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.A 8/4/2014 Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3 Prepared By: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 COiNWi1274r1 11Pd_l ADDISON RANCH APARTMENT COMPLEX CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: Project Location: Project sponsor's name and address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) Surrounding land uses and setting; briefly describe the project's surroundings: Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements): Page 2 of 68 May 9, 2014 Addison Ranch Apartment Complex City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Elizabeth Jonckheer, (707) 778-4317 ejonckheer@ci.petaluma.ca.us 200 Greenbriar Circle Petaluma, CA 94952 Gary Whitesides GALA Construction, Inc. 2215 Plaza Drive, Suite 100 Rocklin, CA 95765 garv(acialaconstruction.com (916) 719-5902 Medium Density Residential (8.1-18.0 hu/ac) Planned Unit District The proposed Addison Ranch Apartments Project consists of a rezone, lot line adjustment, and site plan and architectural review. The rezone would change the current zoning designation from Planned Unit District (Greenbriar) to Medium Density Residential (R4); the Lot line adjustment would merge the 29 existing parcels (007-610-001 through 032) into three parcels occupying 17.92 acres. The project would result in the demolition of several carport structures and the existing laundry facility. New development would introduce an additional 98 multi -family units, new parking and carports, landscaping and ancillary improvements to amenities. The project site is surrounded by low density residential to the north and east. Immediately north of the site is East Washington Creek and the associated multi -use trail. To the south is city park (little league baseball field) and education (McDowell Elementary School) beyond. West of the site is a 5.85 acre parcel that has recently been approved for the Maria Drive Apartments, which changed the Land Use designation from mixed use to high density residential and will allow for the development of 144 apartments. Southwest of the site is Community Commercial, occupied by the Washington Square Shopping Center, and the Eastside Transit Center. BAAQMD for a J number in order to allow for demolition. Review of Hydrology by the SCWA. ADDISON RANCH APARTMENT COMPLEX TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................4 1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................5 1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING.................................................................................................10 1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................................10 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...................................................................11 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS....................................................................................12 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 3.13. 3.14. 3.15. 3.16. 3.17. 3.18. AESTHETICS.........................................................................................................................................12 AGRICULTURAL and Forestry RESOURCES.....................................................................................15 AIRQUALITY.........................................................................................................................................16 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................23 CULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................27 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................... GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................... HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................ HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................ LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................ MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................... NOISE................................................................................................ POPULATION AND HOUSING: ........................................................ PUBLIC SERVICES: ........................................................... RECREATION..................................................................... TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ......................... UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: ............................... MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................... 4. INFORMATION SOURCES: ................................... TABLE OF FIGURES .29 .33 ............................................................. -- ............................................................. 56 ...................................................... 63 ...................................................... 67 ........................................ 68 Figure1: Site Aerial..........................................................................................................................................6 Figure2: Land Use............................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Addison Ranch Demolition Plan.....................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Addison Ranch Apartments Site Plan............................................................................................8 Figure 5: Addison Ranch Apartments Rendering..........................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Construction Emissions...................................................................................................................19 Table 2 Operational Emissions......................................................................................................................19 Table 3 Construction Health Risk Summary ................................................................................................20 Table 4 Operational Health Risk Summary ...................................................................................................21 Table5 GHG Emissions.................................................................................................................................35 Table 6 Trip Generation Summary ...............................................................................................................57 Table 7 Summary of Existing & Existing Plus project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations ......... 58 Table 8 Summary of Baseline & Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations ....... 59 Table 9 Summary of Future & Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ................59 Page 3 of 68 May 9, 2014 IiR91T/CIcA9IAr0/e1I1II0I General Plan: The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008, serves the following purposes: • Reflects a commitment on the part of the City Council, appointed representatives and staff to carry out the Plan; • Outlines a vision for Petaluma's long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation; enhances the quality of life for all residents and visitors; recognizes that all human activity takes place within the natural environment; and reflects the community's aspirations; • Provides strategies and specific implementing policies and programs that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize impacts and hazards; and • Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as Development Codes, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), facilities and Master Plans, redevelopment projects, and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). General Plan EIR: CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues' (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(b)) and allows limiting discussion of a later project that is consistent with a prior plan to impacts which were not examined as significant effects in a prior EIR or significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the later project (CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d).). No additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and significant and unavoidable effects found to remain after adoption of all General Plan policies/mitigation measures. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the subject Project. The EIR reviewed all potentially significant environmental impacts and developed measures and policies to mitigate impacts. Nonetheless, significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under the General Plan. Therefore, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which balances the merits of approving the project despite the potential environmental impacts. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six intersections: o McDowell Boulevard North/Corona Road, Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, Lakeville Street/East D Street, Petaluma Boulevard South/D Street, Sonoma Mt. Parkway/Ely Boulevard South/East Washington Street, and McDowell Boulevard North/Rainier Avenue. • Traffic related noise at General Plan buildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intra -city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts. • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout to population levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, which is further discussed in Sections 3.3 Air Quality and 3.7 Greenhouse Gases.) • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant impact of global climate change. This environmental document tiers off of the General Plan EIR (SCH NO.: 2004082065), which was certified on April 7, 2008, to examine site- and project -specific impacts of the proposed project as described below. A copy of the City of Petaluma's General Plan and EIR are available at the Community Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California 94952, during normal business hours and online at httiD:/IcitvofDetaluma.neVcdd/t)lan-qeneral-i)lan.html. Page 4 of 68 May 9, 2014 3 -4 1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 200 Greenbrier Circle, within the incorporated City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California. The proposed project will implement Phase II of the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex by adding new buildings to the existing multi -family development. The existing apartments occupy approximately 18 acres and contains 224 units within 28 two-story buildings. There are currently 238 parking stalls, 224 carport stalls, associated landscaping, trash compactors, and amenities including, two pools, a 3,464 square foot clubhouse and a 1,512 square foot laundry facility. Phase II of the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex (Project) will result in demolition, remodeling, and new construction onsite. Demolition is limited to the laundry facility, 93 parking stalls including carports, and trash enclosures. Additionally, some areas of limited landscaping and concrete sidewalks will be removed and reconfigured to accommodate new development. There will be no demolition of existing residences. Also see the Demolition Plan: Figure 3 below. The project proposed upgrades and remodeling to the community area in the central portion of the site where the pool and clubhouse are located. The existing deck and enclosure will be removed and replaced with shade structures, planters, and BBQ islands. The existing clubhouse/leasing office will be updated with exterior modifications and the existing pools will remain. The existing laundry facility will be demolished and replaced with a proposed 2,137 square foot fitness center for the residents' use. A tot lot is proposed to be sited in the northeast portion of the central use area. Development of new apartments onsite will introduce 98 new two-bedroom units within 17 new two story 4- plex buildings (41,854 square feet) and 5 new two story 6-plex buildings (18,775 square feet), for a total of 22 new buildings onsite (60,629 square feet combined). The new apartment buildings will be approximately 277 feet in height to the peak of the roof. As proposed, new buildings will be spread out over the site, interspersed with existing residences, and oriented to provide ease of access, and create internal pockets of outdoor community space. Also see the Site Plan: Figure 4 below. The site is located adjacent to Washington Creek and portions of the 100 -year floodplain extend onto the project site. However, none of the existing or proposed buildings are located within the 100 -year floodplain. The nearest structure to the floodplain is the proposed apartment building located in the northwestern most portion of the site (closest to Maria Drive and Washington Creek). As part of the development, this building will be equipped with an underground detention tank and storm drain to convey flows to the existing storm drain system that drains to Washington Creek. Other onsite improvements include new landscaping, biofiltration planters, parking stalls and carport stalls, covered/secure parking for bicycles, trash enclosures, a trash compactor and recycling area, common area hubs with BBQ stations, and a security fence surrounding the project site that provides for gated access. Currently, the site has minimal landscaping, limited to turf areas, shrubs, and scattered trees throughout the site. The project will result in the removal of some of these existing trees (none of which would require replacement pursuant to the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 17 of the City's Municipal Code), the introduction of landscaping and the protection of some existing trees in place. As proposed the project includes landscaping that would result in 12 different tree species onsite, a variety of shrubs and groundcover as well as planters, pavers and limited interior lawn areas for recreational space (See LPI Conceptual Landscaping Plan). Existing site access is provided via Greenbrier Circle off of Maria Drive and secondary access is provided off of Park Lane. The proposed project includes gated access at all driveways and enhancement to the primary access off of Maria Drive, via Greenbrier Circle, through an entry/exit gate. The secondary access gates would be provided: 1) in southern portion of the site onto Park Lane and 2) in the northeast of the site onto Maria Drive. An additional point of access for emergency vehicles only would be provided by retaining the existing secondary access point off of Park Way through the use of a fire department approved "KNOX" keyed lock, which would prohibit public access, but allow for emergency vehicle access. Page 5 of 68 May 9, 2814 5 Pedestrian facilities include internal sidewalks and sidewalks along the project site's frontage to Park Lane and Maria Drive. Frontage sidewalks will be retained. Internal sidewalks will be reconfigured to provide pedestrian access while accommodating new development. Pedestrian and bicycle access to paths in the vicinity will connect to the adjacent Class I multi -use path along the Washington Trail. Project Entitlements: The proposed Addison Ranch Apartments Complex consists of a rezone, lot line adjustment, and site plan and architectural review (SPAR). The rezone would change the current zoning designation from Planned Unit District (Greenbrier) to Medium Density Residential (R4); the lot line adjustment would merge the 29 existing parcels (007-610-001 through 032) into three parcels; and SPAR ensures consistency with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to promote harmonious development. Figure 1: Site Aerial Figure 2: General Plan Land Use Legend Legend Addison Ranch Apartments Phase II Addison Ranch Apartments Phase II Medium Density Residential -: Project Site ...... Low Density Residential Mixed -Use = City Park Community Commercial Education Source: Google Maps 2014 Source: GP 2025 Figure 1-1 Land Use Page 6 of 68 May 9, 2014 Figure 3: Addison Ranch Demolition Plan Source: Sheet # A03 of Project Plans Page 7 of 68 May 9, 2014 Figure 4: Addison Ranch Apartments Site Plan .F, source: rroposec sne man sneer ff Nuo Page 8 of 68 May 9, 2014 -6'o Figure 5: Addison Ranch Apartments Rendering Source: Addison Ranch Apartments Site Plans Page 9 of 66 May 9, 2014 1.2. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The existing Addison Ranch Apartment Complex consists of APNs 007-610-001 through 032 and occupies approximately 18 acres in the northeast portion of the Urban Growth Boundary. It is currently improved with 224 apartment units and associated amenities that were constructed in the mid 1970's. The site is located south of Washington Creek, east of Maria Drive, and North of Park Lane, approximately % of a mile northeast of the Highway 101 East Washington Street interchange (See Figure 1 above). Existing commercial, residential, city park and education land uses surround the project site. Across Maria Drive, west of the subject property is a parcel that currently contains a 16,000 square foot medical/office complex that has recently been approved for redevelopment as the Maria Drive Apartments Project. That project included a General Plan amendment, which changed the land use from Mixed Use to High Density Residential (18.1- 30.0 hu/ac), a rezone from PUD to R5, and allows for the development of a 144 unit apartment complex. To the southwest is the Washington Square Shopping Center (zoned Community Commercial). Directly to the north is a public path adjacent to Washington Creek. Beyond the path/creek is a single-family residential neighborhood (zoned R2 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density residential 2.6-8.0 hu/ac). South of the subject property is an existing little league baseball field and the McDowell Elementary School, which are designated in the General Plan as City Park and education, respectively. To the east are existing single-family homes that are zoned R2. The East Side Transit Center is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site and provides nearby access to a transit hub. Figure 1 above shows an aerial view of the subject property. Figures 2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses as established in the General Plan Land Use Map. 1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the US Highway 101 corridor approximately 15 miles south of Santa Rosa and 20 miles north of San Rafael. It is situated at the northernmost navigable end of the Petaluma River, a tidal estuary that drains to the San Pablo Bay. The City originated along the banks of the Petaluma River, spreading outward over the floor of the Petaluma River Valley as the City developed. The Valley is defined by Sonoma Mountain on the northeast and by the hills extending northward from Burdell Mountain on the west. To the south are the Petaluma Marshlands and the San Francisco Bay beyond. Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines the limits within which urban development may occur and encompasses approximately 9,911 acres. The UGB was implemented in 1987 (as the Urban Limit Line), formally adopted as the UGB in 1998 via Measure I, and will expire in 2018 without subsequent action. The General Plan and EIR evaluated potential impacts associated with existing and proposed development within the UGB. The proposed Addison Ranch Apartment Complex (Phase II) Project is within the City's UGB and is part of the South East Planning Subarea as identified in the City's 2025 General Plan. The project site has been occupied with multi -family apartments since they were constructed in the 1970's. The project site is generally flat and is bounded on the north by Washington Creek, which is tributary to the Petaluma River. The 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), show the site is outside of the 100 -year floodplain, except for the northeast corner and northwest corner of the site, which are within the Flood Zone. In February 2014 FEMA released the latest FIRMS, which show that a portion of the northwest corner of the site is within the 100 -year floodplain. None of the existing or proposed habitable structures are located within the flood zone. Potential impacts associated with flooding are discussed under Section 3.9 below. Page 10 of 66 May 9, 2014 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Aesthetics x 7. Greenhouse Gas 13. Population / Housing Emissions 2. Agricultural & 8. Hazards & Hazardous x 14. Public Services Forestry Resources Materials 3. Air Quality x 9. Hydrology / Water x 15. Recreation Quality 4. Biological Resources x 10. Land Use / Planninq x 16. Transportation / Traffic x 5. Cultural Resources x 11. Mineral Resources 17. Utilities / Service Systems 6. Geology / Soils x 12. Noise x 18. Mandatory Findings of x Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I rind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which consists of this Declaration, the attached Initial Study and all mitigation measures contained herein, will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of May 22, 2014 through June 23, 2014. � 5.14.14 Signature: Elizabeth Jonckheer, Senior Planner Date ADDISON RANCH APARTMENTS, LLC By: ELF Sacramento Ventures, LLC, Manager Applicant Signatur , _ (/ Date By: Cristina Agra—Hughes, Senior Vice President Page 11 of 68 May 9, 2014 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following section addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment. 3.1. AESTHETICS Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; Addison Ranch Arborists Report, Prepared By Arbor Entities, June 15, 2013; and Addison Ranch Site Plans And Landscapinq Plans. Aesthetics Settinq: The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the South East Planning Subarea, which is comprised largely of one and two-story single and multi -family residential neighborhoods. The Subarea has an overall residential density of 6.9 units per acre and varies substantially in age, scale and design. The neighborhoods are arranged along tree -lined streets and are interspersed with schools and City parks. The Petaluma Municipal Airport and urban separator land occupy the northern portion of this Subarea within the UGB. Aesthetic and visual resources present in the subarea include limited views of open space and intermittent views of the Sonoma Mountains. The subject project site serves as a transitional zone with commercial, education, and city park to the south, and existing residential development to the north and east. The site contains 28 existing multi -family apartment buildings, distributed across 17.92 acres. Existing structures onsite were built in 1974 and 1975 and include apartments, a clubhouse, two pools, a laundry facility, and common space. The existing multi -family apartments consist of wood framed structures clad in wood paneling set atop a concrete foundation with an asphalt -shingled roof. The existing Addison Ranch Apartments have recently been approved for exterior structural modifications including the replacement of windows, doors and roofs, the enlargement of some of the balconies and modifications to the deck and stair railings. The cosmetic updates consist of replacing the existing wood paneling with Hardie Cement paneling, utilizing corrugated metal as an accent material, and introducing a standing seam metal roof. These exterior upgrades to the existing buildings have already been approved via a letter issued January 23, 2013 (Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review: File No: 12 -SPC -0635) but are not yet constructed onsite. Nonetheless, they have been described herein in order to provide context for the existing aesthetics setting. The already approved exterior modification will provide modern facades thereby updating the 1974 buildings onsite. Page 12 of 68 May 9, 2014 Less Than Potentially significant Less than No Would theroject: P 1 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in El ® El El area? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; Addison Ranch Arborists Report, Prepared By Arbor Entities, June 15, 2013; and Addison Ranch Site Plans And Landscapinq Plans. Aesthetics Settinq: The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the South East Planning Subarea, which is comprised largely of one and two-story single and multi -family residential neighborhoods. The Subarea has an overall residential density of 6.9 units per acre and varies substantially in age, scale and design. The neighborhoods are arranged along tree -lined streets and are interspersed with schools and City parks. The Petaluma Municipal Airport and urban separator land occupy the northern portion of this Subarea within the UGB. Aesthetic and visual resources present in the subarea include limited views of open space and intermittent views of the Sonoma Mountains. The subject project site serves as a transitional zone with commercial, education, and city park to the south, and existing residential development to the north and east. The site contains 28 existing multi -family apartment buildings, distributed across 17.92 acres. Existing structures onsite were built in 1974 and 1975 and include apartments, a clubhouse, two pools, a laundry facility, and common space. The existing multi -family apartments consist of wood framed structures clad in wood paneling set atop a concrete foundation with an asphalt -shingled roof. The existing Addison Ranch Apartments have recently been approved for exterior structural modifications including the replacement of windows, doors and roofs, the enlargement of some of the balconies and modifications to the deck and stair railings. The cosmetic updates consist of replacing the existing wood paneling with Hardie Cement paneling, utilizing corrugated metal as an accent material, and introducing a standing seam metal roof. These exterior upgrades to the existing buildings have already been approved via a letter issued January 23, 2013 (Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review: File No: 12 -SPC -0635) but are not yet constructed onsite. Nonetheless, they have been described herein in order to provide context for the existing aesthetics setting. The already approved exterior modification will provide modern facades thereby updating the 1974 buildings onsite. Page 12 of 68 May 9, 2014 Aesthetics Impact Discussion 3.1(a) No Impact: There are no important viewsheds or valued scenic vistas that will be substantially altered by the proposed project. The site currently contains 28 existing two-story buildings and the project will add 22 new buildings. Views of mountains, hillsides, ridgelines and scenic vistas are not readily visible from the project site and would not change with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to scenic vistas. 3.1(b). No Impact: The site is not bounded by, nor is it located in direct proximity, to a state highway and does not contain scenic resources. A limited view of the northwestern hills is visible from Maria Drive; however, the project will not interfere substantially with the existing viewsheds. Therefore, the project will have no impact to aesthetic resources visible from a state scenic highway or locally designated scenic route. 3.1(c). Less Than Significant Impact: The project includes the intensification of development within an existing multi -family apartment complex. Improvements include the demolition of the existing laundry facility, which will be replaced by a single -story, 2,137 square foot fitness facility, the introduction of 22 new apartment buildings spaced out over the site, and the reconfiguration of parking, carports, and landscaping. Additionally, the project would result in exterior modifications to the existing, wood -paneled clubhouse including alteration of the roofline, replacement of the roof, windows and doors and the addition of a trellis. The existing landscaping onsite, which is largely limited to turf areas, shrubs and trees would be modified to allow for improvements and would be replanted in accordance with the City's landscaping requirements including CalGreen Tier 1 compliant landscape features. All trash enclosures will be removed and replaced with new receptacles meeting City standards. The project proposes the addition of 98 two-bedroom units, distributed among 17 two-story 4-plex buildings (each 1,015 SF) and 5 new, two-story, 6-plex buildings (each 1,033 SF) with the intention of matching the scale and design aesthetic of the existing units which have been approved for exterior remodeling as described above, to reflect a more contemporary aesthetic. The architecture of the proposed infill units favors a contemporary design characterized by horizontal orientation, strong massing and a composite of materials and textures providing visual variety. The proposed buildings, bike storage areas, trash compactor and security fence use Cement Composite paneling, corrugated metal, and perforated aluminum panels that carry through the design of all new construction and act as unifying elements. The cementitious panels of a neutral palette act as the base siding material for the new units and are complimented by corrugated metal panels placed at the right corner of each unit. Irregular, metal, standing seam roofs add to the contemporary design character. The front and rear elevations of the new apartments buildings will feature a concrete and metal stairwell descending from the second story with a perforated aluminum railing, matching that of the first -story foyer. Also, see Figure 5, Contextual Rendering that illustrates the proposed design. The design of the proposed Fitness Center will mirror that of proposed multi -family apartment buildings. The use of cement composite panels, corrugated metal roof and aluminum anodized window mullions provides visual continuity. As proposed, the design of the fitness center is differentiated from the proposed apartments in that it is single -story, utilizes a more muted color palette, and has limited angular roof elements. The design elements will also be reflected in the new carports, bike storage facilities, entryway, trash compactor, and the security fence. The covered bike facilities will adjoin the existing and proposed carports and feature a tube steel frame and perforated metal panel above a corrugated metal panel. The trash compactor is housed in a structure featuring a corrugated metal roof above a metal gate with perforated and corrugated panels flanked on either side by exposed Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) wall. The already approved exterior enhancements to the existing buildings onsite and the proposed new buildings and amenities that are being considered as part of this project will result in an overall modernization of the subject Addison Ranch Apartment Complex. While the character will be somewhat altered from its existing conditions, the modifications will be beneficial in that they update outdated elements, achieve compliance with City requirements and standards, and are expected to provide an overall improvement to the visual quality of the site. Therefore, the project's potential to result in an adverse impact to the visual quality and character of the site and surrounding area is considered to be less than significant. Page 13 of 68 May 9, 2014 i'�� The project proposes a gated complex to enhance security. A 66" CMU wall and 50" metal security fence is proposed along Maria Drive and Park Lane. A wrought iron fence would be located along the site's frontage to Washington Creek and would contain gated access for Pedestrians to utilize the Washington Creek Trail. The existing chain-link fence along the eastern property line would be replaced with an updated in-kind fence. The design of the security fence along Maria Drive and Park Lane utilizes CMU alternating with wrought iron fencing and perforated metal infill panels. The main entrance will feature a wrought iron rolling gate with perforated metal infill panels. The entryway sign is proposed to include galvanized metal and steel channel frame with corrugated metal panel atop a concrete planter. A guiding principle of the Petaluma 2025 General Plan is to maintain a close-knit, neighborly, and family - friendly city. A tall security fence enclosing the entirety of the property encourages a self-contained development, both visually and figuratively. The fence could potentially result in a visual barrier that is both overly imposing and not complimentary to the visual character of the surrounding area which features unenclosed residential developments and open and unencumbered access to neighborhoods and services. The proposed security fence would be 5'6" in height and set back substantially from the property boundary. The fence along Maria Drive and Park Lane will be in alignment with existing and proposed building footprints, thereby retaining an open and unencumbered frontage along the project area roadways. The existing fence along the east property line that abuts with the residential neighborhood to the east will be replaced with an in-kind chain link fence with a height of 6 feet. Given the proposed design, location and materials of the proposed security fence, this element is not expected to substantially degrade the visual quality or character of the area. The security fence utilizes complementary materials, patterns, and colors that will be reflected throughout the Apartments complex and provide for visual continuity. As such, the proposed security fence would not substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the addition of the proposed security fence would have a less than significant impact on the character of the site and its surroundings. 3.1(d). Less Than Significant with Mitigation: The proposed project will introduce new stand alone and on buildings light fixtures associated with the new development onsite. Additionally, the project includes the replacement of existing building mounted fixtures and carport lights. The existing decorative post top lanterns located around the pool area will remain. New internal light fixtures consisting of a mixture of 50w and 100w metal halide forward and wide throw lights will be introduced onsite. Additionally, one new streetlight will be added to both Maria Drive and Park Lane. The project has the potential to result in new lighting associated with streetlights, internal stand alone light fixtures and wall -mounted lights on buildings. Although the project site currently contains internal lighting, new fixtures could contribute to the light levels onsite and potentially affect nighttime views in the project area. To ensure that new lighting introduced onsite does not constitute a significant affect development is required to implement Mitigation Measures VIS -1 and VIS -2 below. These measures require that all exterior lighting be directed onto the project site and access ways, and is shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties. Only low -intensity light standards and/or wall mounted lights shall be used (no flood lights), and lights attached to buildings shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall generate no direct glare. The project site is surrounded by existing urban uses with existing site and street lighting. With mitigation, the proposed project will not substantially increase light and glare onsite or in the project vicinity. Therefore, as mitigated, the project is expected to have a less than significant effect on the environment due to increased light and glare. Mitigation Measures VIS -1: To prevent light pollution, all exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways, and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties. VIS -2: In order to avoid light intrusion onto adjacent properties, all exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways, and shall be shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties. Only low -intensity light standards and/or wall mounted lights shall be used (no flood lights), and lights attached to buildings shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall generate no direct glare. Page 14 of 68 May 9, 2914 3.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as El El Elshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ ❑ ❑ Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in El El Elconversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Sources: General Plan Land Use and UGB; and Petaluma General Plan DEIR. Aoricultural Settinq: The project site is considered infill and is located on a previously developed site within the confines of the UGB. Although the UGB does contain limited agricultural land use designations, there are no agricultural preserves within the UGB. There are no forested lands located within the City of Petaluma. Agricultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.2(a -e). No Impact: The previously developed project site does not include any agricultural or forested lands or zoning. The proposed project consists of infill within an existing development and will not impact prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed infill project will not interfere with Williamson Act contracts or any existing agricultural uses. In the absence of forested lands there is no potential for the project to conflict with existing forested land zoning or encourage the loss or conversion of forested land to a non -forest use. The project will not interfere with agricultural or forest lands, nor will it serve as an impetus for the conversion of farmland or forest to an alternative use. Therefore, the proposed Addison Ranch Apartments project would have no impacts to agricultural or forestland resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 15 of 68 May 9, 2014 3.3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less Than applicable air quality management or air pollution control district Potentially Significant Less than No may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would Significant with Significant Impact the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El El ® El air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ M ❑ ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ M ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ M ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Sources: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," and " Construction Health Risk Assessment For. Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013; 2025 General Plan and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Air Qualitv Setting: The City of Petaluma is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), is subject to the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), those adopted by the California Resources Board (GARB), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is a result of natural, geographical, and meteorological conditions, as well as human activities, including construction and development, operation of vehicles, industry and manufacturing, and other anthropogenic emission sources. The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin, including the City of Petaluma. The BAAQMD operates a monitoring station in downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of Petaluma where it records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM2,5). The Santa Rosa monitoring station does not record PM10 data; information pertaining to that pollutant is obtained from the Napa monitoring station. The BAAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Division routinely conducts inspections and audits of potential polluting sites to ensure compliance with applicable federal, State, and BAAQMD regulations. The Bay Area Air Basin, including the project site, is designated as non -attainment for both the one-hour and eight-hour state ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Bay Area is also in non -attainment for the PM10 and PM2.5 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than 20 pig/m3 for PM10 and less than 12 pg/m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is designated as non -attainment for the national one-hour ozone standard. On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule that the Basin has achieved the 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM25) National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Thus, the requirement for the preparation of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM25 has been suspended. All other national ambient air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.' "2010 Clean Air Plan," prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010. Page 16 of 68 May 9, 2014 —\(o The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), adopted by the BAAQMD in September 2010, served to update the 2005 Bay Area Ozone plan in accordance with the requirements of California Clean Air Act. The Bay Area CAP incorporates updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and air quality modeling tools and serves as the framework for SFAAB to achieve attainment of the California AAQS. General Plan According to the Petaluma General Plan EIR (Air Quality — Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section), vehicle emissions were the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (59 percent), which is discussed further under Section 3.7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions). All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the proposed residential project, including the following: Communitv Desion 4-P-6 Improve air quality through required planting of trees along streets. 4 -P -15D Reduce emissions from residential and commercial uses by requiring the following: Use of high efficiency heating and other appliances, such as cooking equipment, refrigerators, and furnaces, and low NOx water heaters in new and existing residential units; Compliance with or exceed requirements of CCR Title 24 for new residential and commercial buildings; Incorporation of passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use for both residential and commercial uses, i.e., building orientation in a south to southeast direction, encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures, landscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; Encourage the use of battery -powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local air quality for nonresidential maintenance activities; 4-P-16 To reduce combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor of future individual projects shall encourage the inclusion in construction contracts of the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; Minimize idling time of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off- road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase construction of the project; and • Limit the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment. Air Quality Impact Discussion: 3.3 (a). Less Than Significant Impact: Projects that exceed regional employment, population, and housing projections have the potential to be inconsistent with the BAAQMD's 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Petaluma 2025 General Plan population projections are consistent with the employment and population projections forecasted by CAP and therefore are in conformance with the growth projections of the adopted air quality plan. Air quality impacts resulting from the anticipated growth and development of the City were addressed in the EIR for the General Plan, and the project is consistent with the General Plan uses and density. No new or increased impacts beyond what is already anticipated in the 2025 General Plan are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Page 17 of 68 May 9, 2014 The proposed Project would not exceed the level of population or housing foreseen in City or regional planning efforts. As described below, the net increase in regional emissions generated by the proposed Project would be less than the BAAQMD's emissions thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP and impacts would be less than significant. 3.3(b -c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Air quality emissions associated with the proposed project would result from short-term construction activities and ongoing operation. As proposed, the project is expected to involve overlapping construction phases and may result in the export of up to 71 tons of demolition materials. Therefore, a quantified analysis of the project's construction emissions was prepared by The Planning Center/DC&E, and is included in Appendix F. The air quality analysis was conducted using CalEEMod, a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gases associated with construction and operation of various land use projects, in order to quantify emission projection from construction and operations. Construction Emissions Air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities are expected to occur over a one-year construction period. Major sources of emissions during construction include fugitive dust emissions generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, workers and delivery trips. Air quality emissions generated during construction of the proposed project are expected to occur over the site preparation and construction period and will cease once construction is completed. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are anticipated as a result of ground disturbing activities that include building and asphalt demolition as well as grading. Such emissions are considered potentially significant without the implementation of BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMP). The generation of fugitive dust would be variable and dependent upon the amount and type of materials being demolished, moisture content and meteorological conditions. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2_5) downwind of the project site could potentially exceed state standards. With the adherence to BAAQMD's BMP as set forth in Measure AQ -1 below, potential impacts resulting from fugitive dust emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels. Project construction activities will result the emission of criteria pollutant due to the operation of construction equipment, delivery of materials, and workers traveling to and from the project site. CalEEMod was utilized in order to quantify the air quality emissions associated with the various aspects of construction including demolition, grading, trenching, building, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. The projected emissions from the proposed Addison Ranch Apartments project are set forth below, in Table 1, and compared relative to the BAAQMD thresholds. As seen in Table 1 below, all construction activities would result in air quality emissions that are well below established BAAQMD thresholds, except for fugitive dust emissions. As described above, in order to control for fugitive dust, best management practices (BMP) including site watering, covering haul trucks, limited idling time, and street sweeping, will be implemented as set forth in AQ -1. All other construction related emissions would result in minimal contributions of air quality emissions and impacts due to a violation of established thresholds or a cumulative contribution would be less than significant. Page 18 of 68 May 9, 2014 Operational Emissions The BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for average daily maximum (lbs/day) ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2s are the same for the project long-term (operational) emissions as for construction emissions. At operation the proposed project will result in air quality emissions that are typically generated by residential developments including mobile sources (from the use of fossil fuels in cars), energy for heating, cooling, and cooking, and equipment used for landscaping and consumer products such as solvents, cleaners and paints (area sources). The primary source of emissions would be generated from the operation of vehicles. At operation, the project would generate a net average of 652 new vehicle trips per day during a weekday. As shown below in Table 2, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the project will not exceed the thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Thus, the project is not expected to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations. Therefore, air quality impacts due to ongoing operational of the proposed project would be less than significant. Table 2 Operational Emissions Pollutant Table 1 Construction Emissions NOx PM10 PM2.5 Operational Emissions (Tons/year) Fugitive Exhaust Fugitive Exhaust Pollutant ROG NOx PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Demolition 2 21 <1 1 <1 1 Maximum Daily Grading 3 29 3 2 2 1 Maximum Daily Trenching 2 16 <1 1 <1 1 Maximum Daily Buildings 2 7 1 <1 <1 <1 Maximum Daily Paving 2 15 <1 1 <1 1 Maximum Daily Coatings 20 <1 <1 0 <1 0 Average Daily Construction g 12 1 1 <1 1 Emissions (All Phases) Threshold (avg. lbs/day) 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54 Exceeds Threshold? No No Mitigation No Mitigation No Source: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For. Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013. Operational Emissions The BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for average daily maximum (lbs/day) ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2s are the same for the project long-term (operational) emissions as for construction emissions. At operation the proposed project will result in air quality emissions that are typically generated by residential developments including mobile sources (from the use of fossil fuels in cars), energy for heating, cooling, and cooking, and equipment used for landscaping and consumer products such as solvents, cleaners and paints (area sources). The primary source of emissions would be generated from the operation of vehicles. At operation, the project would generate a net average of 652 new vehicle trips per day during a weekday. As shown below in Table 2, the net increase in operational emissions generated by the project will not exceed the thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Thus, the project is not expected to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations. Therefore, air quality impacts due to ongoing operational of the proposed project would be less than significant. Table 2 Operational Emissions Pollutant ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Operational Emissions (Tons/year) Area Sources 1 <1 <1 <1 Energy Use <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 1 <1 1 <1 Total (Tons/year) 2 <1 1 <1 Threshold 10 10 15 10 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Total (lbs/day) 10 3 3 1 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013. Page 19 of 68 May 9, 2014 —'g Air Qualitv Summary As described above and further substantiated in the Air Quality Report included in Appendix F, construction and operation of the proposed Addison Ranch Apartment project would not violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in non -attainment, including 03, PM,o, and PM25. However, a potentially significant impact was identified associated with demolition and the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities. In order to control fugitive dust the project shall implement standard practices such as a site watering regime, proper maintenance of construction equipment, and other BMPs as set forth in AQ -1 below. These BMPs will ensure that air quality impacts from construction of the Addison Ranch Apartments Project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project, as mitigated, will not violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. 3.3 (d). Less Than Significant Impact: Construction equipment and heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a toxic air contaminant (TAC). BAAQMD has developed screening thresholds for evaluating potential impacts from TACs associated with construction projects. These screening thresholds indicate that construction activities similar to this project could have significant impacts within 1,000 feet of nearby residences, with the primary impact being excess cancer risk. The Addison Ranch Project consists of infill development within an established complex that is located adjacent to a predominantly residential area to the east and north, and a recreational playing field and elementary school to the south. Construction activities have the potential to result in short term air quality impacts that could affect these nearby sensitive receptors as well as the existing sensitive receptors onsite. Sensitive receptors would have to be located more than 95 meters (312 feet) from construction activities in order to fall below the BAAQMDs screening thresholds for health risk exposure. Given that existing sensitive receptors will be present adjacent and in close proximity to construction activities a construction level Health Risk Assessment as well as a community Health Risk Assessment were prepared and are included in Appendices F. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was based on a maximum receptor concentration over a 1 -year construction exposure period that assumes a 24-hour outdoor exposure averaged over a 70 -year lifetime. Table 3 below shows that the maximum incremental cancer risk resulting from construction and affecting residents on and off-site would be an increase of 1.5 per million for adults and 8.2 per million for children. The findings of the HRA indicate that all sensitive receptors, including residents, the day-care facility, and Elementary school, located within 1,000 feet from the project site would be exposed to concentrations of TAC and PM25 that are below the BAAQMD thresholds of 10 in a million for a lifetime cancer risk, the non - carcinogenic chronic hazard index of 1.0, and the PM25threshold. Table 3 Construction Health Risk Summary As seen in Table 3 above, the project would not expose sensitive receptors in the project vicinity to substantial air quality emissions during construction that would result in increased health risks beyond established thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts due to the exposure to sensitive receptors during construction would be less than significant. Page 20 of 68 May 9, 2014 ) — ZV Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Chronic Receptor Adult Child Hazards PM2.5 Residences 1.5E-06 8.2E-06 0.04 0.22 Day -Care Facility (1453 McGregor Ave.) 1.5E-07 1.4E-06 0.009 0.05 McDowell Elementary School 1.6E-08 7.0E-08 0.001 0.01 Threshold 10E-06 10E-06 1.0 0.3 pg/m3 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013. As seen in Table 3 above, the project would not expose sensitive receptors in the project vicinity to substantial air quality emissions during construction that would result in increased health risks beyond established thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts due to the exposure to sensitive receptors during construction would be less than significant. Page 20 of 68 May 9, 2014 ) — ZV At operation the proposed residential development is not expected to generate localized air quality emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. However, new residents onsite have the potential to be exposed to toxic air contaminants released by vehicles traveling along North McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street. Additionally, one stationary source emitter, the London Pride Cleaners, was also assessed. However, given that this dry cleaner uses an alternative cleaning solution in lieu of perch loroethylene this stationary source emitter was determined to have zero cancer risk, chronic hazard and PM2.5 hazard. The two roadways, McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street, are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and combined, support over 10,000 average daily traffic trips. The traffic on McDowell Boulevard poses a cancer risk of 0.91 E-06, a PM2.5 risk of 0.028 and no chronic hazard risk. Traffic on East Washington Street poses a cancer risk of 0.95E-06, a PMIS risk of 0.018 and no chronic hazard risk. The thresholds for the on-site community risk are a cancer risk of 10 per one million, a chronic hazard risk of 1.0 and a PM2.5 risk of 0.3 pg/m'. As seen in Table 4 below, none of the exposure levels generated by project area roadways would approach or exceed the established thresholds. Therefore, new onsite sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial health risks due to project area roadways and impacts would be less than significant. Table 4 Operational Health Risk Summary As described above in Tables 3 and 4, no established health risk threshold would be exceeded during construction or operation of the proposed Addison Ranch Project. Therefore, the sensitive receptors onsite and in the project vicinity would not be exposed substantial concentration of TACs and impacts would be less than significant. 3.3(e). Less Than Significant Impact: None of the project activities are anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During the project construction period, some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel -powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact due to the generation of objectionable odors. Mitigation Measures: AQ -1. In order to assure that potential impact to air quality do not contribution substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices to control fugitive dust during construction activities. BMPs shall include but not be limited to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as modified below: 1. Water all active construction areas (exposed surfaces, parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. 2. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Page 21 of 68 May 9, 2014 Cancer Risk Chronic Receptor Adult Hazards PM2.5 London Pride Cleaners 0.00 0.00 0.00 McDowell Boulevard 0.91E-06 0.028 E. Washington Street 0.95E-06 — 0.018 Threshold 10E-06 1.0 0.3 pg/m3 Exceeds Threshold No No No Source: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013. As described above in Tables 3 and 4, no established health risk threshold would be exceeded during construction or operation of the proposed Addison Ranch Project. Therefore, the sensitive receptors onsite and in the project vicinity would not be exposed substantial concentration of TACs and impacts would be less than significant. 3.3(e). Less Than Significant Impact: None of the project activities are anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During the project construction period, some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel -powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact due to the generation of objectionable odors. Mitigation Measures: AQ -1. In order to assure that potential impact to air quality do not contribution substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices to control fugitive dust during construction activities. BMPs shall include but not be limited to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as modified below: 1. Water all active construction areas (exposed surfaces, parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. 2. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Page 21 of 68 May 9, 2014 3. Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 4. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 5. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, debris and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). 6. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. 7. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 8. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 9. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 10. Equipment staging shall occur as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors. 11. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 12. The Developer shall designate a person with authoritv to reouire increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the Citv prior to issuance of oradino permits. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of desionated person and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Page 22 of 68 May 9, 2014 -- ZZ 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified El ® El 1:1in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the El 1:1 ElClean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or El 1:1 Elwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances El El ® El biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation El El ElPlan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources: "Addison Ranch Arborist Report;' Prepared By Arbor Entities, June, 15, 2013; Holland's Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986); 2025 General Plan and EIR Figure 3.8-1: Habitat Areas and Special Status Species; Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan: Figure 6-1. Biological Resources Settino: Biological resources are protected by statute including the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey. These regulations provide the legal protection for plant and animal species of concern and their habitat. The Petaluma Urban Growth Boundary includes the Petaluma River, associated tributaries, grassland and Oak Savannah, all of which serve as important habitats for a variety of plant and animal species. Many of the plant and animal species within the UGB are recognized as special -status species, especially those associated with the Petaluma River and its tributaries. Also found within the planning area are species identified by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as sensitive resources based on their rarity and vulnerability to threats. Page 23 of 68 May 9, 2014 The 18 -acre project site is located in Petaluma's South East Planning Subarea and is currently developed with existing multi -family apartment units. The project site is bounded by a mixture of well established residential, commercial and institutional development with the northerly edge of the property adjacent to Washington Creek, which is tributary to the Petaluma River. As a result of the existing development on the project site and the residential and commercial development characterizing the surrounding area, the biological resources onsite are limited. However, Washington Creek, adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site holds biological value. Biological Resources Impact Discussion: 3.4(a). Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: As an established multi -family apartment complex, the project site does not directly support any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, of by the California department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and wildlife service. However, onsite trees may provide perching and potential nesting opportunities to bird species including migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META). As proposed, several of the trees onsite will be removed as part of the site preparation. Adherence to the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503 (protection of birds' nest) and the MBTA) will ensure that potential impacts to migratory bird species potentially nesting or otherwise utilizing trees onsite are avoided. Measure BIO -1 set forth below stipulates appropriate timing for construction activities to avoid the breeding season, or to conduct pre -construction bird survey prior to construction activities occurring within the breeding season. In order to protect migratory bird nests, should construction activities occur within the breeding season (between February 1 and August 31) a pre -construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, as required pursuant to mitigation measure BIO -1 below. With implementation of BIO -1, potential impacts to migratory birds due to the removal of trees onsite will be reduced to levels below significant. 3.4(b). Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site is currently developed with multi- family dwelling units, associated amenities, parking areas and landscaping. As such, the property does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The property is adjacent to and runs parallel along East Washington Creek, which is maintained by the SCWA and the City of Petaluma for flood control purposes. There is a Class I off-street trail adjacent to East Washington Creek that provides public access. The entire northern property line of the Addison Ranch Apartments complex fronts on the public path adjacent to East Washington Creek. Currently, there is a row of carports, interspersed with landscaping, and trash receptacles that are located within the 50 -foot setback area of East Washington Creek within the project site boundary. The City of Petaluma's General Plan Policy 4-P-1 is to protect the Petaluma River and its tributaries, including through program C, which is to create a minimum 50 foot setback from the bank of all tributaries. Currently, a portion of the improvements on the Addison Ranch property are within 50 feet of the bank and include carports, parking stalls, and a maintenance yard area. East Washington Creek is separated from the Addison Ranch site by the multi -use path. Accordingly, there is limited vegetation on the top of bank at this location due to the presence of the existing path. The project proposes retaining the existing carports, enhancing landscaping and perimeter planters, relocating trash receptacles, and introducing additional parking stalls along the frontage area to East Washington Creek. All trash receptacles will be replaced with City approved trash enclosures, and will be relocated adjacent to the apartment buildings, outside of the 50 -foot setback area from East Washington Creek. The project proposes the installation of new landscaping in between existing Carports and along the northern edge of the Carports adjacent to the East Washington Creek Trail including shrubs. The project does include the installation of approximately 13 additional parking stalls in the northeast comer of the site. These improvements will take place within the 50 -foot setback of East Washington Creek. The proposed stalls will replace the existing maintenance yard, are in alignment with the existing carport, and are located within the 50 -foot creek side setback boundary. These proposed improvements within the 50 -foot setback area would not result in a significant change from the existing condition. However, the introduction of landscaping within the 50 foot setback area has a potential to introduce new plant species that could complete or otherwise interfere with native species located within or adjacent to East Washington Creek. Page 24 of 68 May 9, 2014 '5 - Z A� In order to ensure that the proposed planting palette is consistent with the adjacent East Washington Creek trail and pursuant to BIO -2, that portion of landscaping within the 50 -foot setback of East Washington shall consist of native species. The proposed project will result in improvements that are consistent with the existing development and generally comply with regulations (CDFW) governing development near tributaries, which require the protection of riparian habitat. The project will not intrude upon the public access path or result in adverse impacts to biological resources potentially supported by the creek. In compliance with BIO -2 the project's landscaping within the 50 foot setback area to the creek will consists of native species. Therefore, the project's potential to result in impacts due to the introduction of invasive species will be reduced to less than significant level and the project as mitigated would have less than significant impacts to natural communities and riparian habitat as a result of development activities. 3.4(c). No Impact. No federally protected wetlands, including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools or coastal wetlands, exist within the project site boundaries. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. 3.4(d). No Impact. The site is currently developed with existing multi -family dwellings, landscaping and paved paths. The surrounding area is largely characterized by existing residential and commercial development. No migratory corridors exist onsite or in the project vicinity that would be impacted due to the proposed development. Although East Washington Creek is located adjacent to the proposed project, it is not expected to support migratory fish species. The project site is located within an urban environment. Thus, infill development onsite as proposed, would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to migratory species. 3.4(e). Less Than Significant Impact. The vegetation and existing trees located on the project site are predominantly ornamental and do not include any landmark, heritage, or protected trees under the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the IZO). In accordance with 17.055 of the IZO an Arborist report was prepared for the Addison Ranch Apartment project that surveyed all tress onsite, assessed their health and made recommendation about protection and removal. While over 40 of the existing mature trees onsite will be protected, a variety of ornamental, landscaping trees and shrubs (including, but not limited to: Cherry, Cypress, Pear, Privet Magnolia, Pine, Ash and palm) are slated for removal (Site Plan Sheet LP -2). None of the trees onsite are recognized under the existing tree preservation ordinance as protected trees. Nonetheless, in accordance with the City's Tree Preservation Policy the development plan identifies the location of the trees to be retained during construction and specifies the placement of temporary fencing, avoidance of foot traffic around the root zone, and the use of caution around existing trees to ensure they are not disturbed during construction. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and will not conflict with any local policies. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts due to a conflict in with the protection of biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 3.4(f). No Impact: At present, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan exist for the City of Petaluma. The already developed project site, located within a predominately residential portion of the UGB, is not designated open space and does not support any significant animal or plant habitat. Therefore, the project is not expected to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or any other Natural Community Conservation Plan approved by a local, regional or state body. Page 25 of 68 May 9, 2014 Mitigation Measures BIO -1. In order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds covered by State and federal law (California Department of Fish and Game Code and the META), the applicant shall avoid the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation between February 1 and August 31, during the bird nesting period. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a pre -construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees. Survey results shall be valid for the tree removals for 21 days following the survey. If the trees are not removed within the 21 -day period, then a new survey shall be conducted. In the event that an active nest for a protected species of bird is discovered temporary protective breeding season buffers that avoid direct or indirect mortality of these birds, nests or young shall be established. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation and topography and shall be determined by a qualified biologist to prevent nest abandonment and direct mortality during construction. BIO -2. All landscaping within the 50 -foot setback area of East Washington Creek shall consist of native species. Page 26 of 66 May 9, 2014 7j—Zv 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; 2025 GP EIR: CEQA Guidelines 15064.5; Cultural Resources Settinq: The City of Petaluma has a rich array of historic and cultural resources that contribute to its unique character and identifiable sense of place. Within the UGB there exist 14 Native American resources and 19 historic sites, 3 historic districts, one of which is of national significance, and upwards of 300 properties that are potentially eligible for listing on a local, state or national register of historic places. Such resources include buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, and objects. The distinctive character that exists as a result of the coexistence of new and old is encouraged through policies and programs that serve to maintain the unique character and cultural heritage of the City. The project site is considered infill and will occur within a previously developed site in the South East Planning Subarea within the UGB. The project site is not located within any designated historic districts, nor is it known to contain any potentially historic resources. The project site was first developed as Greenbriar Apartments in the mid 1970's. At that time, construction included mass site clearing, grubbing and excavation. During the initial development no prehistoric, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains were discovered and there were no identified historic or cultural resources on the project site. Given the absence of any historic or cultural resources discovered during the 1974 ground disturbance and subsequent development it is unlikely that any cultural or historic resources are currently present on the project site. Cultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.5(a). No Impact. The project site does not contain any identified historical resources and does not constitute a historically significant site. The project includes infill and the demolition of a number of carports, the laundry facility and the removal of existing landscaping. None of the features proposed for demolition include historically significant buildings, features or landscapes with an identified historical importance. In the absence of any historical resources, on or in direct proximity to the project site, there is little chance that activities associated with the project would adversely affect the significance of any extant historical resources. Additionally, the project includes focused infill development that will result in ground disturbance to less than 2 acres. There will not be substantial ground disturbance or earthwork required for developed. Accordingly, the project would have no impact due to a change in the significance of a historic resource. Page 27 of fib May 9, 2014 3 -Z -I Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect: P 1 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El 0 El significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique El 0 El El paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those El 0 El El interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; 2025 GP EIR: CEQA Guidelines 15064.5; Cultural Resources Settinq: The City of Petaluma has a rich array of historic and cultural resources that contribute to its unique character and identifiable sense of place. Within the UGB there exist 14 Native American resources and 19 historic sites, 3 historic districts, one of which is of national significance, and upwards of 300 properties that are potentially eligible for listing on a local, state or national register of historic places. Such resources include buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, and objects. The distinctive character that exists as a result of the coexistence of new and old is encouraged through policies and programs that serve to maintain the unique character and cultural heritage of the City. The project site is considered infill and will occur within a previously developed site in the South East Planning Subarea within the UGB. The project site is not located within any designated historic districts, nor is it known to contain any potentially historic resources. The project site was first developed as Greenbriar Apartments in the mid 1970's. At that time, construction included mass site clearing, grubbing and excavation. During the initial development no prehistoric, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains were discovered and there were no identified historic or cultural resources on the project site. Given the absence of any historic or cultural resources discovered during the 1974 ground disturbance and subsequent development it is unlikely that any cultural or historic resources are currently present on the project site. Cultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.5(a). No Impact. The project site does not contain any identified historical resources and does not constitute a historically significant site. The project includes infill and the demolition of a number of carports, the laundry facility and the removal of existing landscaping. None of the features proposed for demolition include historically significant buildings, features or landscapes with an identified historical importance. In the absence of any historical resources, on or in direct proximity to the project site, there is little chance that activities associated with the project would adversely affect the significance of any extant historical resources. Additionally, the project includes focused infill development that will result in ground disturbance to less than 2 acres. There will not be substantial ground disturbance or earthwork required for developed. Accordingly, the project would have no impact due to a change in the significance of a historic resource. Page 27 of fib May 9, 2014 3 -Z -I 3.5(b -c). Less Than Significant with Mitigation. There are no known prehistoric, archaeological or paleontological resources, human remains or cemeteries identified within or in direct proximity to the project site. As no such resources were discovered during the groundbreaking activity taking place in 1974, nor during subsequent site development, the proposed project is not expected to adversely impact any resources of archeological significance. Although the subject site is not located within any areas of elevated potential for the occurrence of archeological or paleontological resources, there remains a potential for archeological discoveries in the alluvial soils onsite. In order to ensure that any archeological resources encountered during grading are protected Measure CUL -1 requires that all ground disturbing activity shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the artifacts identified and recommend further action. Potentially significant archeological resources include, but are not limited to concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits, modified stone, shell, bone, or other cultural materials such as charcoal, ash, and burned rock indicative of food procurement or processing activities, or prehistoric domestic features including hearths, fire pits, or house floor depressions or other such historic artifacts (potentially including trash pits and all by-products of human land use greater than 50 years of age). Implementation of CUL -1, as set forth below, will ensure that in the event of accidental discovery the potential for the project to adversely impact or result in a change to the significance of archeological or paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.5(d). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation There is no evidence that any human remains have been interred within the boundaries of the project site. However, in the event that during ground disturbing activities, human remains are discovered, all requirements of state law shall be duly complied with including the immediate cessation of ground disturbing activities near or in any area potentially overlying adjacent human remains. CUL -2 below sets forth the necessary requirements need to comply with state and federal law. With CUL -2 potential impacts will be reduced to levels below that of significant. Mitigation Measures 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 or paleontological resource be identified a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall prepare a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction activities. CUL -2. 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: 1. The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted to determine whether cause of death should be investigated. 2. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. 3. The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified archaeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate. 4. 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. 5. 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. Page 28 of 68 May 9, 2014 3 -Z5 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect: P 1 Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact State Geologist for the area or based on 11 Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial evidence of a known fault? substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Refer to Division of Mines and Geology i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 11 E] Elother substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42. ii. Strong Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site El El ® Ellandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating El ® El El risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ ❑ ❑ the disposal of waste water? Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025: Chapter 10.1 Natural Hazards, and Figures 3.7-2 (Local Geology), 3.7-4 (Ground Shaking Intensity), 3.7-5 (Geological Hazards); Petaluma General Plan EIR; "Soils Report for Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by Reese & Associates, July 12, 2013. Geoloov and Soils Setting The greater Bay Area exists as one of the most seismically active regions in the Country. The City of Petaluma is located in in the San Andreas Fault system, which is 44 miles wide and extends throughout much of the North Bay. As the project site is located within the California Building Code (CBC) seismic zone 4, any new development is required to meet stringent CBC Standards. The nearest active fault is the Rodgers Creek Fault Zone, located approximately 4 miles to the northeast and the San Andreas Fault zone, located 16 miles to the southwest. The branches of the Rodgers Creek fault zone have not been historically active, but there is evidence of activity within the last 11,000 years, a relatively short time period in terms of geologic activity. No active faults directly traverse the UGB, however, potential exists for geologic hazards in and around the UGB associated with ground shaking, including: liquefaction, ground failure, and seismically -induced landslides. Page 29 of 66 May 9, 2014 7 - 2`1 In addition to seismically induced geologic hazards, expansive soils and soil erosion remain a concern within the City of Petaluma. Expansive soils that typify much of the Petaluma planning area tend to exacerbate many of the potential geologic concerns associated with development. Because the clay -rich soils that characterize low-lying regions and flood plains have a tendency to shrink or swell according to fluctuations in moisture content they hold the potential to damage buildings, utilities and roadways through gradual cracking, settling and weakening of foundations. To reduce the potential risks posed by the presence of expansive soils, the City's building code requires that any construction site that is intended for human occupancy and suspected to contain expansive soils be investigated and receive proper treatment to eliminate hazards associated with this soil type. Pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Petaluma Building Code, a site-specific soil investigation was performed by Reese & Associates on July 12, 2013. The primary geotechnical concern identified onsite include the presence of existing fill materials and expansive soils. Specifically, the presence fill material could result in, or encourage, total or differential settlement due to seismic activity. The existing conditions evaluation found the project site to exhibit a gentle slope trending towards the southwest with an average gradient of 1 % or less. The project site is underlain by discontinuous layers of fill materials including natural sandy clay, sandy silt, and clayey sand with varying amounts of sand to the maximum depth explored. The natural soils that underlie the fill materials consist of medium stiff, plastic, sandy clay soils with high expansive potential. Due to the project sites proximity to a major fault zone, the presence of highly expansive soils, and fill material onsite, the Soils Investigation sets forth specific design parameters to ensure integrity of proposed improvements. Geoloqv and Soils Impact Discussion: 3.6(a. i.). No Impact. The project site is not within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and no identified active faults traverse the site. The Rodgers Creek Fault zone is located approximately 4 miles to the northeast and the San Andreas Fault zone is located 16 miles to the southwest. Therefore, there is no risk of fault -related ground rupture during earthquakes within the limits of the site due to a known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 3.6(a. ii). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proximity of the City's UGB to the Hayward - Rodgers -Creek Fault Zone places it with Zone IX- Violent of the Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level. As such, the project site holds potential to expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. An earthquake in the Hayward Rodgers -Creek fault zone with a 7.1 magnitude has the potential to create peak ground accelerations up to or greater than 0.6g. The resulting vibrations would likely cause primary damage to buildings and infrastructure with secondary effects being ground failures in loose alluvium and landslide deposits or poorly compacted fill. Both the primary and secondary effects pose a risk of loss of life or property. The Soil Investigation found the project site to be classified as Site Class D. Site Class D requirements include recommendations for foundation types, appropriate structural systems, and ground stabilization strategies. The adherence to Class D Specifications will ensure the proposed infill units would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic activity. Conformance with standards set forth in the Building Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (the California Building Code 3.7-20 Chapter 3: Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures [CBC]) and the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 (the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) will ensure that potential impacts from seismic shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. Measure GEO-1 requires adherence to the California Building Code regulation for the project grading, foundation and infrastructure improvements in order to protect for seismic activity. Therefore, with implementation of GEO-1, the project would have less than significant impacts due to seismic activity. 3.6(a.iii). Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loosely packed, fine-grained sediment to a fluid like state as a result of ground shaking. Liquefaction can lead to total and/or differential settlement and is largely dependent upon the intensity of ground -shaking and response of soils underlying the site. Review of the Historical Ground Failures Map indicated that the project site is not located within or near an area that has experienced ground failure resulting from seismic activity. Furthermore, the Soils Investigation report found that the sandy soils present on the project site maintain sufficient density and contain a sufficient amount of clayey fines such that that risk of liquefaction is low. Page 30 of 68 May 9, 2014 Subsurface investigation determined that the loose sand layers typically susceptible to liquefaction are relatively thin and are overlain with upwards of 13 feet of non-liquefiable soil. This condition further reduces the potential for surface settlement manifestation and associated distress due to liquefaction. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact due to risk associated with liquefaction. 3.6(a. iv). No Impact: Landslides have been known to occur within Sonoma County, but are typically confined to slopes steeper than 15% and in areas underlain by geologic units that have demonstrated stability problems. The project site exhibits a very minimal southwest-trending slope with an average gradient of <1 %. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from landslides. 3.6(b). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site is currently developed with existing structures, amenities and landscaping, and as such, has been previously graded and topsoil has either been removed or substantially altered. As an infill project, within an already development multi-family apartment complex, development of the project site will require targeted site preparation and minimal grading. Accordingly, the project would not result in substantial loss of topsoil beyond what has already occurred during previous development activities. Site preparation will include targeted demolition, limited to one building, removal and replacement of existing landscaping, carports, curbs and sidewalks, and ground clearing for building pads. Any voids in the soil resulting from the removal of trees, vegetation or other features will subsequently be backfilled with compacted soil. Areas intended for grading will be removed to an average of three inches. However limited, construction activities may result in soils erosion if not properly controlled. Given the nearby East Washington Creek, increased sediment loads could result in a potentially significant impact. In order to ensure that potential impacts from soil erosion are reduced to levels below significance, mitigation measure GEO-2, set forth below, requires the applicant to submit an erosion control plan that identifies measures to be implemented during construction and establishes controls for grading activity during the rainy season. Implementation of GEO-2 would reduce any effects from erosion to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of GEO-2 there will be less than significant impacts due to soil erosion. 3.6(c). Less than Significant: The previously developed project site is relatively flat with a minimal grade and there is no apparent soil migration within the project site boundaries. No signs of soil creep or lateral spreading are readily apparent on or near the project site, nor is the project site located in an area known to be particularly susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse. The project site does not contain an especially unstable geologic unit or a geologic unit that may become unstable as a result of development activities. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts associated with the presence of a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. 3.6(d). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The soil investigation indicates that the clayey soils onsite have high expansion potential, whereby they exhibit high strength and volume changes in reaction to the seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. The zone of significant seasonal moisture variation typically extends to a depth of 30 to 36 inches below the ground surface. However, the range of expansion and contraction is dependent upon the percentage of clay in onsite soils and the drainage pattern, which may allow for moisture fluctuations at significantly deeper depths. The presence of highly expansive soils onsite and fill materials are the primary geotechnical considerations. The soil investigation report finds that existing fill materials, if not properly placed and compacted, could be subject to significant amounts of total and/ or differential settlement. As such, existing fills onsite are not suitable for foundation, slab on grade, or new fill support. Rather, the existing fills shall be removed (over- excavated) to their full depth. Excavated materials are expected to be suitable for re-use as compacted fill. In order to provide protection from the expansive soils onsite, the buildings shall be designed utilizing post- tensioned slab-on-grade floor and foundations in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute's Design Manual for Design & Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground, current addition, or the criteria set forth in the latest edition of the California Building Code. A vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E1745 Class C should be placed between the supporting base materials and slabs. The newly installed membrane will then have 2 inches of clean moist sand placed on top to aid in curing and to provide puncture protection. Page 31 of 68 May 9, 2014 Proper moisture conditioning is essential in managing expansive soils and to ensure proper performance of the foundations. Accordingly, GEO-3 and GEO-4 below require that recommendations set forth by the geotechnical engineer for site preparation, foundation, and maintenance of expansive soils are implemented. Prior to installation of foundations the soil engineer shall verify that soils have been adequately pre -swelled. Following grading activities all exposed soil areas shall be moistened and re -moistened prior to the placement of any moisture barriers. With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-3 and GEO-4, site preparation and foundation work will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the requirements necessary to accommodate the expansive potential of soils onsite, thereby reducing potential impacts to risk of life and property to less than significant levels. 3.6(e). No impact: The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system that would convey effluent to the Ellis Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. There are no onsite septic tanks proposed as part of the Addison Ranch Project. Therefore, there will be no impact resulting from the adequacy of soils to support septic tanks or other wastewater disposal system. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1. Foundation and structural design for buildings shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). GEO-2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan along with grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). These plans shall detail erosion control measures such as site watering, sediment capture, equipment staging and laydown pad, and other erosion control measures to be implemented during construction activity on the project site to reduce erosion and keep disturbed soils from migrating or being carried offsite, especially in the creek area. GEO-3. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations, and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the Soils Investigation Report and Update, as approved by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official. GEO-4. As deemed appropriate by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official all recommendations as outlined in the Soils Investigative report prepared for the subject property by Reese & Associates (July 2013), including but not limited to foundations system design and moisture conditioning of expansive clays and compressible soils to their full depth so as to cause pre -swelling prior to casting of slabs, are herein incorporated by reference and shall be adhered to in order to ensure that appropriate construction measures are incorporated into the design of the project. The geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Page 32 of 68 May 9, 2014 3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theroject: Significant with Significant Impact p Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013; 2025 General Plan and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Greenhouse Gas Settino: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the project level typically do not directly produce local or regional air quality impacts, but do result in GHG emissions that contribute cumulatively to global warming. Individual projects contribute relatively small amounts of GHGs associated with construction activities and operation. These small contributions from individual projects each contribute to the statewide cumulative GHG emissions. In 2009, California produced 457 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions. In California the top three sectors with the largest GHG emissions are transportation at 37.9 %, electricity at 22.7°/x, and industry at 17.8°/x. Combined these three sectors make up nearly 78.4% of the GHG emissions produced statewide. The regulatory framework aimed at reducing GHG emissions in the State of California includes Executive Order 5-03-05, Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375. Executive order S-3-05 signed June 1, 2005 establishes statewide targets for reducing GHG emission in California by achieving 2000 GHG levels by 2010, 1990 GHG levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 GHG levels by the year 2050. Assembly Bill 32, signed in 2006, directs the California Air Resources Board (CARE) to establish regulatory programs and measures that would achieve 15% below 2008 GHG level by 2020. Based on the latest projections, CARS has forecasted that GHG emissions will be 507 MMTCO2e in 2020. In order to achieve the 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, an estimated reduction of 80 MMTCO2e is necessary. CARB has implemented a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor large stationary source emitters and adopted a Scoping Plan that identifies specific GHG reduction strategies. In 2008, Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted with the intention of curbing GHG emissions by aligning regional long range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning. Specifically, SB 375 requires that CARB establish reduction targets for each of the 17 California regions that are managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Metropolitan Planning Commission (MTC) is the Bay Area's MPO and has a reduction target of 7 percent per capita from 2005 by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005 by 2035. On July 18, 2013, the MTC and Association of Bay Area Governments adopted the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP/ Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS), which establishes a development pattern for the region that when integrated with the transportation network, measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions to 10 percent per capita from 2005 by 2020 and a 16 percent per capita from 2005 by 2035, which is beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by CARE. On a local level, the City of Petaluma adopted Resolutions 2002-117 and 2005-118 (both incorporated herein by reference), which calls for the City's participation in the "Cities for Climate Project" effort and established GHG emission reduction targets of 25% below 1990 level by 2015 for community emissions and 20% below 2000 levels by 2010 for municipal operations, respectively. In addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. Page 33 of 68 May 9, 2014 3-�� This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P-27, which calls for the preparation of a Climate Action Plan. General Plan Goal 5-G-8 calls for the City to "expand the use of alternative modes of mobility serving regional needs," and is being pursued and implemented in part through the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Plan, which will provide light rail commuter service to Petaluma. The light rail is estimated to take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming, by at least 124,000 pounds per day. Furthermore, the City has established goals related to sensitive growth and development such as 2-P-2 which encourages the efficient use of land through infill development at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. In November 2010, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). The California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC) adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standard, which are in effect as of January 1, 2014. All new buildings constructed in accordance with the new standards will achieve energy efficiency that is 25 percent greater for residential and 30 percent greater for nonresidential relative to the 2008 standards due to enhanced windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems and other features that improve energy efficiency in buildings. All new development within the City of Petaluma must comply with these standards. As such, new development is expected to be more energy efficient, use less resources and emit fewer GHG emissions. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted revised CEQA Guidelines, which included thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The Guidelines were subsequently updated in May 2011. The BAAQMD Guidelines use a three -tiered approach for setting a significance threshold for the project -level contributions to cumulative GHG impacts. Based on the BAAQMD Guidelines, a project is considered to have less -than -significant GHG emissions if it either: a) Complies with a legislatively adopted GHG Reduction Strategy which meets or exceeds one of the following three options: I. Reduces emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, ii. Reduces emissions 15% below baseline (2008 or earlier) emission level by 2020, or iii. Meets the plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT COze/service population/year; b) Emits a total of less than 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year; or c) Emits less than 4.6 MT/service population/year. Metric tons per capita for service population per year; service population includes residents and any employees. The 2010 BAAQMD guidelines define a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy as one that has followed an approved protocol, has been adopted through the CEQA process by the local jurisdiction (or similar adopted policies, equivalent), and includes enforceable measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, or 15% below a 2008 or earlier baseline with a plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e/service/population/year. In 2007, the City prepared a revised Air Quality section for the General Plan EIR to address greenhouse gas emissions. Appendix A of the 2007 Revised EIR includes all of the applicable policies from the General Plan that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The General Plan is not considered a "qualified" GHG reduction strategy by the BAAQMD. As such, BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2e/yr) is used in this Initial Study to evaluate project level significance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 3.7(a -b). Less Than Significant Impact: Impacts from Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are assessed using the BAAQMD's 2011 CEQA significance thresholds. In addition, the following discussion also evaluates compliance of the proposed project with AB 32 GHG reduction measures, and General Plan 2025 measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. As described above, projects proposed in areas where a qualified BAAQMD GHG Reduction Strategy has not been adopted are reviewed against a screening threshold of 1,100 MT carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2e/yr). This threshold generally corresponds to the project sizes set out in Table 3-1 of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Page 34 of 68 May 9, 2014 The screening size for GHG emissions is 78 dwelling units for an apartment complex. The proposed Addison Ranch project size is above the screening threshold since 98 infill units are proposed. As such, a GHG analysis was conducted by The Planning Center/DC&E for the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2011.1.1 was used to predict net GHG emissions from demolition, construction and operation of the site assuming full -build -out of the project. CaIEEMod provides emission projections for transportation, areas sources, electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, electricity usage associated with water use and wastewater discharge, and solid waste disposal. The results of the CaIEEMod GHG emissions estimates are set forth below under Table 5. Table 5 GHG Emissions Category Construction 30 -Year Amortized Construction Area Sources Energy Use Mobile Sources Waste Generation Water/Wastewater Total Operational Phase Total Operational Phase without Waste Bright -Line Threshold Exceeds Threshold? GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year 197 150 501 21 18 695 674 1,100 MTCO2e No Source: "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/ DC&E, September 2013. Construction Emissions BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction -related GHG emissions, but requires quantification and disclosure of construction -related GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction activities are short term and would not significantly contribute to cumulative GHG emissions. As seen in Table 5 above, GHG emissions associated with construction were estimated to result in a total of 197 Metric Tons (MT) of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO21). These GHG emissions would be generated from all construction activities including the operation of construction equipment, hauling truck trips, vendor truck trips, and worker trips. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction - related GHG emissions, therefore, this Initial Study considered the limited scope and scale of construction, as well as the fact that even when construction emissions are considered within the total project emissions per Table 5 above, the emissions would not exceed the 1,100 MT threshold. Based on these factors, the proposed project would have a less than significant impacts due to the emission of GHGs during construction. Operational Emissions CaIEEMod and project vehicle trip generation rates established in the Traffic Analysis, were used to predict annual emissions associated with operation of the fully developed site. At completion of the proposed improvement onsite, the GHG emissions are projected to be 695 MT of CO2e per year, as shown in Table 5 above. The projected GHG emission level is below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT of COZe/yr. Therefore impacts to air quality resulting from GHG emissions at operation of the Addison Ranch Apartment Project would be less than significant. Consistency with GHG Regulation and General Plan 2025 Measures The applicant is required to comply with the CalGreen Building standards and 20'13 Building & Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted the GreenPoint Checklist and has committed to achieving 82 points, which exceeds the 50 -point target needed to obtain a GreenPoint Rating. Therefore, potential impacts due to the generation and emission of greenhouse gases would be less than significant under project implementation. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 35 of 68 May 9, 2014 5-55- 3.8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lass, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 1:1 El Elurbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Hazardous Material Settinq: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) defines a hazardous material as: "a substance or combination of substances that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: 1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed." Page 36 of 66 May 9, 2014 7, 1 5 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ proposed school? d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard 1:1 El El Mfor people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lass, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 1:1 El Elurbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Hazardous Material Settinq: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) defines a hazardous material as: "a substance or combination of substances that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: 1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed." Page 36 of 66 May 9, 2014 7, 1 5 Regulations governing the use, management, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste and materials are administered by Federal, State and local governmental agencies. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list, also known as the "Cortese List." There are no known Cortese sites within the City of Petaluma. At present, the hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (COPA), under the auspices of the Petaluma Fire Department manages the acquisition, maintenance and control of hazardous waste by industrial and commercial business. Hazards/Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion: 3.8(a) Less Than Significant Impact: Site preparation, construction activities and transport of materials may result in the temporary presence of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to: fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, insulation, electrical wiring, and other potentially hazard materials associated with construction. Although there may be potentially hazardous materials onsite during construction the applicant will comply with all existing federal, state and local safety regulations governing the transportation, use, handling, storage and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Once construction is complete there will not be onsite use or generation of hazardous materials other than common household hazardous waste. The applicant shall comply with all federal and state regulations as overseen by the Sonoma County's CUPA. In the event that construction activities involve the on-site storage of potentially hazardous materials a declaration form will be filed with the Fire Marshall's office and a hazardous materials storage permit must be obtained. The due compliance with Federal, State and Local regulations described above will ensure that hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials will be less than significant. 3.8(b) Less than Significant With Mitigation: The existing buildings onsite were constructed prior to 1980 and potentially include asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). ACBM include roofing materials, vinyl flooring, sprayed on acoustic ceiling insulation, and/or acoustical ceiling tiles. Buildings constructed prior to 1980 have a much higher probability of containing LBP, as its use was not prohibited until 1980. Other than the laundry facility, no onsite buildings will be removed. Demolition of the laundry facility could potentially disturb hazardous asbestos or lead compounds and expose workers to the hazardous materials or release the compounds into the environment. Mitigation measure HAZA below, requires testing for the presence of ACBM and LBP prior to demolition and proper disposal should ACBM or LBP be identified. Implementation of HAZ-1 will reduce the potential exposure to people or the environment to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. 3.8.(c). Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located approximately 250 feet north of the McDowell Elementary School. The project would not result in any increased risk of exposure to hazardous material as a result of development. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts related to the emission or handling of hazardous, or acutely hazardous materials, within one-quarter mile of an existing school. 3.8(d). No Impact: The project site does not appear on any standard record sources or on any other environmental database searched. There are no Cortese sites located within the Petaluma Planning Area, including that of the project site. There is no indication of spills, leaks, or contaminated soils located in or near the project site. Therefore, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment by virtue of it being located on an identified Cortese site. The property has been in relatively continuous use as multi -family residential since its construction in the mid 1970s. Due to the onsite use as residential there is no expectation that environmental conditions that would pose a potential hazard exist onsite. 3.8(e -f). No Impact: The project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or located in proximity to a private airstrip; the nearest airport is the Petaluma Municipal Airport located approximately 1 mile (geodesic distance) north of the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with airport -related hazards are expected. Page 37 of fib May 9, 2014 5 —?%7 3.8(g). No Impact. None of the proposed site improvements are expected to impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is limited to infill of a developed site. While there will be minor changes to site access for the public, the existing emergency access points will be retained. Vehicular circulation along project area streets, as well as internal project circulation would not impair or interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation. The proposed project will retain sufficient emergency vehicle access throughout all phases of construction. Therefore, no impacts due to conflict with an emergency response plan are expected. 3.8(h). No Impact. The project site, located in the South East Planning Subarea within the UGB is bounded by residential and commercial development. There are no wildlands located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires expected. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1: Prior to demolition activities, all component materials of site structures planned for demolition shall be tested for the presence of ACBM and LBP. Where the material is found to contain greater than 1 percent asbestos and is friable, the material shall be handled in accordance with Section 11-2-303 (Regulation 11 Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2, BAAQMD). All ACM and LBP shall be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations. Proper handling and disposal procedures that promote safe working conditions and minimize release of component materials into the environment shall be performed. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall provide the City with proof of a J# from BAAQMD. Page 38 of 68 May 9, 2014 5 3 E) 3.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Sources: 'Preliminary Drainage Analysis," prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., September 6, 2013; and 2025 General Plan and EIR. Hvdrolonv and Water Qualitv Settino: The Petaluma River is the primary drainage feature of the Petaluma watershed, which encompasses an area of approximately 46 square miles. The major surface waters within the UGB include the Petaluma River and its tributaries such as East Washington Creek. The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast direction into San Pablo Bay. Page 39 of 66 May 9, 2014 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would ther0 ect: p J Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste El ® El El requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the El El® Elproduction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result ❑ ❑ © ❑ in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or substantially increase the rate or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ © ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Sources: 'Preliminary Drainage Analysis," prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., September 6, 2013; and 2025 General Plan and EIR. Hvdrolonv and Water Qualitv Settino: The Petaluma River is the primary drainage feature of the Petaluma watershed, which encompasses an area of approximately 46 square miles. The major surface waters within the UGB include the Petaluma River and its tributaries such as East Washington Creek. The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast direction into San Pablo Bay. Page 39 of 66 May 9, 2014 In addition to providing recreational opportunities, the Petaluma River has been managed to provide access for larger boats that support long-standing river -dependent industrial operations. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dredges the river on a four-year cycle to maintain navigability for commercial shipping. In order to ensure continued dredging services from the USACE, there must be an "economically justifiable" tonnage of commercial products moved on the river, as determined by the USACE. Management of water quality in the region, including the City of Petaluma is under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the San Francisco Bay (Region 2) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, 2009- 0009-DWQ, requirements apply to grading, grubbing, and other ground disturbance activities. Construction activities on more than one acre are subject to NPDES permitting requirements including, the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies stormwater collection and discharge points, drainage patterns across the site, and best management practices that dischargers will use to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal Code regulates stormwater discharges. Grading and erosion control requirements are set forth in Chapter 17.31 of the Municipal Code. The City of Petaluma requires that new development adhere to "Low Impact Development" requirements (LID), also referred to as "Sustainable Site Planning Practices," which establish limitations on storm water runoff emanating from development sites. New development, including the subject Project, is required to mimic pre -developed conditions, protect water quality, and retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite. Achieving these conditions generally avoids the need for upsizing of storm drain systems. Additionally, the City of Petaluma collects Storm Drainage Impact Fees as a means of funding maintenance and expansion of the storm drainage system. The criteria provides for either the payment of fees or the construction of on- or off-site detention areas, based upon the type of project and amount of runoff generated, as calculated for a 100 -year storm. Fees collected are used by the City for the acquisition, expansion, and development of storm drainage improvements. ILS & Associates performed a drainage analysis comparing the peak storm water discharge from a 100 -year design storm before and after improvements to the subject site. The Project site is not in immediate proximity to the Petaluma River, but is adjacent to East Washington Creek, a tributary to the Petaluma River. East Washington Creek drains runoff from the northeast to the southwest and is located along the northern property line of the proposed project site. Near the project site, the channelized creek bisects suburban residential development and contains an existing Class I trail on its south bank that serves as a public open space and recreational area. As further described below, the subject project proposes to retain access to the existing- public trail and protect East Washington Creek from any excess runoff by incorporating design measures that limit impervious surfaces, detain stormwater, and allow for filtration onsite, thereby reducing runoff volume and pollutants. Hvdroloov and Water Qualitv Impact Discussion: 3.9(a). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Development of the project site will include demolition, ground disturbance, and an increase in impervious surfaces onsite, which could potentially contribute non -point source pollution and increase runoff to the adjacent East Washington Creek if not properly controlled. Typical non -point source pollution includes sedimentation caused by erosion, chemicals and fertilizers used for landscaping, and oil, fuel and exhaust generated by automobiles that settles on streets and parking lots and is washed into waterways during storms. It should be noted that as an already developed site, ground disturbing activities' will be limited in scale and largely confined to fine site grading. Nonetheless, non -point source pollutants could be released onsite during construction and would have the potential impact water quality to the adjacent East Washington Creek and ultimately the Petaluma River. Approximately 1.76 acres of the 18 -acre site will undergo active ground disturbance over the course of construction. 2 Ground disturbance is defined as any work, operation or activity that result in the penetration of the ground Page 40 of 68 May 9, 2014 In order to ensure that standards for stormwater runoff are achieved and in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit, the City requires that sites greater than one acre prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) throughout all construction activities. Accordingly, the proposed Addison Ranch Apartments project is required to prepare a SWPPP and implement Best Management Practices (BMP) during construction in order to prevent offsite runoff of pollutants. Typical BMPs proposed by the project include hydro mulching, use of fiber rolls at storm drain inlets, anti -tracking pads, spill prevention, designated washout areas, and others. With implementation of these water quality control and waste discharge requirements as set forth under HYDRO -1 below, the project's potential impacts to water quality will be reduced to less than significant levels. At operation the project's impacts to water quality will be less than significant. Water emanating from the project site will be routed through bio -filtration planters. As proposed, the four-plex downspouts will drain to two 45 square foot planters and the six-plexes will drain to three 45 square foot planters. The bio filtration planters collect runoff from new rooftops and process flows through permeable aggregate in order to encourage percolation onsite and provide for filtration prior to entering the storm drain system. These onsite improvements will capture sediment, reduce peak runoff, and remove pollutants from water leaving the project site. Therefore, post construction impacts to water quality as a result of the proposed development would be less than significant. 3.9(b). Less than Significant Impact: The City has adequate water supply resources to accommodate new development proposed as part of the Addison Ranch Apartments Project without depleting, degrading or altering groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge. The subject project would not result in the lowering of the aquifer or the local groundwater table. The project's water demands are consistent with water demands evaluated in the 2010 UWMP, which found sufficient water supplies are available to meet existing and planned future development within the UGB (Also see Section 3.17(d) below). Domestic water supplies are currently provided to the project site and will continue to be conveyed in a consistent manner. The new residential units onsite and associated landscaping will generate an increase in demand relative to the existing condition. The new water demand is well within the demand projections prepared as part of the UWMP and is consistent with the expected population projections. The project will not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or result in a lowering of the groundwater aquifer. As described herein, the project will retain the existing drainage pattern onsite and will facilitate percolation through the use of bio filtration planters and pervious surfaces. Groundwater reserves will not be substantially impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, the project's impacts to groundwater reserves would be less than significant. 3.9(c -d). Less than Significant Impact: The project would not alter the course of a stream or river or result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. In accordance with LID requirements, the existing drainage pattern of the site will not be substantially altered. During construction the contractor will be required to adhere to City of Petaluma standards and regulation regarding storm water management and erosion control measures. Onsite improvements include water detention and biofiltration planters, which will be sized appropriately to manage peak discharges generated by the 100 -year storm event. The Preliminary Drainage Analysis identifies four drainage areas on the project site and shows that underground detention tanks as proposed would have sufficient capacity to limit peak discharges to below pre -improvement levels for each of the four drainage areas. Additionally, downstream erosion and siltation will be controlled by biofiltration planters that treat water prior to entering the onsite detention system. The proposed grading for the site will control all onsite storm water runoff and convey the runoff into a piped storm drain system with filtration and onsite detention. No lot -to -lot drainage is proposed. Surface runoff will managed in a consistent manner as the existing condition, it will be collected, detained and filtered onsite, and then conveyed to an existing public storm drain. With the proposed drainage controls included as part of the onsite drainage system, impacts to the drainage pattern including water quality, erosion, siltation and flooding onsite or downstream would be less than significant. Page 41 of 68 May 9, 2014 3.9(e). Less than Significant with Mitigation: The project proposes additional hardscape and impervious surfaces necessary to accommodate the intensification of use. Such improvements will result in an increase of impervious surfaces relative to the existing condition, which has a potential to impact storm drain facilities. Currently 15.7% of the subject site is impervious. As proposed, 25.6% of the site would be impervious. Thus, relative to the existing condition, the proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, which has the potential to result in increased runoff that could impact storm drain facilities. In order to ensure that potential impacts associated with increased runoff are reduced to levels below significance, mitigation measures HYDRO -2 through HYDRO -5 are set forth below. Measure HYDRO -2 requires that onsite storm water detention be provided that retains peak flows from a 100 year storm onsite in a manner that is consistent with the existing condition (i.e. no increased run-off relative to the pre -project condition). HYDRO -3 provides a mechanism to ensure that funding for onsite storm water facilities are maintained and all costs are covered by the project applicant. Measure HYDRO -4 requires that all inlets and catch basins be labeled with text and graphics noting that storm water facilities drain to ocean. Such prohibitive language and imagery is intended to dissuade illegal dumping and protect drainages from introduced pollutants. Measure HYDRO -5 reinforces the requirement to pay development impacts fees for Storm Drainage. These funds are dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of the regional Storm Drain system. With implementation of mitigation measures HYDRO -2 through HYDRO -5 below, potential impacts to drainage facilities and additional sources of pollution will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.9(f). No Impact. No other water quality degradation is expected to occur from the project development. As mentioned above, implementation of the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will ensure that there are no other impacts to water quality due to the subject project. 3.9(g -h). Less than Significant Impact: Northerly portions of the project site adjacent to East Washington Creek fall with the City of Petaluma's prescribed flood zone. According to the FEMA Flood Panel Map 06097C0913F (effective February 19, 2014), all existing and proposed dwelling -units are outside of 100 -year flood hazard area. The proposed building in the northwest most portion of the site is proposed to be situated just outside of the floodplain. In order to manage flows in proximity to the subject building site plan show adequate drainage paths to convey flows around the building. As the building is not located within the floodplain, the project's potential to result in impacts due to flooding and floodway obstruction would be less than significant. Therefore, the Addison Ranch Apartments Project would have less than significant impacts due to hazards associated with flooding. 3.9(i). Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to East Washington Creek, which is contained by levees on either side. Flows within this creek are low volume and unlikely to result in a levee failure that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Building setbacks from the adjacent creek and existing and proposed storm drain facilities will assure that any potential impacts from flooding due to levee failures are less than significant. The nearest buildings are set back 100 feet from East Washington Creek, which is consistent with the setback requirements established in IZO. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts from flooding, including inundation areas associated with the failure of a levee or dam. 3.9(j). No Impact. The project site is not located within an area that could be affected by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. There are no substantial water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There will be no impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow resulting from project implementation. Page 42 of fib May 9, 2014 — +Z— Mitigation Measures: HYDRO -1. The project shall prepare a SWPPP prior to the issuance of grading permits. The SWPPP shall be prepared pursuant to the requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and implemented throughout project construction and operation. The Applicant shall complete and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and appropriate filing fee to the SWRCB. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval by Public Works prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall comply with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Best Management Practices generally entail the use of fiber and filter roles, catchment and sediment basins, designated staging and wash -down area, and bio -filtration planters. HYDRO -2. In accordance with City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 Policy 8-P-36, the project shall include an on-site storm water detention system to limit post -construction storm water peak flows leaving the site to not exceed pre -project peak flows by detaining peak storm water runoff from the 100 - year, 24 hour storm event. Final storm water calculations shall be designed in accordance with City of Petaluma and Sonoma County Water Agency requirements and shall be provided with the project construction drawings, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. HYDRO -3. The developer shall be responsible for funding, through the project cost recovery account, all City required storm water quality inspections. The project conditions, covenants and restrictions shall establish and fund a mechanism to ensure long term maintenance, inspection and repair as needed of the storm water detention system and post construction storm water treatment measures and best management practices. The systems shall be inspected at least annually, prior to the onset of the rainy season, by a Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of California, to ensure the drainage systems are performing as designed and required in project approvals. The Civil Engineer shall prepare a signed and sealed report of the inspection including findings regarding the condition of the storm water detention and treatment systems, photo documentation, any necessary proposed modifications and a statement indicating that the system is operating as designed and required by project approvals. The annual report shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma Planning Department and Department of Public Works and Utilities no later than October 15r' of each year. HYDRO -4. All storm drain inlets shall be stenciled with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN) and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. HYDRO -5. The applicant shall pay the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Page 43 of 68 May 9, 2014 5 t�) 3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, El® ❑ ❑ specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan Land Use and EIR. Figure 3.1-2 Planning Subareas Land Use and Planninq Setting: Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) includes lands dedicated to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space and public land uses. Residential land uses within the UGB occupy approximately 44% of the total acreage. Approximately, 128 acres within the UGB are designated for multi -family uses. The project site is located within the South East Planning Subarea, which consists of 1,613 acres and consists primarily of residential uses. Petaluma's General Plan 2025 Applicable policies contained in the Petaluma General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects that are particularly applicable to the subject project are set forth below: 1-P-1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. 11-P-4.4: Continue to require residential projects of five or more units to contribute to the provision of below- market rate housing in one of the following ways: • When the project is non -transit oriented, the developer can make an in -lieu payment to the City's Housing Fund. • Use alternative methods to meet the intent of the inclusionary requirement, subject to approval by the City Council. 11 -P -20B: Continue to require the planting of street and parking lot trees as part of residential projects to provide cooling during the summer months. Land Use and Planning Impact Discussion: 3.10(a). No Impact: The project will not divide an established community. The project site is currently developed with existing multi -family apartments, amenities, landscaping and parking. The proposed infill development will add 98 new units to the existing 224 apartments currently onsite. The project involves infill of additional multi -family residential units on a currently developed site, which will increase density and intensity relative to the existing condition pursuant to Policy 1-P-1 of the General Plan. Page 44 of 68 May 9, 2014 The subject site is adjacent to East Washington Creek to the north and is surrounded by existing single-family residences to the north, beyond the creek, and to the east (zoned R1 with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential 2.6-8.0 hu/ac). To the south is a little league baseball field and McDowell Elementary School beyond. The land to the west of the site was previously designated Mixed Use and is occupied by a medical/office complex, however, this parcel has recently been approved for the development of the Maria Drive Apartments Project, which included a General Plan Amendment resulting in the change of the land use from Mixed Use to High Density Residential and will allow for 144 new residential units, a density of 24.6 units per acre. Land southwest of the project site is occupied by the Washington Square Shopping Center, and the Eastside Transit Center (zoned Community Commercial). The project proposes infill of multi -family dwelling units that will increase density and intensity of an established apartment complex. The new units will be complimentary additions to the established community and their construction will increase density onsite, but will not result in any literal or figurative division of the existing neighborhood. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to the division of an established community. 3.10(b). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The subject Addison Ranch project involves a rezoning of the property accompanied by an intensification of use. At present the project site is divided into 29 individual parcels, one for each of the 28 apartment buildings and the remaining parcel serving as common space. The project proposal includes a lot line adjustment, whereby the autonomous parcels will be combined into three parcels. The rezone would change the zoning onsite from its existing designation of a Planned Unit District allowing for a maximum of 13.5 hu/ac to R4, which allows for 8.1- 18.0 hu/ac. Currently the existing 224 units onsite represent a density of 12.5 units per acre. The proposed 98 new units would result in a total of 322 units over the 17.92 -acre site, thereby yielding a density of 17.97 hu/ac, which is just below the maximum allowable density of 18 units per acre established for the proposed R4 zoning designation. The proposed change of zone would allow for increased density beyond what was previously permitted under the PUD designation. The project conforms to General Plan Land use policies through the efforts to use land efficiently and promote infill at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses (General Policy 1-P-2); much of the surrounding residential development is Zoned as R-2, low-density residential. The project further conforms to General plan policies through the planting of street trees and parking lot trees to reduce heat-island effect and provide cooling during the hot summer months (11 -P -20B). New improvements will include internal sidewalks and paths that connect seamlessly to the existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity including sidewalks along Maria Drive and Park Lane (5-P-22), as well as the unpaved path along East Washington Creek (5-P-26). In conformance with 8-P-7, the proposed infill development will require new connections for water service to serve new development within the UGB. The proposed project does have a potential to result in a conflict with the City's adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. In order to ensure consistency with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan the project shall install signage along its frontage to Maria Drive, indicating the presence of a Class III bike facility (5-P- 15), pursuant to Mitigation Measure CIRC -4. With implementation of measure CIRC -4, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations and potential impacts would be reduced to levels below significance. Therefore, as mitigated, the proposed Addison Ranch Apartments Project would have less than significant impacts related to land use and planning. 3.10(c). No Impact. At present, no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan apply to the project site. Therefore, the project will have no impact related to the presence of a conservation or natural community plan. Mitigation Measures: See measure CIRC -4 below. Page 45 of 68 May 9, 2014 —4-5- -5- 3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b). No Impact: The project involves infill and increased density of an existing multi -family apartment complex. The soil investigation report conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation did not reveal the presence of valuable mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources located on the site or in direct proximity to the site that would be impacted by activities associated with the proposed project. The project has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. It is not expected that the project will make a known mineral resource unavailable, nor would it conflict with access to a locally important mineral resource site. Therefore, the proposed Addison Ranch project would have no impacts to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 46 of 66 May 9, 2014 Oto Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect: P J Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the El EJregion El 0 and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ other land use plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b). No Impact: The project involves infill and increased density of an existing multi -family apartment complex. The soil investigation report conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation did not reveal the presence of valuable mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources located on the site or in direct proximity to the site that would be impacted by activities associated with the proposed project. The project has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. It is not expected that the project will make a known mineral resource unavailable, nor would it conflict with access to a locally important mineral resource site. Therefore, the proposed Addison Ranch project would have no impacts to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 46 of 66 May 9, 2014 Oto 3.12. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Would the project result in: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the El El ® El general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ® ❑ ❑ noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels El El ® El without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above El ® El 1:1levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ © ❑ or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; and "Noise and Vibration Technical Report For: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planninq Center/DC&E dated September 2013. Noise Bettina: Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains and industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. The Department of Health guidelines indicate that residential land uses and other noise sensitive uses would generally be acceptable without special noise insulation requirements in areas where exterior ambient noise levels do not exceed approximately 60 dBA (CNEL). The City of Petaluma regulates the noise environment through the General Plan and Section 21.040 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). The Petaluma General Plan indicates that multi -family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable in noise environments of 65 dB CNEL/Ld„ or less, conditionally acceptable up to 70 dB CNEL/Ld,,, and normally unacceptable between 70 dB CNEL/Ld„ and 75 dB CNEL/Ldp. The General Plan states that noise environments over 75 dB CNEL/Ld„ are clearly unacceptable. Multi -family housing in California is subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in the State Building Code (Title 24). The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL/Ld,,. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn, (the equivalent of heavy traffic at 300 feet) a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design to meet established noise limits. Page 47 of fib May 9, 2014 Per Section 21.040.A.3.a of the City's IZO, noise generating construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. For daily operational noise, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Section 21.040 4 A) generally establishes an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated on one land use that would be affecting another land use. The allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient noise levels and in no case shall the maximum allowed threshold exceed 75 dB after adjustments are made. Residential uses in areas with Ld„ between 60 and 65 dBA would generally be acceptable with noise reduction measures or insulation to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB or less. Section 21.040 B of the IZO sets forth the following thresholds for vibration. No vibration shall be produced which is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments at the points of measurement specified in Section 21.120(B) nor shall any vibration produced exceed 0.002g peak at up to fifty (50) cps frequency, measured at the point of measurement specified in Section 21.120(8) using either seismic or electronic vibration measuring equipment. Vibrations occurring at higher than fifty (50) cps frequency or a periodic vibration shall not induce accelerations exceeding 0.001g. Single impulse periodic vibrations occurring at an average interval greater than five (5) minutes shall not induce accelerations exceeding 0.01 g. The project site consists of an existing multi -family residential development with 28 buildings supporting a total of 224 residential units. The subject project will introduce 98 new residential units onsite for a combined total of 322 residential units. The project site is bounded by Park Lane to the south, Maria Drive to the west, and East Washington Creek to the north. The land uses in the project vicinity include residential to the north and east, commercial uses to the southwest, and institutional land uses to the south. The project site is located within the 60 dB CNEL of U.S. Highway 101, which is situated approximately 1,900 feet to the southwest. The project site is approximately 1.2 miles from the nearest Northwestern Pacific Rail Corridor and over 0.5 miles southwest of the Petaluma Municipal Airport, well outside of the airport noise contour influence area (Figure 10-1 of the General Plan). Noise Impact Discussion: 3.12(a). Less Than Significant Impact: To assess noise levels onsite and determine potential impacts to future residences, a project specific noise impact study was prepared by The Planning Center/DCBE, dated September 2013. Findings indicate that the project site is not located within the 65-dBA noise contours established for nearby roadways or airports, nor is it expected to be subject to ambient noise in excess of 65 dBA as a result of future SMART operations. The surrounding land uses including single family residential, commercial and institutional are not expected to generate exterior ambient noise levels exceeding 65 dBA. The adherence to standard construction techniques consistent with the California Building Code are expected to be sufficient to ensure exterior to interior noise is reduced by 24 dB with windows closed. With present and reasonably foreseeable conditions it is expected that interior spaces would achieve 40 dBA with the windows closed assuming a worst-case scenario of an exterior 64 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the project is expected to meet the California State Standards for interior noise without the need for enhanced architectural improvements. The existing and future noise levels onsite are projected to be below the normally acceptable exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL/Ld. for multi -family residential as established by the Petaluma General Plan. The proposed project would not expose new residences to excessive exterior noise standards due to the current or future ambient noise environment. Accordingly interior noise levels of 45 dB would be attained with standard construction practices. The project would comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan and IZO related to noise level including noise compatibility guidelines. Therefore, impacts to the noise environment due to excessive noise levels beyond adopted standards as set forth in the City's General Plan and IZO would be less than significant. 3.12(b). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As described above, the City of Petaluma's IZO establishes limits on vibration levels via thresholds for what is considered "excessive' vibration for ground - borne noise. These thresholds are based on standards developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and consider potential architectural damage and criteria for annoyance. Page 48 of 68 May 9, 2014 Construction activities are expected to occur over a one-year period. For purposes of the noise analysis the timeframe for construction was assumed to commence in June 2014 and end in May 2015. Construction noise level modeling considered construction activities associated with building 28 new residential structures including site preparation, demolition, foundation work, interior and exterior renovation work. These activities will be occurring immediately adjacent to existing sensitive receptors (occupied multi -family residential units). Accordingly, the project has the potential to generate excessive noise levels from groundborne vibration due to the use of heavy equipment in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Construction activities will not involve new excavation or pile driving, which typically generate the greatest groundborne vibration. Additionally, construction activities will be limited to fine site grade and focused areas of construction. As such the potential for annoying or damaging vibration levels from construction activities extending beyond the project site is very low. Measured at a distance of 25 feet, maximum vibration levels for a typical piece of construction machinery, with the exception of pile drivers, are expected to only occasionally exceed the thresholds for human annoyance (78Vdb) and very rarely exceed the threshold for architectural damage (0.2 PPV velocity in inches per second). However, construction activities will occasionally take place within 25 feet of existing sensitive receptors. Due to the proximity of the project to existing residences, construction noises generated by project development may occasionally result in temporary impacts to the noise environment. These excessive noise levels will occur only during active construction activities and will end once the project is operational. During the active construction period existing sensitive receptors have the potential to be exposed to groundborne vibration that would occasionally exceed the threshold for annoyance. Since no pile driving will be required as part of the proposed project, the thresholds for structural damage will not be exceeded. In order reduce potential impacts due to the temporary construction noise, all exterior project construction activities shall occur between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekdays, interior work only shall be permitted between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays, pursuant to Measure NOW below. Additionally, a construction mitigation plan requiring that the contractor identify alternative, less vibration intensive construction methods, and the exclusion of vibratory rollers, hoe rams and concrete breakers within 30 feet of existing residences shall be implemented as required under NOI-2. Project specific requirements are more restrictive than those identified in the IZO and are expected to be sufficient to mitigate groundborne construction impacts on nearby residences. With implementation of the mitigation measure set forth in NOI-1 and NOI-2 below, excessive groundborne noise levels generated during construction activities will be reduced to levels below significance. At project operation the onsite land use and associated noise environment will be typical of multi -family residential development and subject to the City's noise exposure standards. Operation of the Addison Ranch Apartment complex will have less than significant impacts to the existing noise environment. 3.12(c). Less than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma has established 4 dBA as the threshold for determining whether the noise level resulting from a project would exceed what is "normally acceptable' for an affected land use, thereby constituting a significant impact. The threshold set forth by the City of Petaluma is considered to be a conservative estimate, as general practice usually uses a threshold of 5 dBA. The Addison Ranch Project is not expected to introduce a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise environment as a result of stationary or mobile sources. The increase in dwelling units from 224 to 322 would result in an increase in stationary noise similar to that already present on the project site, including daily activities and movements by residents, landscaping and maintenance activities and the use of HVAC systems. All of these activities emit intermittent sources of low-level noise and are not expected to cause a perceptible noise increase. The project will increase traffic trips proximate to the project site and on Maria Drive due to the intensification of the subject property. The noise levels on Maria Drive as a result of increased traffic volumes generated by the project are projected to have an increase of 2.6 dBA during weekday AM Peak hours and an increase of 2.3 dBA during weekday PM peak hours. The project's contribution to roadway traffic volumes and associated noise level diminishes farther from the project site. Given that the increase in ambient noise levels from traffic on Maria Drive is not expected to exceed or approach 4 dBA, it is unlikely that traffic related noise level on other roadways would exceed the 4-dBA threshold. As the noise level increase from traffic is projected to be a maximum of 2.6 dBA, the proposed project will not substantially impact the ambient noise environment. Page 49 of 68 May 9, 2914 ;5 , /rq Therefore, increased generation of stationary and/or mobile noise levels resulting from project implementation would not constitute a substantial increase in the permanent noise environment and impacts to existing residences in the project vicinity would be less than significant. 3.12(d). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project activities associated with demolition and new construction is expected to result in a periodic and temporary increase in ambient noise levels in and around the project site and may occasionally reach intrusive levels. In order to limit the temporary increase in noise levels the project shall implement measures NOI-1, which restricts the hours of construction activities and requires a construction mitigation plan (NOI-2 and NCI -3), which specify construction area setback for operating heavy duty equipment, the use of quite equipment, staging, storage and routing to avoid sensitive receptors, noticing, and the use of a noise disturbance coordinator. Implementation of the mitigation measures NOW through NOI-3 set forth below would reduce the temporary and periodic noise impact from construction activities to less than significant levels. 3.12(e -f). Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately one half mile south of the Petaluma Municipal Airport and is not in close proximity to any private airports or airstrips. Figure 10-1 of the Petaluma General Plan (Noise Contours) indicates that the project site is outside of the noise contours generated by the Petaluma Municipal Airport. The project site is not located within the Airport Land Use Commission referral area, or its 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, new residences on the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport and impacts would be less than significant. Mitioation Measures: NOI-1. Construction Hours/Scheduling: The following are required to limit construction activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent sensitive receptors are likely to be the lowest: a. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Interior work only shall be permitted on Saturday between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and on all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. b. Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site is restricted to the same construction hours specified above. NOI-2. The contractor/developer shall develop and City Planning Department shall approve a construction mitigation plan prior to the issuance of demolition permits. The construction mitigation plan shall incorporate the following controls as feasible: Prior to award of the construction contract, the Project manager or their designate shall note on all construction plans any and all alternate methods for work done within 20 feet of adjacent residential buildings. 2. Prior to demolition, the Project manager or their designate shall meet with the construction contractor to discuss alternate, less vibration -intensive methods for the entire construction process. This includes the operation of loaded trucks, large off-road equipment (which generates vibration levels equivalent to or greater than a large bulldozer), and/or drilling or trenching equipment. The alternative methods must not use construction equipment that would generate vibration levels in excess of 0.1 PPV inches per second at any residential building. 3. Prior to demolition, the construction contractor shall inspect and document the current conditions for foundations, structural characteristics, and cosmetic features of all existing residential buildings that are adjacent to Project construction zones. Page 50 of 68 May 9, 2014 4. Equipment Location and Shielding: All stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, shall be located as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences and comply with the following stipulations: a. The use of vibratory rollers shall be prohibited within 30 feet of a residential structure. If soil compacting is required within 30 feet of a residential structure, static rollers shall be employed. b. The use of hoe rams or concrete breakers shall be prohibited within 30 feet of a residential structure. c. Route loaded trucks as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. 5. Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance: All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. Noise Disturbance Coordinator: Residences or noise -sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. Designate a "construction liaison" that would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction vibration. The liaison would determine the cause of the vibration complaints (e.g. starting too early, use of improper equipment or processes, etc.) and institute reasonable measure to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the liaison at the construction site. NO] -3. The contractor/developer shall develop and City Planning Department shall approve a construction mitigation plan prior to the issuance of demolition permits. In addition to those listed above under NOI-2, the construction mitigation plan shall incorporate the following controls as feasible: 1. Quiet Equipment Selection: Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Motorized equipment shall be outfitted with proper mufflers in good working order and appropriate for the equipment. Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. "Quiet" equipment typical generate noise levels 5 dBA lower than that of conventional equipment. 2. Idling Prohibitions: All equipment and vehicles shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. 3. Construction equipment shall be well maintained in accordance with manufacturers specifications. 4. Staging and Equipment Storage: The equipment storage location shall be sited as far as possible from nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) when these receptors adjoin or are within 200 feet of a construction Project area. 5. Route construction related traffic along major roadways and as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. 6. Construct temporary fences using plywood (or material bearing the same sound attenuating effectiveness as plywood) between portions of the construction sites and sensitive receptors, such as residences and public areas. These temporary sound barrier fences should be a minimum of eight feet high and should have no gaps between sections or at the bottom (at grade level). Page 51 of 66 May 9, 2014 3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theect: j roSignificant with significant Impact P Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? El 11 El N c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR: and Citv of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element. Population and Housing Setting: The 2025 General Plan proposes development of approximately 6,000 additional residential units and a buildout population of approximately 72,700. This represents an annual growth rate of nearly 1.2% per year. As proposed, the project would add 98 market rate dwelling units to the existing complex consisting of 224 dwelling units, for a total of 322 dwelling units. Population and Housing Impact Discussion: 3.13(a). Less than Significant: The proposed project is not expected to directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. The project proposes the addition of 98 dwelling units to the existing 224 dwelling units, resulting in an increase of approximately 270 residents, assuming an occupancy rate of 2.75 people per unit. The project includes a rezone of the property and intensification of usage, changing the zoning onsite from a PUD accommodating 13.5 hu/ac, to Zoning Designation R4, accommodating 8.1 to 18.0 hu/ac. As the land use designation onsite is medium density residential, which allows for 8.1 to 18.0 hu/ac, the proposed increase in density remains within the scope of the General Plan projections for the site. The proposed population of 270 additional residents does not constitute a substantial increase and is well within the General Plan 2025 population projections. The project will be served by existing infrastructure and no new roadways are proposed. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts related to the inducement of growth. 3.13(b -c). No Impact: As proposed, the project consists of infill development within an established multi- family apartment complex. The project includes the demolition of laundry facilities and some carports, but no existing dwelling units will be demolished. Rather, the project will introduce 98 new dwelling units. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts related to the displacement of people or the construction of housing elsewhere is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 52 of 68 May 9, 2014 �5 - r2 3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Public Services Settinq: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for fire and police protection services, open space, parkland, and others. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements. Public Services Impact Discussion: 3.14(a -b). Less than Significant: The project site is located within an existing neighborhood in the South East Planning Subarea that is currently well served by public services. The anticipated increase in residents resulting from the proposed project may provide for a slight increase in demand for police and fire service. However, new demands on fire and police service have been previously anticipated as part of General Plan buildout and are accommodated with the Fire Suppression Facilities impact fee and Law Enforcement Facilities Fee that are intended to offset the impacts of growing demand for services. General Plan policy 7-P-19 sets a four -minute travel time for emergency response within the city. The project is located approximately 0.9 miles from Fire Station #3, at 1511 S. McDowell Boulevard, which is well within the response radii (see GP EIR figure 3.4-2) as travel time would be approximately 3 minutes. Emergency response to the site is sufficient due to the redundancy of approach access, the ability of emergency response vehicles to override traffic controls with lights, sirens, and signal pre-emption, and travel in opposing travel lanes during congested conditions. The addition of project trips to the grid street network is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds that would cause significant delays for emergency vehicles. Page 53 of 68 May 9, 2014 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ M ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ M ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ M ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ M ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ M Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR. Public Services Settinq: The City charges one-time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City facilities. Impact fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma collects impact fees for fire and police protection services, open space, parkland, and others. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public facilities and service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements. Public Services Impact Discussion: 3.14(a -b). Less than Significant: The project site is located within an existing neighborhood in the South East Planning Subarea that is currently well served by public services. The anticipated increase in residents resulting from the proposed project may provide for a slight increase in demand for police and fire service. However, new demands on fire and police service have been previously anticipated as part of General Plan buildout and are accommodated with the Fire Suppression Facilities impact fee and Law Enforcement Facilities Fee that are intended to offset the impacts of growing demand for services. General Plan policy 7-P-19 sets a four -minute travel time for emergency response within the city. The project is located approximately 0.9 miles from Fire Station #3, at 1511 S. McDowell Boulevard, which is well within the response radii (see GP EIR figure 3.4-2) as travel time would be approximately 3 minutes. Emergency response to the site is sufficient due to the redundancy of approach access, the ability of emergency response vehicles to override traffic controls with lights, sirens, and signal pre-emption, and travel in opposing travel lanes during congested conditions. The addition of project trips to the grid street network is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds that would cause significant delays for emergency vehicles. Page 53 of 68 May 9, 2014 Although additional fire and/or police service calls may occur as a result of the project, substantial new fire protection or police protection facilities will not be warranted to maintain necessary levels of service. As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all development impact fees applicable to a residential development project, including fire suppression facilities and law enforcement facilities impact fees. These funds are sufficient to offset any cumulative increase in demands to fire and police protection services and ensure that impacts are less than significant. 3.14(c). Less than Significant: The Addison Ranch project will not result in substantial adverse impacts requiring new or physically altered school facilities. The project site is located within Petaluma Elementary School District and is closest to the McDowell Elementary School, just south of the project site, beyond Park Lane. The General Plan projects that the Petaluma City School District (elementary) will exceed capacity by 175 students at General Plan buildout. The proposed project will contribute to the student enrollment of the district. The project will be subject to the payment of statutory school impact fees. Payment of impact fees will help to offset potential impacts to elementary schools. The Petaluma Joint Union High School District (high school) will experience a decrease in enrollments by General Plan Buildout due to a shift in the population demographics. Based on current capacities it is expected that sufficient facilities are in place to accommodate any increased enrollment associated with development of the subject project. Therefore, the Addison Ranch Apartment Project will have less than significant impacts to schools. 3.14(d). Less than Significant: As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all development fees applicable to a multi -family residential project, including parkland acquisition, park land development and open space acquisition impact fees. The City has adopted a citywide parks standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed project includes opportunities for onsite recreation through use of the interior courtyards, proposed gym, and onsite pools. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to the East Washington Creek trail. Residents will have direct access to this trail located immediately north of the subject site via gates access. To the south of the site is the existing McDowell Park, which provides 4 acres for active use. The addition of 98 dwelling units does not constitute a substantial growth in population and existing park facilities are expected to be sufficient to meet active and passive recreational demands of new residents. A substantial adverse impact to park facilities is not expected to occur from implementation of the subject project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational amenities will be less than significant. 3.14(e). No Impact. The Project will not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with any other public facilities. The proposed project area is located within an established neighborhood and is well served by existing public utilities. The project will not generate a substantial increase in demands that warrant the expansion or construction of new public facilities. Any additional public services will be acquired through use of impact fees that will be levied. As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all development fees applicable to a multi -family residential project, including public facilities, library, community center and school development impact fees to mitigate impacts of the project on other community and public facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required Page 54 of 66 May 9, 2014 3.15. RECREATION Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less than No Significant Impact Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ physical effect on the environment? Sources: 2025 General Plan: Figure 6-1 Parks and Open Space; and EIR. Recreation Setting: The City of Petaluma's parks and open spaces comprise approximately 1,300 acres or 18% of acreage within the UGB. The public parks and recreational opportunities within the UGB accommodate a wide range of uses and activities that include both active and passive recreation. Park land development and open space acquisition impact fees are collected for new development and are used to maintain and enhance park facilities within the UGB. Recreation Impact Discussion: 3.15(a). Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project has the potential to result in a minimal increase in the use of nearby parks and open spaces including, McDowell Park, East Washington Creek Trail and Lucchesi Park. Existing parks and open spaces are expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional use by new residents. Increased patronage to nearby parks and open spaces within the UGB from new residents of the proposed project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of facilities nor would deterioration be accelerated. The project is not expected to substantially increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities to a degree that would result in substantial physical or accelerated determination. Therefore impacts to recreational resources due to the introduction of new residents associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. 3.15(b). No Impact: The project proposal does not include new recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The project includes the demolition of the existing laundry facility and the construction of a fitness center (approximately 2,137 sq. ft.). New residents and existing residents will have access to the proposed fitness center, which will provide for recreational opportunities onsite. Additional onsite recreational opportunities include the existing pools and interior courtyard open space. There are no facilities that are proposed or required in order to provide for adequate recreation to new residents. The existing public parks, trails and open space have sufficient availability to accommodate increase use from new residents. Therefore, the project will have no impact due to construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 55 of 68 May 9, 2014 5 `C-� Ni[111[41I1 Transportation and Circulation Settino: The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma Counties. U.S. 101 accommodates over 90,000 vehicles per day within Petaluma. The circulation system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including arterials, collectors, connectors, and local streets. Streets with the highest average daily traffic (ADT) include those that provide east -west connectivity, provide access to 101, or serve as a parallel route to the freeway. The major arterials serving the project site are South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street, which provide access to Greenbrier Circle via Maria Drive, where the main entrance of the project site is accessed. Secondary driveways are located to the north of Greenbrier Circle at Maria Drive and on Park Lane. The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry standards and indicate that a traffic study is warranted if a project is anticipated to create either 500 trips per day or 50 trips per peak hour. If a project falls within 10% of these thresholds the City may exercise discretion in whether or not to require a project specific traffic study. The proposed Addison Ranch Project is estimated to generate approximately 665 daily trips with 51 occurring during the morning peak house and 62 occurring during the evening peak hour. In Accordingly, a traffic impact study was prepared by W -trans to evaluate traffic impacts associated with project development. Page 56 of 68 May 9, 2814 1�/ Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect: P 1 Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass 11 El ® ❑ transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location ❑ ❑ ❑ that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such ❑ ® ❑ ❑ facilities? Sources: Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; GP Figure 5-1; "Traffic Impact Study For The Addison Ranch Apartment Complex," Prepared by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation (W -Trans), January 27, 2014. Transportation and Circulation Settino: The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma Counties. U.S. 101 accommodates over 90,000 vehicles per day within Petaluma. The circulation system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including arterials, collectors, connectors, and local streets. Streets with the highest average daily traffic (ADT) include those that provide east -west connectivity, provide access to 101, or serve as a parallel route to the freeway. The major arterials serving the project site are South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street, which provide access to Greenbrier Circle via Maria Drive, where the main entrance of the project site is accessed. Secondary driveways are located to the north of Greenbrier Circle at Maria Drive and on Park Lane. The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry standards and indicate that a traffic study is warranted if a project is anticipated to create either 500 trips per day or 50 trips per peak hour. If a project falls within 10% of these thresholds the City may exercise discretion in whether or not to require a project specific traffic study. The proposed Addison Ranch Project is estimated to generate approximately 665 daily trips with 51 occurring during the morning peak house and 62 occurring during the evening peak hour. In Accordingly, a traffic impact study was prepared by W -trans to evaluate traffic impacts associated with project development. Page 56 of 68 May 9, 2814 1�/ General Plan Policies: Mobility 5-P-10: Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project. 5-P-19: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and pedestrian friendly in design. 5-P-20: Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities. 5-P-22: Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods and require well connected pedestrian network linking new and existing development to adjacent land uses. 5-P-43: Support efforts for transit oriented development around the Petaluma Depot and along the Washington Street, Petaluma Boulevard, McDowell Boulevard, Lakeville Street, and other transit corridors. Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion: 16(a -b). Less Than Significant Impact. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by W -Trans for the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex (dated January 27, 2014) reviewed onsite circulation and access and evaluated the project's traffic impacts on the surrounding circulation network including seven intersections in the project vicinity; 1) East Washington Street / US 101 South Ramps; 2) East Washington Street/ US 101 North Ramps; 3) East Washington Street/ N. McDowell Boulevard; 4) East Washington Street/ Maria Drive; 5) McDowell Blvd/ Maria Drive; 6) Maria Drive/ Park Lane and; 7) Maria Drive/ Greenbriar Circle. The project -specific Traffic Impact Study reviewed collision rates, estimated trip generation and evaluated the project's contribution to the existing, baseline, and future year traffic conditions. As described below, all project area intersections currently operate acceptably, at LOS D or above. The baseline scenario, which considers all approved but not yet constructed project as well as pipeline projects (those that are currently under review), projected that the intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell would operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. All other study area intersections were projected to operate acceptably under the baseline condition. Under the future year scenario, which models buildout of the General Plan, the introduction of planned citywide transportation improvements would result in all study intersections operating at acceptable levels of service D or greater. The addition of project -generated traffic would not substantially impact LOS relative to the no project condition or result in a conflict due to congestion. With the Addison Ranch Apartments Project all study intersections will continue to operate at similar LOS during the near-term and long term modeling periods relative to the no project condition. Project Area Collision Rates Four of the study area intersections were found to have a collision rate higher than statewide average for similar facilities. The majority of the reported collisions are rear end accidents attributed to traffic congestion along the East Washington Street corridor. This congestion would likely be alleviated by improvements currently under construction at East Washington Street/US 101 Northbound Ramps. Additionally, planned signal modifications will provide for protected left -turn phasing onto Maria Drive from East Washington Street, which is expected to increase the intersections safety performance. Trip Generation The proposed project, which includes the addition of 98 dwelling units to an existing apartment complex, is estimated to generate 665 new daily trips with 51 occurring during the morning peak hour, and 62 during the evening peak hour. The new trips represent the increased traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 6 Trip Generation Summary Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Proposed Apartments Apartments 100 du 6.65 665 0.51 51 10 41 0.62 62 40 22 Note: du = dwelling Unit It should be noted that the traffic report conservatively models trip generation based on 100 dwelling units. However, the proposed project is for 98 units. Accordingly, the actual trips generated will be slightly less. Page 57 of 68 May 9, 2014 Site Access In addition to generating new traffic, the proposed Addison Ranch project will result in a minor change to traffic patterns associated with access to the apartment complex. The planned installation for gated access at the main driveway off of Maria Drive will result in Greenbrier Circle becoming the primary entrance, thereby marginally shifting traffic patterns such that traffic volumes may slightly increase at the Greenbrier Circle/Maria Drive intersection and are slightly reduced for select movements on Maria Drive and Park Lane. The secondary access points will provide for both ingress and egress to residents. Accordingly, any shift in the traffic pattern accessing the site is expected to be minimal. As proposed site access is sufficient to accommodate existing and new trips generated by the subject project. Also see discussion 3.16(d) below. Existinq Traffic/Circulation With the exception of the East Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard intersection, study area intersections currently operate at level of service (LOS) "C" or above during am and pm peak hour traffic. The intersection of East Washington Street/McDowell Boulevard currently operates at LOS "D" during am and pm peak hour traffic. Accordingly, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. While acceptable, LOS "D" results in noticeable congestion and queuing delays. In order to improve traffic flow and circulation, improvements are currently underway to modify the northbound onramp to Highway 101 at East Washington Street. These improvements are expected to result in improved operations at two project area intersections: East Washington Street/US 101 North Ramps and East Washington Street/McDowell Blvd. The table below shows that the existing plus project condition would not result in the degradation of level of service to unacceptable levels for any project area intersection. Table 7 Summary of Existing & Existing Plus project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations Study Intersection Approach 1. E. Washington SUUS101 SB 2. E. Washington St/US 101 NB 3. E. Washington St/McDowell Blvd 4. E. Washington St/Maria Dr. 5. McDowell Blvd/Maria Dr. 6. Maria Dr./Park Lane 7. Maria Dr./Greenbrier Circle Existing Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS 23.5 C 25.6 C 11.9 B 14.9 B 38.8 D 36.4 D 17.3 B 20.4 12.5 B 13.8 8.5 A 9.0 0.8 A 0.8 Northbound Approach 9.4 A 9.6 Note: Delay is measures in average seconds per vehicle; LOS= Level of Service Existing plus Project AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS 23.6 C 11.7 B 36.9 D 17.5 B 13.2 B 8.8 A 1.7 A 10.2 B Delay LOS 25.8 C 15.2 B 36.7 D 20.5 C 14.3 B 9.4 A 1.9 A 11.1 S With the addition of project -related traffic, average delay at the East Washington Street intersections with U.S. 101 Northbound and McDowell Boulevard decreases during the a.m. peak hour. While this is counter- intuitive, this condition occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and lower overall average delay. Thus, project trips are expected to make use of excess capacity at these intersections, so drivers will experience little, if any, change in conditions as a result of the proposed project. With the exception of the East Washington/Maria Drive intersection all other study area intersections would retain the LOS under the existing condition scenario with the introduction of traffic trip generated by the proposed project. Although the LOS at the intersection of East Washington/Maria Drive would decrease from LOS B to LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peals hour with the proposed project, LOS C is considered an acceptable level of service. Therefore, the subject Addison Ranch Project would have less than significant impacts to the existing level of service at project area intersections. Baseline Traffic/Circulation Baseline conditions include existing traffic in addition to anticipated traffic generated by approved projects not yet constructed, as well as pipeline projects pursuant to the City's Major Projects List (July 2013). The baseline plus project condition LOS at project area intersection are presented in the table below. Under this scenario all project area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service "D" or greater, with the exception of the intersection of East Washington and McDowell Boulevard. Page 58 of 68 May 9, 2014 V Staff has previously reviewed and considered LOS "E" at this intersection adopted overriding considerations to approve operations of LOS "E" for this intersection (Deer Creek EIR). The project's contribution to delays at this intersection is minimal, about one second per vehicle. Peak hour traffic volume is increased by less than 1% due to the project's contribution. Accordingly, the project's contribution to the LOS deficiency at this intersection is considered to be negligible. Additionally, the project is required to pay traffic impact fees, which will be used to construct planned future infrastructure improvements that are intended to correct such deficient operations as further described under the future traffic conditions below. Therefore, the project's effect on traffic and circulation during the interim traffic scenario (baseline) would not result in a substantial impact to LOS and impacts would be less than significant. Table 8 Summary of Baseline & Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Calculations Study Intersection Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. E. Washington SUUS101 SB 27.6 C 50.9 D 27.9 C 51.8 D i 2. E. Washington SUUS 101 NB 10.8 B 18.7 B 10.9 B 19.2 B 3. E. Washington SUMcDowell Blvd 39.2 D 72.1 E 40.1 D 73.3 E 4. E. Washington SUMaria Dr. 20.9 C 21.2 C 20.9 B 21.3 C 5. McDowell Blvd/Maria Dr. 14.6 B 24.8 C 15.2 B 28.6 C 6. Maria Dr./Park Lane 8.9 A 9.7 A 9.1 A 10.2 B 7. Maria Drive/ Greenbrier Circle 0.7 A 0.8 A 1.6 A 1.8 A Northbound Approach 9.5 A 10.2 B 10.4 B 11.4 B Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS= Level of Service; Bold Text = deficient operation Future Traffic/Circulation The future year analysis includes cumulative traffic forecasts based on the East Washington Place EIR Traffic Study and General Plan amendments such as the Maria Drive Apartments complex, as well as the General Plan EIR Traffic Study. These updates reflect changes to the land use designation that have occurred since the General Plan was adopted. Future year infrastructure improvement projects are also considered including, the Rainier Avenue Interchange and the proposed protected left turn phasing at East Washington Street/Maria Drive. Under the future traffic conditions all study area intersection are projected to operate at LOS D or above during a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic. The future and future plus project condition LOS at project area intersections are presented in the table below. Under this scenario, all project area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service D or greater for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to LOS under the cumulative traffic condition. Table 9 Summary of Future & Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Study Intersection Future Conditions Future plus Project Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. E. Washington SUUS101 SB 34.1 C 25.8 C 34.2 C 26.0 D 2. E. Washington St/US 101 NB 8.0 A 12.9 B 8.0 A 13.1 B 3. E. Washington SUMcDowell Blvd 34.3 C 53.1 D 34.5 C 54.1 D 4. E. Washington SUMaria Dr 28.2 C 38.4 D 28.4 C 39.1 D 5. McDowell Blvd/Maria Drive 16.2 B 23.9 B 16.5 B 25.7 B 6. Maria Dr/ Park Lane 10.6 B 13.6 B 10.9 B 14.8 B 7. Maria Dr/Greenbriar Cr 0.5 A 0.5 A 1.2 A 1.4 A Northbound Approach 10.3 B 11.3 B 11.5 B 12.6 B Note: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS= Level of Service; Bold Text = deficient operation Traffic Impact Summary Page 59 of 68 May 9, 2014 Presently, all study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS "D" or better. With the addition of project - generated traffic for near-term baseline conditions, East Washington/ North McDowell Boulevard is expected to operate unacceptably as LOS "E." However, because the traffic volume and average delays generated by the project would be negligible and the project applicant would pay Traffic Impact Fees that would offset the limited increase this would not be considered a significant impact. The decrease in LOS for the respective intersection would be temporary and with planned improvements under future year conditions including the Rainier Avenue Interchange it is expected that all study intersections will operate acceptably under General Plan buildout with LOS D or greater. Traffic volumes generated by the subject project will not have a significant impact on the existing intersection of Maria Drive and Park Lane nor warrant a traffic signal. Furthermore, the project will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to traffic and circulation. For multi -family dwellings, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 11- Table 11.1) requires 1 parking space, which may be covered or uncovered, for each bedroom, studio, or efficiency unit. In no case shall a project provide an overall parking ratio of less than 1.5 spaces per unit. The proposed multi -family residential project as proposed will add 196 new bedrooms to the existing 336 bedrooms totaling 532 total bedrooms at project buildout and will include 541 parking stalls, therefore exceeding the requirement of 532 parking spaces (1 per bedroom). The project as proposed provides 541 parking spaces including 323 covered/carport spaces, and 11 handicap accessible spaces. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with the parking requirements established by the IZO and there would be no significant impacts due to parking constraints onsite. The project's circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works & Utilities Department (Engineering & Traffic Division) and the Fire Marshal. As a standard condition of project approval, the applicant shall pay all development impact fees. These fees will contribute to improvements to project area roadways and ensure that the project's fair share of increased traffic and use of the circulation system has been accounted for. Therefore, the project's impact to traffic and circulation will be less than significant. 3.16(c). No Impact. The project will not result in an increase in traffic in a manner that changes the air traffic pattern, nor will the project introduce a safety concern related to air traffic pattern due to the location of facilities. The project is located over a half mile south of the Petaluma Municipal Airport and does not contain any elements that would affect the air traffic pattern. Therefore, the project would have no circulation impact that affect air traffic. 3.16(d). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The primary arterials used to access Maria Drive in the project vicinity are McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street. Traffic at the entrance intersection is currently controlled by a one-way stop and will continue to be controlled by a one-way stop at project operation. The Addison Ranch Apartment Complex is accessed via the existing driveways on Maria Drive and Park Lane. As proposed the project will provide for gated access via a primary entry gate at the Maria Drive/Greenbriar Circle intersection. Secondary access will be provided via a driveway north of Greenbriar Circle and on Park Lane. The site's driveways would provide access to an internally connected network of drive aisles. A turn lane warrant analysis was conducted using the Intersection Channelization Design Guidelines to evaluate the need for a turn pockets along Maria Drive at Greenbrier Circle and Park Lane. Sufficient capacity was determined to be available along Maria Drive to provide safe access to the site without the need for dedicated left or right turn pockets. The intersection LOS calculations further indicate efficient operation at the Maria Drive/Park Lane intersection with the proposed driveway, negating the need for construction of additional lanes. Site distance at the entrance to the proposed Maria Drive Apartments was evaluated based on criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual developed by Caltrans. Pursuant to design criteria set forth therein, a stopping sight distance of 150 feet is recommended for a 25 mile per hour speed limit. The available sight distance at the proposed primary and secondary site access points exceed 200 feet in either direction at all four project driveways. Therefore, clear lines of sight would be available at all of the project driveways. The proposed project has the potential to introduce new landscaping, signage, parking and entry/exit gates, Page 60 of 68 May 9, 2014 lL�� which could obscure sight distance if not properly placed. As proposed, the entry sign will be sufficiently set back from Maria Drive such that line of sight would not be obscured. The existing restrictions on parking along Maria Drive at the project frontage will remain unchanged. Red curbs will be re -painted to clearly depict parking restrictions. In order to ensure that any potential hazard associated with sight distance are avoided mitigation measure CIRC -1 shall be implemented, which requires landscaping proximate to project driveways be limited to 3 feet in height or less. With implementation of CIRC -1 proposed landscaping will be developed such that visibility is maintained at all site access points. The project will introduce 270 new residents on the project site. In order to ensure that internal circulation provides for safe and convenient access to all residence, the project shall implement measure CIRC -2, which require internal traffic calming, pavers for pedestrian crossing, and curbs ramps for accessibility. These features will ensure that safety measures are in place internally, thereby creating a walk -able complex. Therefore, with implementation of CIRC -1 and CIRC -2 the proposed project will not increase hazards due to design features (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) and impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.16(e). Less Than Significant Impact: As described above under 3.14(a), the project would be well served by existing fire protection facilities including adequate response times for emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicle access will be feasible through any of the ingress/egress drives as well as an emergency vehicle access (EVA) located off of Park Lane. The EVA points will be accessible through a "knox" keyed lock and gate controllers that allow emergency vehicles direct access through any of four potential drives. The project's internal circulation plan has been reviewed and meets all standard conditions imposed by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. Site circulation was determined to be adequate, including sufficient internal street widths to allow for fire truck turn around. 3.14(a) Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts due to emergency access. 3.16(f). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: As an infill project within the City's Urban Core, the project site is currently well served by pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities. The project site is in proximity to an elementary school, parks, the Washington Creek multi -use trail, and shopping. As proposed, the project will provide connectivity to these existing amenities. Pedestrian Facilities Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps. Adjacent to the project site, continuous sidewalks are provided along both sides of Maria Drive and Park Lane and would be unchanged with project buildout. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal phasing are provided at all nearby signalized intersections. Marked crosswalks at Maria Drive exist at both ends of the projects street frontage, at the Washington Creek trail crossing and on the Western leg of the Maria Drive/Park Lane intersection. Onsite pedestrian amenities will tie into the existing pedestrian network in the project vicinity. The project will retain the existing sidewalk along Maria Drive at the project frontage. The proposed project is expected to result in an increase in the number of school -aged children in the area and increase pedestrian traffic to the nearby Elementary School. In order to accommodate the increased pedestrian activity, and assure the safety of school aged children crossing Maria Drive/Park Lane intersection, yellow striped crosswalks are required to be added to the east and south legs this intersection. Additionally, a standard striped crosswalk shall be added on the Greenbriar Circle approach to Maria Drive. With this mitigation measure, CIRC -3 set forth below, potential impacts to pedestrians and pedestrian facilities will be reduced to level below significance. and avoid potential conflicts with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Bicycle Facilities At buildout the proposed project will require approximately 54 bicycle storage facilities providing for 10% of the total 532 bedrooms. The project proposes onsite bicycle amenities including 54 bicycle storage facilities, consisting of 26 covered spaces and 32 secure spaces located within carports. As proposed, the bicycle racks provide for safe, secure and convenient bike parking and storage. In the project area, intermittent Class II bike lanes exist on Washington Street and McDowell Page 61 of 66 May 9, 2014 Boulevard. There is an existing off-road, Class I multi -use path along East Washington Creek, which connects with Maria Drive near the proposed project site. The proposed security fence along Washington Creek will include gated access for residents thereby ensuring that pedestrian and bicyclist access for existing and new residents is maintained. Maria Drive does not currently contain dedicated bike lanes and bicyclists share the roadway and/or ride on sidewalks, it is however designated as a Class III Bike Route on the 2008 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. As a Class III bike route, signage informs motorists of the shared use roadway with cyclists. In accordance with BPP Policy 1 Program C, Policy 2, CIRC -4 requires that the project shall install Class III bicycle route signage along the project's frontage to Maria Drive. With implementation of CIRC -4 potential conflicts with signage along this Class III bike route will be reduced to levels below significance. Existing bicycle facilities including dedicated bike lanes and shared roads provide adequate access for existing and future cyclists. The project would not alter Maria Drive along the site frontage and there would be no interference with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's long-term objective to dedicate Maria Drive as a Class III Bike Route. Therefore with implementation of CIRC -4 impacts to bicycle facilities would be less than significant. Transit Facilities Petaluma Transit provides public transportation throughout the City via dedicated bus stops and planned routes. Route 11 provides service along East Washington Street to downtown, including a stop along Maria Drive at the project frontage. The East Side Transit Center, located approximately 1,350 feet southwest of the project site, provides nearby access to a transit hub. The existing bus stops along the project's frontage, as well as the regional transit center are both within comfortable walking distance of the project site. Transit routes have adequate capacity to accommodate project -generated transit trips. Therefore, the project's impacts to public transit will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: CIRC -1. Any new landscaping immediately adjacent to all project driveways shall not exceed three feet in height. CIRC -2. Traffic calming measures shall be employed to encourage low traveling vehicles on internal circulation including, crosswalks at corners, curb and ramps, and colored pavement to visually identify pedestrian crossings. CIRC -3. The intersection of Maria Drive and Park Lane shall be improved with yellow stripping crosswalks at both the east and south leg, as well as at the project access driveway (Maria Drive/ GreenBrer Circle) to assure safe pedestrian access including crossing to the McDowell Elementary School to the southeast. CIRC -4. The project applicant shall be responsible for the cost associated with the installation of signage along the frontage of the property at Maria Drive noting that Maria Drive is a Class III Bike route. Page 62 of 68 May 9, 2014 3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Utilities and Service Systems Settings: The City of Petaluma collects impact fees for wastewater, water treatment, storm drains, and others. The one-time impact fee is intended to offset the cost of improving or expanding city facilities needed to accommodate new private development by providing funds for expansion or construction of necessary capital improvements necessitated by private development. The previously developed project site is currently well -served by public utilities and the proposed new infill development is not expected to necessitate substantial infrastructure improvements or enhancement to serve the project site. Water Service System The Petaluma Department of Public Works and Utilities is the water purveyor for the City of Petaluma. The City purchases potable water wholesale from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The primary source of water is supplied by the Russian River and supplemented with groundwater from the Santa Rosa Plain via the Petaluma Aqueduct. The City of Petaluma also extracts groundwater from the Petaluma Valley Basin. Use of groundwater is intended to serve as an emergency water supply in the event that SCWA water deliveries are curtailed. Page 63 of 66 May 9, 2014 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theroject: P 1 Significant Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ M ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve El El® ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the 1:1 El ® E]project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted El El ® 1:1capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El El Elregulations related to solid waste? Sources: 2025 GP and EIR; Water Resource and Conservation 2010 UWMP; and Sonoma County Water Aqency 2010 UWMP. Utilities and Service Systems Settings: The City of Petaluma collects impact fees for wastewater, water treatment, storm drains, and others. The one-time impact fee is intended to offset the cost of improving or expanding city facilities needed to accommodate new private development by providing funds for expansion or construction of necessary capital improvements necessitated by private development. The previously developed project site is currently well -served by public utilities and the proposed new infill development is not expected to necessitate substantial infrastructure improvements or enhancement to serve the project site. Water Service System The Petaluma Department of Public Works and Utilities is the water purveyor for the City of Petaluma. The City purchases potable water wholesale from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The primary source of water is supplied by the Russian River and supplemented with groundwater from the Santa Rosa Plain via the Petaluma Aqueduct. The City of Petaluma also extracts groundwater from the Petaluma Valley Basin. Use of groundwater is intended to serve as an emergency water supply in the event that SCWA water deliveries are curtailed. Page 63 of 66 May 9, 2014 The City's Water Resource & Conservation Division (WR&C) provides municipal water service to upwards of 60,000 customers and is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) on a 5 -year basis, pursuant to the Urban Water Management Plan Act. The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan provides water demand and supply analysis for its service area through the year 2035. The UWMP refined the water management programs based on population trends and land uses set forth in the 2025 General Plan, the current water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water recycling and water conservation programs. The 2010 UWMP projected that by 2035 (expected General Plan buildout year) the gross water demand would be 14,022 acre-feet per year. It further estimated that implementation of water demand reduction programs would achieve a water savings of 2,402 acre-feet per year. Therefore, the net demand projected for the City's water service area is 11,047 acre-feet at buildout of the General Plan. As a potable water purveyor, the SCWA also prepared a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown & Caldwell June 2011), which was adopted on June 21, 2011. The SCWA maintains water rights permits for surface water from the Russian River with a limit of 75,000 acre-feet per year. The permits contain terms limiting the rates of direct diversion in order to protect fish and wildlife species and recreation activities. It is anticipated that the SCWA will obtain water rights approval from the State Water Control Board to increase future water diversions above 75,000 acre feet in 2027 to 80,000 acre-feet in 2035. This expectation is based on a number of factors including that physical water supply needed to support additional diversion already exists, the requested increase remains relatively small, customers and policy makers are maximizing conservation efforts to the greatest extent practicable and finally, that the need for additional diversions is supported by the findings of the SCWA 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Accordingly, the SCWA expects to be able to increase annual water deliveries to Petaluma from approximately 7,200 acre-feet in 2010 to 11,400 acre-feet by 2035. California had experienced several consecutive dry years and on January 17, 2014 Governor Brown declared a drought emergency. SCWA and members of the Sonoma -Marin Saving Water Partnership, including the City of Petaluma approved a resolution seeking a 20% voluntary water reduction. Despite the low rainfall, Lake Sonoma, which provides a majority of the SCWA water supply, is at 74% capacity with multiple years of water supply remaining. Accordingly, mandatory conservation measures are not currently required nor are they anticipated since adequate water supplies are currently available and will continue to be available. Fluctuations in annual rainfall are anticipated and are considered in long-term water management planning as described in the UWMP. The analysis therein concluded that there are sufficient water supplies to meet existing and future demand generated by increased growth and development. In order to ensure that the City of Petaluma's water demands are within the available supply quantities, the General Plan stipulates the need for routine monitoring of water supplies relative to actual use and expected demands of each new development project (GP policy 8-P-4). This policy ensures that the City of Petaluma maintains a sufficient water supply to meet the City's water demands through General Plan buildout. Wastewater Treatment The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and the unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The water recycling facility produces tertiary recycled water in compliance with the California Department of Health Services. The facility is comprised of more than 190 miles of underground piping and 9 pump stations, with plans for incremental expansion until 2025. At present, treatment capacity is at approximately 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow) with actual treatment at approximately 5 million gallons per day. During the dry summer months, recycled water is introduced into the City's recycled water system with allowable irrigation uses including: residential landscaping, unrestricted access golf courses, agricultural lands, parks, playgrounds and schools and other uses permitted by the California Department of Health and Safety Code. As set forth in the General Plan EIR, the Ellis Creek Facility has the capacity to serve all wastewater treatment needs for the City through 2025 and beyond. Page 64 of 68 May 9, 2014 VZt Storm Drains Within the City of Petaluma storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This water is untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels and sediment. The City has implemented a storm drain -labeling program to provide a visual reminder that storm drains are for rainwater only. The City's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, set forth in Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal Code, establish the standard requirements and controls on the storm drain system. All existing and proposed development must adhere to the City's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance. The City's storm drain policies set forth in the General Plan that are particularly applicable to the subject project include the following: 8 -P -30C: On-site and off-site improvements, deemed necessary by the City to reduce the surface water impacts associated with a specific development proposal shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in perpetuity at the cost of the development associated with said impacts. 8 -P -33A: Any project within an area subject to inundation in a 1 % (100 -year) storm event shall include site specific analysis of impacts and identification of mitigations. 8 -P -37J: Projects may construct detention/retention facilities as mitigation for surface water impacts, so long as the improvements result in an improvement to the pre -project conditions by way of a net reduction in storm water elevations and downstream flows. Utilities and Service Svstems Impact Discussion: 3.17(a -b). Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project consisting of 98 infill units in an established apartment complex will not cause or exceed wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor is the project expected to necessitate the expansion or construction of additional water or wastewater treatment facilities. The projected increase in wastewater generation falls within the capacity of sanitary sewer lines and the City's wastewater treatment plant processing capacity. The project will not generate substantial wastewater treatment requirements and will not require the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. The proposed project will connect to the existing public water and wastewater systems. Wastewater flows will be conveyed to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, which has sufficient operating capacity to handle the minimal additional flows generated by the Addison Ranch project. There would be no new construction or expansion of domestic water or wastewater facilities as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact to water facilities and wastewater treatment capacities. (Also see response 3.17(d) below for discussion on water facility impacts). 3.17(c). Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts due to the expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities or construction of new facilities. The infill development will result in an increase of impervious surfaces including: building roofs, paved areas and sidewalks. In order to offset the increase in impervious surfaces that will be introduced onsite a system of onsite detention and bio -filtration planters will be placed throughout the property. At project buildout the new and existing storm drainage infrastructure will provide no net increase in site run off (Also see discussion 3.9 above). Therefore, the project does not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities and potential impacts would be less than significant. 3.17(d). Less Than Significant Impacts: The Addison Ranch project is not expected to create a demand that would exceed existing water supplies. The proposed infill of 98 dwelling units is within the Urban Growth Boundary and is within the density range anticipated by the General Plan. In comparing General Plan 2025 projected water demand to actual use through December 2013 is was found that that potable water demand is well within the available SCWA supply, both for this project, and for cumulative demand through 2035 as set forth in the 2010 UWMP. Page 65 of fib May 9, 2914 The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan updated the General Plan 2025 water analysis and further refined a water supply program that relies upon water from SCWA, recycled water (potable offset), and conservation. As noted in General Plan 2025 Policies 8 -P -5-C and 8-P-19, the City anticipated continuing use of groundwater to meet emergency needs and to offset peak demands. Per Policy 8-P-4 of the Petaluma General Plan 2025, City staff is required to monitor actual demand for potable water. In comparing actual demand for potable water to an annual SCWA supply limit for Petaluma of 4,366 million gallons per year (13,400 acre-feet) and a peak supply limit of 21.8 million gallons per day it was found that, in both instances, potable demand is well within available SCWA supply capacity. Conservation efforts including tiered water rates and the conversion of Rooster Run Golf Course to recycled water have kept annual and peak demands within the available SCWA supply at approximately 3,174 million gallons per year, with an average day maximum month peak demand of 11.6 million gallons in 2013. The proposed water demand for pipeline projects, all anticipated development including the subject project, would result in an average day month peak demand of 12.43 million gallons and an annual demand of 3,375 million gallon per year. These water demand figures are within the available SCWA supply. The existing water supplies, facilities and infrastructure are sufficient to meet the demands of the project without the need for substantial expansion or new construction. A standard condition from the department of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project comply with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Water demand onsite will be limited through efficient irrigation of the landscaping and water efficient fixtures, and appliances indoors, consistent with requirements established by the CalGreen Building Code. Therefore, the project impacts to water supplies and infrastructure would be less than significant. 3.17(e). Less Than Significant Impact: The infill project is of the type and density anticipated in the General Plan. The project's contribution to wastewater flows were anticipated in the General Plan and have been considered for operating capacity of the water treatment plant. The increase of 98 dwelling units is well within the flow capacity analyzed as part of the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not generate wastewater that exceeds the capacity of the City's existing wastewater treatment plant, when added to existing and projected commitments through General Plan buildout. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts related to the adequacy or capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. 3.17(f). Less Than Significant Impact: The infill project consisting of 98 dwelling units will contribute to the generation of solid waste within the UGB. However, the amount of solid waste expected to be generated by the project is considered minimal and is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Solid waste disposal facilities are owned and operated by the Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works and the City maintains a franchise solid waste hauling agreement requiring the franchise hauler as part of its contractual obligations to select properly permitted Approved Disposal Location(s) with adequate capacity. Although the project will generate additional solid waste it is considered minimal and is not expected to exceed landfill capacity. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact to the disposal of solid waste. 3.17(g). No Impact: The project is only expected to generate solid waste typical of residential uses. The project applicant is expected to adhere to all requisite regulations governing the disposal of solid waste. Policy 4-P-21 requires waste reduction in compliance with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). Construction related waste will be reduced through the development of a construction waste management plan. At present, the City is under contract with Petaluma Refuse and Recycling for solid waste disposal and recycling services. This company provides canisters for waste, green (plant waste) materials, and recycling. Solid waste is collected and transferred to the Sonoma County landfill sites. The infill units would be supplied with the same solid waste and recycling opportunities through the County's existing waste management system via the City's solid waste service provider. Although the infill of 98 dwelling -units would generate additional solid waste, it is not expected to exceed landfill capacity and is not expected to result in violations of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact is expected to occur. Mitigation Measures: None required. Page 66 of 66 May 9, 2014 1 (P 3.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A focused or full environmental impact report for a project may be required where the project has a significant effect on the environment in any of the following conditions (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §15065): Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant El 0 El El or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable El El El El when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on El M El El human beings, either directly or indirectly? Mandatory Findings Discussion: 3.18(a). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project is located within the UGB and is considered as part of the development plan set forth in the City's General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and goals, policies and programs. With implementation of mitigation measures set forth above in sections 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5 the project's potential impacts to the quality of the environment would be reduced to levels below significance. As such, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat, or affect cultural resources. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts due to degradation of the environment with implementation of the referenced mitigation measures. 3.18(b). Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site and the City's long-range plan for future development. The project is also consistent with the surrounding land uses and implements the intent of the UGB through infill development at intensities equal or greater than surrounding densities. Public utility and service providers will be capable of serving the project with existing or planned facilities. The Project does not increase the severity of any of the impacts from the levels identified and analyzed in the General Plan, and development of the Project site is proposed at densities consistent with those set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project's cumulative impacts will be less than significant. 3.18(c). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to humans due to air quality, geology and soils, noise, and hydrology. With those mitigation measures set forth above, the project will have less than significant environmental effect that would directly or indirectly impact human beings onsite or in the project vicinity. Therefore the project will have less than significant impacts due to substantial adverse environmental effects, with implementation of the referenced mitigations. Page 67 of 68 May 9, 2014 ,�? -0-7 4. INFORMATION SOURCES: General Plan and Zoning Ordinance General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment General Plan Chapter 2. Community Design, Character, &Green Building General Plan Chapter 3. Historic Preservation General Plan Chapter 4. The Natural Environment General Plan Chapter 5. Mobility General Plan Chapter 6. Recreation, Music, Parks, & the Arts Other Sources of Information Petaluma UWMP SCWA UWMP FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps General Plan Chapter 7. Community Facilities, Services & Education General Plan Chapter S. Water Resources General Plan Chapter 9. Economic Health & Sustainability General Plan Chapter 10. Health & Safety General Plan Chapter 11. Housinq Implementing Zoning Ordinance/ Maps Published geological maps General Plan 2025 EIR GreenPoint Rated Checklist for Multi - Family Residences: Addison Ranch Technical Appendices: The following resources were prepared in order to further identify project specific parameters and all are incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these technical documents are available for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, in the Community Development Department. A. "Addison Ranch Arborist Report," prepared by Arbor Entities, June 15, 2013. B. 'Traffic Impact Study for the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex," prepared by W -Trans, January 27, 2014. C. "Soil Investigation Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by Reese & Associates, July 12, 2013. D. "Noise and Vibration Technical Report for Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/DC&E, September 2013. E. 'Preliminary Drainage Analysis: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by ILS associates, Inc., September 6, 2013. F. "Air Quality, Community Risk and Hazards, and GHG Emissions Technical Report for: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/DC&E, September 2013. G. "Construction Health Risk Assessment: Addison Ranch Apartments," prepared by The Planning Center/DC&E, September 2013. Page 68 0168 May 9, 2014 — (0