u 11 d NGS `I O. Vie- t rI Q lir II I v - CO it l� Ac =Q I illl`1 — C U I 1 I 1 1 WI I�I� • iil L _ hl J ° III ®'' .4! , �' �:� ggi'a 1 le z 0 • I 11 W i --.—,I + - I at Y i Bk® li El ' i I / , • I l / I / ttzo-tuumm tttri3111o11 tlIN210d11d0'dWflltll3d UPS...W1I.0...WPC 2tt 3ANIS'133tl1t ON003S 04 _ LZO OLO 5£L NdV 133M1S a3ddOH 009 1 ! ii r h3tlY009 3tl1Y3N1YNnlY13d i 3�1 a 1NOad2l3AlaSd3NNtlldONV1-SNOA3ANO80Nn-5533NION3l1A13 g q g9$ I M 1 1I81HX31N31N3A021dINI 311S Sf103NV1133SIW .ONI'331'0003Sv5�0Nvtldv, rNan3is a 1 #t . ,,\ z. E – 1 i -to - ♦ \t,I . _ ___________ } _ X "iT7?77TiTi4 4 PI : VI 10 b gg i 02 (( f' YdThf*1WIL, � �'.5. o a.�:F..§�,, ,'o. i` 1: b b 3 R t 1: il< Si ; I� _ I IgIa111 _C 4a4 a at 0 Y II; *181H* w Y W Z►— b•t</t i w W g� iOb-Viv �i doll A ligilD — _cal i ° 1 1 ill 1 " / 1 11 ill li/ _ 11 o A a A Ail csj a — LS1 •I 1Yd121111-111/L_. li 2 -_.t_,,, — 5111 a c I A O T"F \ j o u \ i' ( � o 1 � \ \/ \ ll. i 1 El El 1 0. iii ., -'_,, , ' ,,,,04- 10.\\'\ 4. \\ 1 w W o y W ¥ \'� $ 3 1 u ; I u 1 \'W 0 V., \ g tei 7/./ 0\ \\,\O ''' ''\ \::010 ' '' 1111111r ,trill I ' 0\ ; jiiillitli-\\:01: I, ' ' 1/44 21 1 /.: , 1 3 0 1\ '1 \\ ‘ ,„„_- ,. , . ,„ 0 `1.1111 �' f� 'r �, i V 100 % 0041° , ffi 111 1,I 1111 I gill \ I :I t / „,:-. ,_ 1s\: \4 I �,f�"- _,ic,m i - ii" al�i� S r t . ! 2 r'1 1 .1 .. 1.11:111k\\ \Ill •%.--- .--" ,. ...-.• X [1% ',s1 UM'. j'UM ill! • :••••i• L l 0 Mial . litt'ia i ! immps,;., l� !f�f V 1 /III/ .., i 1. 111 .. 4 r 1 Lill." i 1111 ' Gr 1 IN, _ -' I n li ‘%' _ j__, 4:: , i . MIME L. --- III 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` 1 1 1 1 1 1 n< _ P I I I n : 1, '- / . _,/1 - I a f/ hi lgi ; hi Eg 1111 to01 cq o oilIEi U > VIN2lOJIlVO'VWf11V13d 94.1.1...z=fL-run9e1 LC 3L04'133514 ON0039«l 5 "z Lzo-oiolti NdV 133N1S N3ddOH 00S 2NYmoos 351Vus1.IM1V13d r 0 1NOLI d213A1a SS3Nld ONYI-55OA3A5OW115 O -sa33NION3lIA10 II ! 4 g g § M W S 'ONI'S31V100SSV 9IH0NVadv,'I`N3A31S a 1 if NVId 3S1�Hd2131N1 30�IaJ SaNHI 31b�1S e i''' 15 /, 1 TI I NORTH a1 _ i4 lifiyI 11 ---- ' . ilk :' i 1 5 1 r' ;i�11(\1 rouvi XARAs «ase ag. ..« .• ; ;i - _. � - ilUI 1 � �� '1411111r1 �o°;j • I1111 '10`'1 . •ww .-. .. - H1 — WQWIF1 1 I ! U; Z11 ' a In 1` °.i �IINIn�I11 I '-.11 1 , O1• ' jj O I i 1 'I 11 I ;1I j I y ...„. _ - - Ill ` 11' I11� '11. II X FS R_A I¢2S-9.l e ee «g..r«, • � In \'',\I, 01110\\I % t 1 111 -y `1!uIP11\ 'tl - h 1 Igllllll .......yl iii. • 1111111 L I 1 1 1 : V, . g R A R« a R e. v o. . «AMRRhAUR 3 ER ' NI 0 } \ 1 I :-: 11 i"1 11 1 41 _ 1,_ mum 1 1 Z . 11 ,11 -10 � i� �,; 1111 W 1 1 , i, i h .-'\ l( t ___j v 1 I k o 1 ii "L 1 w• ' n ' I � ,'��4 rj111 . « o k. 1 ori ,I IUI!.i' 11111 . a1 , . 1 ,! „� / i:!lliIiH1Hlli �!lig . f ., ..., � � i • x��aa�p.=_ 11111111 mt ° g3ii11111 F j l; � � r-' 11:(4--/r)(' ;1� 111��11111 ,11311111 �1111Ii1�11111 1ii / , -, 11ihll' 41111!!!//'a , / v iii111111 11111111111 t p�_ - - - - i a ,r' a 11111111111 F i$ IIQIIIIIIW 1111111 " • . .: -.r 71 I - 11111111 r� 1111 7'.:,I1W /' r 1111 /Aid/ / d /, R -.411111r IV' / r � _ 0 ! II 01 1 Ill i /i / IL II :ill 1 1- ' <„ gi r ' r I L IP ti 111.1 a e$ R; y ix 1 1 e 'a 1 / r/ —a.d� =ME y 413 3a'� JL ° sPI i :ii�i; [, 111 g1 ill 4 o 0 ?1 ; I Ili Y ea ig .1Y . ' 1 1 W I__111111 _ ik .lp ll k0 _ El ! CCC, 1 0Ig 1 1 !r Ii o f is ! ig i 1! 1 1 2 J r .. I / I _ 0 000 r r osiiiiim04 G! (l// VINNOdIlVO`VINf11VIRd aurae GAD%VA ZZlr:ct'tab k E 'm nae n•wiwb'•Wmn•a ZI¢31ins'133tl1CONo�3C a1 6 i A p LZO OLO 9£L NdV 133211S 2l3ddOH 002 3MVnbC35113111V11b1Y13d o b 2 0 1NOHAN3AR1 SH3NNtlld 4NYl'S1lOA3AtlfIS ONV1-Stl33H13JM3 l IAI0 7 x E g > 'ZNI'S31VI302SV V by IH�NVIIAV1 f N3A31S 1g6 2A n SNO1133S SSOUO NO111f211/d3S Alan o�s �r \/9A, • 3 k \ 4 it a i R II / \\ ; 1 di lI2 i i> I \p b M 's & 1 g C �8R JI 61 0 b 0 i / ` y h h:g 1 Ili egl\11 ggiilab q rigg Pgx g \ / < .441112 " � It 1 ; ig ®ak b>. \ 1+a® 1 1 ;L41_ S { Ai' 1.1 1 1,7 —I:// . S /C, :a E / / : / / It 33NN iD 30•! 3a/ Ud $ 2 2 H o Q 6 I . . d c R f 0R —4,-,,,S--v--+y- .- ` — --Ai- D-»_� �O 4. \ 1 E IN I \ di &s I , \ di s I gx I \ i / `d I " IR / 1 rt1iee n w 4 / i I / < i / m INg� - - . _ , ,._____ (,.._ :' o � , i1_,.,, ,-)(1 In : a 1 . 1 di - \i!3 d® 41 ii ! 1 K— tilk;r • 1_,„ .. .F7:,.:17--•,.r5- ` . — \ - . - , • - I / 0 e // t� ggb p esas X 2 o n S o I'2 2 . oe � L y H z W I ill a U I d Y 1\i '' • ti ,s "�ie l oa 1 •`'� � , ' fir- \,-- ,• \1y� 1 A \, ill is \ �� ,i 1,;:s.,,,,,,..._.. ' 7� .:, +�� „ .�'.. r* , A _ '�+�°` '". j' s$' 1 n , . , _. .... ._•, ..'....-...L._. 1 A, ..w. }+ G rte \,�\,- 1 �fA ,� ':V:,' e}• ..*i. , , ,,,,,, - .' .- .\,- *':,::- ....'. \ ., :'\'''".4: '�'' is - 01------' \ lif ,'.1:.,' „..: .'' I— f I.f i:.. 9,�, �...:` fir+. „. , 1 6'. , ,. :i/�� "�,,.•. ' Z 't 6.t 7 c' �' cz .-4: Q' �� , 1-f ��. 4- ¢ \� `5 •— ■■0 • ..mo,....117.,,,__,,..,-).. ;II --• cz la c, ,, , •. 1.•\---,.'- .• Imo} C71 �.` ”r"T"` �!"�,I �.e,!� IIP.7' : i`l It. I��et-;4:1 I — 1\_ 4 +1���0'' ' �i'Y 9 i X11' Pte!' I '-,ice '. 1 —.1.1 w`- ;11.14 0_ rr L .[I: 7 1:11. , v /Aft -, : ,s...,, {Ifr I 5 Z 1 - _ti, i11 I . �. fit •,',, ; ,_._ I. b - II !� a J'�'�.er �' - sem-,: _�.. 7`i� a 1 I • I 7 I' r I I .,i _ � I t. �� o 5d'I 'Ihra I. 1 '� I I.i !irk, 5. II• . { 1 . th ( r i v �..— �I L. a jr+pII L_..11'L_..11' a, it I� IIS P% °' ir I I13. —1 — Q A L ..„,...,. .-'--;74.----4.: 1 l'I I rti � r. Z µ5,0N I YExrt ( I puiC �— _� I l� -�., ( Z < O c.) cz Q LJ D w > I- — w Ce • NI 1 a [LI 0 1 fit F- W O U - ;n = UJ w Z a G r q•c O z c 0.1 rn 0 ya= = c .E i- 0 Z a N Q J .<-sa' . Cr 2 w o �,,, I.k' y0` 5 3 ='El £E g 0 - _ IL Q E N_ J II Z LY/Y1 pi ''K:cl`f 5 �! V1 - b E I I I I I Y g °3°- a cc o c U d 2 ^ N =-J -5.- N F+i Hnua V d �', .s". u� 8 ,y z z' G rt ° Ir,4 11 I 1 / r riik / �° 0 �l or �� O�• ti i� � I // ` ' a00 \ / � 4r I� " w �O � Iaz/'I ,/ / ,if / 6- � j / 'If II 0 p. «1 i' f � it — // 4,7, 1 o ,---- = 6 � : � r�Ow st 0 •/.i, '� , I 1 III / : i i .......----113...--'. 40111111011101.?: O. 0 ,ate /11//// // / I-� 11iiii ,.�/,� I ''L+�, � �. /�1/ �/ Oma' I — �� :1. ...-..---.11--,-7---0.s..-irs -• \ _ _ 11 y// 00 ..... Irrr .,r r.r w o • 47 //:// / / // / •' , ''110‘so.04•,!!..-1-'--.41F -- --- --:•:ii...••• -- //' : ./r77:----'t—----- l ‘ I)tt. \ '4 1 I-1 - \II ' / / l (l _ 1 i I-7,_ 4 q __1,2r /r' /// //// I1 �1`1' ...,,,--i--i11 ! as.rl.•*It11U{It/1/D f>. \ 1 i s f 1/ 1�\,11 } .,,.fir-}I I, 1ian.r� t111r1ltlrl1N►. \1I, 1/ 11J �~1 1 1 ...,....:,•1111 110+1k 1r1t11�It 1 t Irl1/ _ t{� at 1t11�a 111;iia1/r ��//// / r11 1r,.. N t{11:0{1 ttl�tttttlalililU °? J .I,,•' 11110 1t1r1 ttO11►..• 10 1101 11111/1/ 111! U{t11D,,• , r t d 1 tr4r.,�111Ht" s0+j1r1{/ tp 111111 .y��llt11 1�// / ' ' / '111� �11 � .r,1 m{II 111t{tll 1101111111111tr .016., a tltlt. �//.; �: a1t1U1r l.---l 101 1111111 tl .or'•• .4,1,„ 1t110q' 1d,01p11r1t114,1%10010_,1{1l1,1„„„,in.r �,...„,011/t111111 %r . P +i 111111111,251...42 ri11a11 11 11411 '1t1Y 16„,a..n r loa .10,011 Di�� k�`.-.i l d111t 111 t11arU1...�. .ar .. �It/1:1111 �1``1� V.� / / 11 1 / taU111rU1}111rU10.1.•„ n „-,-.,_.?„--0,, N ga � -0,- 111.1 �' �'j1l�nant111+U..• — .. �; ` �• \- a4 i'< 1 1� Taillgk1 ° 1 `40111:111{ a,1 i�'wt.. .- 1111 y !a®e„-•:' � I/ .J r1 1 \11�� itit`r1a1 r if O1`1ir •i ,fr : .,....-1,00 4 �� 1 �Q � cow � t y�,,� � , �� I / ' 1►+111 ;. '� '� �i��;,'j,,,, •, � g� i�111g1111� t :,;( J O , 111')1 /, IwlllllA_.. :i 3 �,.. a 1\I 1{llfti 1! \.�i,'i ' i,„+� o ,,� '• �awj1.,1111r11111 �J 1111 i C I'.r! 81,4 4 1 3 -j :.-..-s 1a`a ,t'�1�11t l �/ 'gI '�� J � /�,�1�~9—' s°\ r,/ y�r�_�n,y °�y � �J 4100:- ,A- 411 II1r1/1 - '�-' r `N ;: ��i r5 O� /,� V� – •.,,..�� �-' ,,�l.lr lour+► � �S1 �__ j . ///``J,, it l. oA:RVU 11110111:1. -- ,t oL__��I. 7_ A►.� io� l►\ T- '' raorl.• 111a1 Il.. I° ''l' v .,12s-'$r0 // t. �a.a.rl.o+v 1+t1W 11+U1 '' ° ^�� r l� r r' 110+ ��' 3=g-' �,u.0 t 11U111it1�11►j11r1�11;�i!`�'\ p r le N �'`< �,.,l�l -� 1100111 11p1'fr•.. _ ■s� 1 111 1111WIa1 t11�1�,. ” r ddd . / �w r ' ����1�t�lWt fillrU111,1�HyQaU+����C�sir.'�:�:�i';:,d;�•:rf;r� yS�ii�ilidlrlr11u11ti 3i�111`U111'1111111:0 ' � _ p 2•:' - -"'ji uo 1111 1 . tttit1 j114r11 1p11�1N1 w � ,lr:�� •,,as I �i!'r�ij! �-J-'���111\I`��'U 1{11111 111NIr ►'moi�a� ,,, I 111111 t i It1f11{S��r�.• � o-- IUrI 11t11a 0+1j1 ♦ ��..:;rrn,';rr:�.,.; p14 1111110 p I .�� I�d�rra� 0111 �� 11 101111 1p1� �_�r.,,B_rr_�_ ” 1•UH1al+llpr 11Ur1F;i•1_. �u.a r,. , � ,� _ J �'�o--v- NlI -1111 1111 �1U1►I11a11►111 irall►i1�: ��►'! 1'11 1p1a11tu Illllrl w.. f �'” Illal UIt4l1 1/1111 UI111 ,�Q�� N�f L111r1 111{111t1���ru••'r'••• ! r � / i%- urinnu a 1a1�a `��� !1.a 11:111111: a1r1�.�.� � l� .;r,�;,r '� 1�0 i3 I 41;... p , iiii'.,11/ ; �I �T��' 1111W► 1t11taU 0110- / . .j(,// /if.: :ai:11{111 itilif 11a �'� Ip11�1� U11111a:0• �.1� i nr p fly” `0 �� u111111r11�1\rIFFIJWI111N11i1 �aU 11f1� �,-�4 w il ��'u- 101alR1 1�;. Y2 � ! . r `'q{alpllr�U)1rU�1{11U111;d1t,Nr0111a1 `� �1Ur11t111U111�1,.•`-`-�� ``� ,��,�� �/=� �.rr�010�0�0r �' _�I mitt 1111i 0111 11111:11+1 it_l.��.i�$1fr , 'WWa r �S / I' _, _f 11 a / •±p�IWtl11 1A1rUt11a1[;11aU1111 11+1 11{►1r �?� Mr��i.`y� ��� a0 � V O • . {1111 111{11: 111111r111r11 O ���a�;���.'1 j1 , �� v�� 0, J'I Q� ��.����WU11tir11�i1tllltrvUl►t1�111!1•.. ° l ! i r►�� v __ �,•.. .. e _ _ il F., .4..8E r--r��1Up0 .• 4.0 -101,14,104,__ O�e , v1'CI �4>OZO . Oto r e. .l �_-.``ir4gi' N,_..gii^�A��Q �L7� O J.-ativol/ f 1 O �:a1+0` 4�pialOJ�� ow Lillie asN r v, ,.,/d[1'11 J. 1AI 1,42.1.-244-2:11.40.k. J .�.,Als1��a4.s�lief! l f >a° 1+ it (1 ri a . __- r:uv ��j, o � w , �I�J 1o. I do g { ! �:}i,,l i,, •i1C wCol,t,r1' �. f i w �' Cl' e�::l�Ibre/ t 1 a `INI/iii i j ' --': .` p.!; J tat I,re I '? •�, i ii O -_ rr j fit /;,eh � fir'” Io or�i ,- iaO 111/'11 (-_,,1741111 ") 1Z#'1 `�' %Pile `, " 7 elii® 01 I of1I'!'0 ►oa��`4., r r lip ce 4 `'OF 41 r' 1 ^ �` r►ii i /144/?ir � ��•so. .dry; p�,l , , - -, ®, ,�,1 f b�' O _= I�!l ��: �;''' �O� �1 _C� 11 ie ,SOD/ flyi„ IO ,lEr�► ' ~ o l;;, oil -..,_____vi- � Srs � st,, . , 1 r ° J . , kill) /0s, o• _� ti_ '�— QI�t4 ��, r / , I (� r'_ !0�/ Jr, �I / J I ----a�1 a '" ylwlO O _ / r/ON '� " r l/// /E - 0 O -1�S �� �.S — I --i i ��. _`° -', _ x911 , 1 m , S 4 _cp�l�fl� 'If•�1' I-9 ' /I ,e, 11 O I _�"lirsitip J '� I I I� J n t l �,� a 1 I I 1 e _irk1 / iii. itt fi IF'. rrl ► I I a 7 7 y i i / / I �.1iti 1 I „ 161 '` /',Ir - / u•r_f I I ��(_� II '. Ilii III r / 1 I f 1 1 1 ,,,5.„ / / / 1,lw I: 1�9�YjF� -• 1 0 1 ' // 1 i 110: •',11 /iii.:1;• : `_------ ---- _ ' /, ▪,' IlI r 1,1111 it i►I 5 ---- I/ / . /1/1 -- 1pi I 118' . 17 I '11 -1-1-E-------Th a = ,...At, . ____-j -- _ ri.,11 -- „ie . , iffvu 46; /6-7- iii 1 11, , 010 t, )16 A - tr, -- „,, ' Ir . set < 'gig/ i 4111110” . ° . ° ° ° . ° ° . • P\ 1 a ° a o a a a ° , 7,- . , lit .v, / LU Ct ./ ` 1-(.0 x' % 11 Or / _ / x S1/ r --' �j�j' ' OOFir ` 8 QW �x fir? , '`; m ¢m ppm Um -w o m OOW OW -"w /� w Jz 22 02 3a CC_..------ w0 , �r ^ti m2 O o w wtrz W rH w¢ ¢ P. .° Z a�w m"I aa�o omm mm �z W Ce F-cin i ital W ca LU 20 °��o '' Z 0>U (n ,, y C � � U CO W CD 'rte i� v ��� a `{ {i / .� 0 CL ` Af0� ' .'� - IV.i 111 ..) 1 B dpi 0 / �i�"�O O .....--_-- y0,. j :i Vikvil•y---4 i— �, do��e~, t, 11 j i M,��r off„ -� iiiiiItt*e^- Nirhglie,Thiu - la l 1 C4 �� �9 ` I;� A111 roit\ ja �� � ' z CI 4 ��I I �19� 4- +191► _-- 40, �1919j W _ o U `11 I 1110 ----' 0 'I\ 2 c. I, , w r _ ,,■■�I►�`: A 1ii �— r;1!', 0 _____-- Iv it 11 I '\ Y¢ Z Hb • 0 `\ 4c- 10\ 10ga p -- ����` I A„y. 1 tO cn n= v' 119 �� 4r1 d 1 -- X91►1 1111 _ '11 49 �l�1 j ►_-I-- I \ik%*LL1 X91►it : +1�+ a ' - 40. 1191► 1!_- it �t 491► _40 s 4 �1 p 0 .o, ��. C7 WZ a i, , , ; moi��ss Q s , ,E� z o 2 E - torv...0� . 1 I , 1 1 , Q U _, N W F-^epi '11.1) _��-_�, , �, J m z v .1 cc z z'01 O..:_off ._fp,� +e. cy 1 �I , ` rz IE Y ¢ O a o�ds_�. • to sf..„..„ : +Irl ��� I I o Z z o 2 w 5,11,!,0....--.--... - 'ws , _ I 10I O W s z W w �';� - 1 pw VV ¢SC! ct a-- , n 1 1 �1rL 1 0 �-qs w mIof w 0- �Cl1 1 ��T o a F ; p r 11 ' 1 � TY�. 0 ° P I-4 4CI� Ill CI)Li�� -- ��i' II�W L.- -- 11� +III I III I ���r��l °w- 0 401 LL 1 III ' II �1;� +I� 1 � 11 �� X1111 ' 4CI► IOM 111:111-- o �lZQ wco ?j T rr '_ % 1lCI! NI 0 F -p __ mr I �� azII ,�;EI ' , 11 , w �' o z Q z w z fa' n 1-_ I ,` Ire 1141► +1�1�,; T1� �:l 1"r:i �� • �� w (8 E 0 CIDi Irl - _ '' �1, �-- ��/E, I �:�"'' P 0 co W>x o • 1.1 W fl Ir -_ f -4‘51..40474;141 lIg r ,` r/f/ rt � r 1 Z I : �l 1-7-1 if ° elk" ce _iii gab, -fir 4111- _ . _ , Mr ° COa. / /40,04 il 114.4..".•41r. r ' 4/I 11 '�_ r ! r y rR _6�/ to I p.,41 �r gip .' i , z „ - ire ... I 7 (j Wifi till • r _ (4) / //01 I W Z I-1-1 -------71' et. ' 7.../,,,/''/,/ •i 1iR Q ili� //y z w �// /` ,' �' i'I/�/ *.,,,14', •1 2 p I- 2 W >W V/ , /�r"I *VA,'" ij U1 H Z NH Hca J} I 1 r �/�/ �� < i �� / li,/ip��Ir j � y ¢ z Y¢ Q 2 W }fir 5 r 'I /I �jJ I� %i�//,44A4 k* 1f �f,���'. � /`. // i�►,�.j-,.I - / �� m2 �m m2 =alum 4 /7/ i 0 Et r rr 01�: j r /1„, l00 Q , r ' r '7 r7-7----_-_-_-yi 4/40 ,„/// i , ---/-._......... L,...: 1/P.: 4 -- ... ,11/ / 600 i ��1�` If -�__ v J ; r 4 ,'- r ifl�� r, I/1� �� 44 r� z a Q. w. �44" �'l�/IE Itlp� --____Ji, �� ;,LTi �, w z z o , z ' A �� y r II yl ,rh5, . ¢ <n w p 0 O cn q w Uzo w o 4...,0_6. r �� � Z U m 0x mJ "�1 ¢ z pm ¢m Z - �' �- �,� ,.�w , < 0 w 0g xo ¢ow WU -- -� -`\-------\\ _� a0 > d1- W H o_1-z > 2 1, 1 Alp 1Z` F— ° a e a ° a o 0 ° t f` rs / i !\. -:.'// ' -41t , i 'i •) • \ 414t. . ,... ?d (} r 1\ .. .°/ ', ..i �__C • 1 1 I i f d i \) • 1 ' 5 '�'"11 • 1 tTA16 ( 11 ii "-...: Ill_ 11''P',.' ( , . iii _,. l ilk.' 1iI ir•I ' . ! _ T— ;..414 J�. ,ti *it • lie r- • * ' - '' . i Ir!,1: cl . )1' -. , C\ -, -1 , , \ ,,_ .. j. , v , . ,, lilt }, ' 1 - • .4‘. ' . • t. If:.1 ik •''''' I A ,-, r-1 - S I .1.- Li c',...,L i' -. ;1\ J' \ ,A ,,,L- , ,, 4 r ' -ii, ..,tr". , 1 f� ' S~ rIt / ..k: i I ' ' Cl '') . </-'. LP' ( . " 'f' '' — .1- • . 01,1 ,944 , . ., r, ), t ,,,crlit ...., di," ., lic, „ . i '.1 V l'i-- P _6..7 -pt4,- ' . . ' ,..., ' -- . - so: t " . .. ,,,- _.,,, - - / . , - ,, , 'Ct. TV k.,- 1: , 4 - a i AA, ---X. ,-i \ ,' r: �1 , . f (I , i-i, • 4.p/11, .--' ago' - , ,..., , , I -*IS4 i. I I a r * �- #- .47L>.,. :., - .. . 44...(1_ - .... ,,,,„,,s _. , f rl , �' r 1 tar Clietf,, ; 11'kcgli: 1.. '' '1,..4 :.11P.kra . ,‘'0416 ii (*; '\ ..# . mi ;'1' t! It) "•� a 4 ,� : gid . • IV, 1. \ '4 1 ( ' ' / --• 1101VN. ... 1„.• , ,,.10 , `.. • 1 i ; It I }j "7,Lfr#;;' J,l�,,` I , ./ —p-- �rY �.cr. ,•f i 1 I • r 6 1.t.1 LIJil �� •14* ={Y , ..!,20)? / , �' , I' I Ai. 4- .'It fit` I N t \\' t . i \ . % 1 t 1/1.1't A., C ,c)•,-.1'.10/•Tr-EArr :r.- ,'"1- i- ' c '. .:A -, 4\\ - i ,1 1 V 777 f �L i- ' C *!r i: y: \ a , 1 rI r A, I , 1 ' "-/ C'111 I ') 1(` ---..P4 . ' it ‘-‘.I.-1' Tai • '' 'el . ' I. 'I , a �' .S:,/ •t s� ` '*j�r r , Illi.'1 tr jj ' ti 11 , .tR ti• , • Tt• .4.r.I,A '' , �- , I � ,t-1 i, i 4,r r 4tI� r ,� 14 ; Yt., . �` .t ' "1.44 \ '4, "1 1lot, 1 .ilr .......• . , , , ripc.1 0... , i *". , ,4 . 1 si ':. , 1111 lio , l'-cfo' ,) . A • -kr.ii-v..-,i'kiir . ,....., , , i, , a • • .+r. r it. r , I! I r �' { 1 1 ,� , i , ,=.4, i 'di i ,, .. ;IP: 4 1'4 ,44., , - _ ,....,...-- . 1911.-i' . F' . - 4 i 4.4 t., 1 i - ' 4i . \. • • r . •i.O •f • 4 . 1 r �, , , r + ' i I f, if 1 . t ' a , 4.144—'.1 M ‘ . dig ,, \.k ii, •Y 1 ..'it kiii'" ' 4' ). 4 •! n , _ti) U x.1 I ww z ag M r O U n ....1Z1;', LZ, 0 ,g13st -, ceF a p. o x�°t E u,Ce CC c N $ J 72ejg "`r. W u_ 2 W o X M ��L is-2Q4 9 g 1 0 o ° Z CL tao O j ��-, W Q acv Q a LII w E.,9:i72 d Z • 6 y o o i6 , i z' I rBa a2 i N g2 1 a 1�. i;Y1.1.1.P /• ' 1 ,•, (------- ,, 1 _ lbw , .,/ , ......„r- 1 I ° - ---- _...• \ \ \ \Li-_ ,- ,444104 -- ( /y,,-"' _lJ 1 � - t1 i tII i // / ... '.. 042P—W-- -- VA, i §r r- _ -- , '- \ \\ 1 \ II ; /I/ I' .----- _ _ ,----________ , \-5 — frglit--- . 41 . 11110. I - . / \. It. , _ ,j � • 000 -.....0A. . _ . •,,,• , / / I , , % f ''_ t \ \ / . • 'c ': s`�l`1 F F ► � t:!3i rL• _.a, • .. � tTi7 �• I I ;4 b i C._•, .'.-.-I-. 4- -1,— ,., rfg ° 1, F c ^`�• fl - J�� ..►4 t 111 R .,����\ �• w 7 ,ti *VA • ,___ -vc — ...1.„„,._,.. . ,., 14.. •, • .• . _0, ID If L---__ W / h< r I / � o tie V ..ti �• ew yY , r K `<.. ,+• A\\ ( `1 !,Y., 1 _ ]l r /r aS W F fir./ I KKK , w ch • �G `1 1\ C "(11j a i 1 `I+ [. i► 4. F 1-'y 1 �Ay. . 'It �''! ( _`_ill 1 .ii r 4 e. . I `n.- �y 0 - , 4 ,�!1r !f I i • ' . f — .,4 ..., .____;• - ,/ / /L : /LI .1.1 ... 4.! v aq� ^l i / / J ti I o ' - 1'f dribi4°1111 /H.... ° 4 , sli, 1 r __ ____- ,.,___. , . /42 d it _`� ! �l 7 i w3, I I J l� h ,,,iii 1. 1 4., ':.• i' t4a _ • `'�•�.� 1 1 / / /� pg, 1 eV.i — � _" -- .�' i 8 1 I . V / a b f 7 ;/ , 419 i_ ' 1 Y 1 /f 11' 1 Ill 1 ' l l` A a l IViF /I/ // / lg O § ' / / / /b f_.7. I +4111-----"-----:— I / / / / _ r /// / a o ° e ° IS II i1 a a a a a a a a a . F NU CO VJ U w LU /� ` I-- CO W � I I .9,- i. m= O /LL, ,7 Qw to I n /l/ } Y s C2 Y U) a I wui w� AI 1,j / , - z . � OS 0 = I 3a ¢mow r;.. -\ / aa. aH F- a.. 20 Oman mm MI 0 o_ wf- Owl it X w m _ --14f. _-- ��.� :I�`1 f _ - ' a •I m a 1, 14 't, -------- \. , 1 , -fir 7, ( .7,-5::- - I,' ' .1- lir / _ _ , . l ' 1 \\kH ~�-`""V'-^`III1 11a. 1 Ia i ----\ __+I w_ 11 \\\ v+-' ...� � — _ III LIJ a, I , , , sr .s•` � ; p a0 �n W 1 t1 I--- ,-- , _ - II �' t'. \ `� \ o < o_., w 2 J w V F .–\ } 4 F. } pLuu_ zz I- - r v V) 1\ \! cil, _., 2 a3 rril I \_________ li I 11 ' �'�" \sl, _ ovals = m � m a= 'tom <Co - ---- \ , ; I l --\--- II\ 1 \ _--\------ --- \ ... . ,.----- \ I 1\ I 1 1 -t' r �' 11 �I ----" 11 1 t' e'44 9 I l Z I.\------ . \_ _.___._. ......--- — ,,, , < X a. Q b --/ '� , \ . 'I `" hb 11 �I 1 I..,�~� I z ,a 1 ° U WZ W0 Z I-GIw ' _. _._._ .-r C Q O Z W m LT-1T ' I---I-\ \ dIP' � w z} � pj Q o m x�a u) Z� I u. l z w „`I- 1 II/ Q Ili 7 I , I / I f i ~ a ° Q C.) I //) / 1 -§ _1 a z aa. 1.- / .- cr 2.41/.._____ �` � rlf 1 1 „� 0 g 0 II: W I `--� l ' `-�. I �' p Z Q Z d Z „ ..._ ,.......,_ > < Rw . `! j � ;l x Om w > � w0 a �� - ” 7 ------7-- , ///::::::)----:-..'- f "`1 /r -\` ._ i 1 P.'. f ,-, r �l Th/ -�_;�� 2--ly L._____________[______J` I '�.�.1 ___ �y''_� •.Ir . ��` \ Q °ti-..--_-.`,�- ;/fir it tea. i CL'-17------- - o a . Q o 1 r C/) H Z u)H I- wJ W 1 CL ,;,/ i i' I! YfxQ QZ "R" _.t Q � I- w / -------/--------._ / ------,,,,i''..7-'r '''''...."----, '''' , -,.... '1----/--__, / / ,--/ 1.'. /- . . Z ���_ r 1 /, /1 .4., .._ . d �� ! �l lrl�� // � z o §w co ill z z --._. -� r , , �✓ w W V z O w w . �J I- Z Z U J W _ = Z U LLL/ ��r - k F 00 to ? to -6 w U , LL _ �.�m1 ao aI w/- aI- z > a. W IN 1 LI m 4 x I I- >.ZO � � al z as COAi 0 „ �,,, iy`�^OOY 9 D L u F' 'c ¢O > i• u•w g N Q o O U XdF C a 0 ;`:.. q < , a' II�lj1 1 —----4`- —aArSe6Ya \—---- �' ii 0 !#r' ''' ^ ..111 f`r' �a . ;IiIlIp 1 S. t 111111 11 V M / 111ii 11 I/. 11! ill 1 111 i Ir.! r.. sii.t Y 51"{ . Air, , ` til 111 F+, _ •,:tuilli i '` rMINIM ; ':`, *Ntr I— ..--___,I. 11 I�,, R yy 011014 �11i1h +� S � IV 11.1111111114, in A � f3 .'fir, �'� 1•��1 9i;.t'-., c A•d II;- . £� L X11111 ;;o- ,4 r 111 k ia ! m,1ccj—oo g 1- 1ii 1 Illlld , I1 J�AeW 0 ,4 ,1 — - . S of� ,'' �F 11'1'11'11%11 ± "` 4 l vW a1111a1 t1'I �` ✓ol eft/ p iy, �� :S s ra V--.. .� l 111;111111A�d {4y 1, t i C7 Ci it_'---1� Y �;. 0 } _tet.. ,� A11111t11/-..�. Q!9 r, ., '7� t 1 1� \� r —� IY i X '1 '• 1 1 0.�'I i A 5016, r Sz 0 F1 co wl ` I w 81la ice Q. o 14-'i i ♦ 4 O i vi f 1111111 11 ,� -J $zd 111111111 1 ` k 1zr 111111111V' w � 11 ; E IIIr54 ca 111 o 0.1.0,11,1ioasoaoaa 1 1 O V 0 Ii > 0, w iiill' f i ti 4 .0.,. 11111,,1,:: 1 1I1 " • �ii11ir I 11111:�1111..� ONO- 11 .A,. •-'r►/ Ail I11 I- :I __,..._„......____cam___________ __— *1# $6 ,� 'S `ter 111111111 x 11 a 1.. g �',� 11111 a 3 II IY 11111 Y i Cl) II 1111111111► . j... g Y 2 a s 't Z of ' -.. �,. r. i `py `�i1s d, g S-'ifs f ix of Ah .f 't;,, � l I a 1,rti. . t a y — a •` it. if .04 a , q'1 l - Q§ co b �`2., I 4 tn` z0 E., 4 N CC I ,, • p cc a JAL �I. 1 4 Z h * I. 4 co a' W Jr .' O ,, ;valor-. -- r 0 a 4 I 6e6tlT , ,,.�. 161.11.01.011.11111 ` LYIPB t, • ilff 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 a 1>a >- - 1 _J 2 c) LU 0 4. z (WI) ED 10 0 \ LO LO 0 N- 7-- Z CC1 1— < 0 gc. P-0 —Jo t:DID "4.4. CI ”0-,0 L ,0-9 00L• .0-.0 l• —— ———————— _ c2) •• C•1 C • 4 • , • ------ I , 01' i7r) 9 o .,0-.9 00-,9 „0-,0 0-OL 00 < z 0 cic- Z 0 < EFJ (1 2 > u_ D Et _1 2 < > W LLJ a— 0_ } vi ^' Q M W N J 0 + .65z • 0 0 X N N O N- r Q 0 zw 03 I0 Z F JO a r / ' ,.0-.9 „O-,OL ..0-,06 O "Apr •.P: Nir,r7 _ ++. z o 0- ��0- 6Z 0 ,bE 0 ,0 6 / / O-,OL L.L 0 II_ __I J I- U ° Z OQw D W < J - Q 0_ w -r O Nr) D o CO O a Q w o ( Co Z O d' N O N- � Z W CO I- 0 0 � - Z .10 o-s .0-49 a/ 0 ,.0-,0z ..o-,sz t .,0-,0 b c...)9\ \ 7_---______.r.7 \ O \ L 1 I-11'- O41 M f 4 1 N 1 , I \ N _ 1 \ 1 1 L. Zo ♦* ii m i. +• • co '.444 04 b \ I a. -4° 8 Th)�:•A.+♦�I/ 1 o Ft% .arA 1 co I U) CV • z I / IM \ f 1lII N I \ I 1 II O . ? b r sl - ..0-SZ ,,0-.01. ..o-� ..o .oz ..o- A / ..0-.09 z Ct0 O LL J J Qz 1- U ° z - OQw lL D Q - Et -J 2 W Q > I— < _ wH CCLI0 } W vi JO J a8 O fY H ' D J in_ U c Uo N � a. OCilI: 4O 0 z Ill Ca O G z � o ICC 0 / ..0-.bZ / / / 'NIW„0-,01 ..0-SE ..0-.8Z ..0-SE ..0-,01 9 Er) 1 \li -C:::.............] k . .. if a. < - t \ / 1\ J--- I !co I .'VV �� .��♦ 1����♦ I - :A 14 X ' :77 i' --�-- �- . i 'i , ♦moi♦•♦ zo —rte C r. ��♦� ►. ..�� ' C,., 4 - - 4 - '•��� �t ,_ J i / t : m - -- -- J ��•� �Z•� l 1 , / N I Z-I a. . �:�: Q in J J ` I in ��♦ ♦ • _ Jam, I co o\ N--\ _1_1 0 E0 /'NIW,.0-.01/ ..0-.SC / ..0-.8Z ..0-,SC /..0-.01/ / ..0-.bZ l Z I 20* J Qz HI r W vi il 0 1- u) O D Ts- J 1- 0 0 7 co U N o -q' N CL O N- 4 r Q 0 z w m 1- 1 Z 11 JO a to ..0-,00 6 Q .0-.05 ..0-,09 / / ! / / .,0-,a „0-.8E „0-.9 .,0-,9 ..0-.8£ „0-.9 ii=ID 1011 O r- MIIIIIM• -- 1` Oo I _ b I � N .- ) 0 I z I z v o\ N I J I Q = 0_ 0_ _ o o I _ 1 0 o \ 1 1 i C") a CO o I f\ l I '� A . J iv / \ j ` ! ' If I I o 1 f , / \ f I r__i L__. \"' \ I \ I r_v4.VW.V V'ili�r.? __ t...: ,.,A 6. .. , ititiit.i�i�'WV Zi40. 4�♦iii # I 11 \ l � \, � i I 9 0 1 I N V \V V ki 0 o I 1 I ih Q o \ �_ I M o N N < ) J \ a v__ __ __ _______ A / ! ! V / ! ! ..0-.5 ..0-,8E / ..o-.£Z ..o-,9 l „o-,9 ! 0-,05 ..0-,9 ! ,.0-.9 ..0-.09 / LL ,. ! / „0-.1301. ILL J J F- Q Z HI! v •