Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 2014-166 N.C.S. 10/20/2014
Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE KELLER COURT COMMONS PROJECT LOCATED AT 000 WEST STREET AT KELLER APN: 006-083-054 File No. PLMA-14-0002 WHEREAS, Jim Sordes with Keller Court LLC, as the applicant/developer, submitted an application (File No. PLMA-14-0002) to the City of Petaluma for a Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map for the property located at 000 West Street at Keller Street (APN: 006-083-054): and for Local Landmark Designation of the farmhouse located at 200 West Street (APN 006-083-053. Parcel 1) ("the Project' or the "proposed Project'): and WHEREAS, the project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City on May 19, 2009; and WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial Study. the City relied on the program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified on April 7. 2008 (General Plan EIR) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is incorporated herein by reference: and WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures and the City also adopted a Statement of overriding Considerations for significant impacts that could not be avoided: and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was required in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR: and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration providing a twenty (20) day public comment period commencing July 24, 2014, and ending August 12, 2014, and a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on August 12. 2014, before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, was published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project, as well as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 13, 3014, during which the Commission considered the MND. its Initial Study and supporting documentation referenced in the Initial Study. the Project, a staff report dated August 13, 2014, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing: and Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. pa,,e I WHEREAS, on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission completed its review of the Project and the MND and adopted Resolution No. 2014-25 recommended to the City Council adoption of the MND; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 20, 20141 during which the Council considered the Project, the Initial Study/MND, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and supporting documentation referenced in the Initial Study, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on the environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and WHEREAS, the MND, Initial Study and related project and environmental documents, including the General Plan 2025 EIR and all documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City of Petaluma Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitutes the record of proceedings for the proposed project, file no. PLTS-14-0001, is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11 English Street. Petaluma, CA 94952, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the MND, its Initial Study, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment, that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the MND, Initial Study and supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts of the Project and comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines. Under the poorer and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter ol'said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certifj the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the YT vyd as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 20°i day of 0ctoher, r 201-1, by the following vote CiVtlorne}• APES: Albertson. Barren.NlayorGlnss. Harris. I-leuly. Miller NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Mayor Keame_v ABSTAIN: None ATTEST:_-(�%� �--� '.CC, l^x 1 rih.Gd City Clerk Kriyrr' Resolution No, 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 2 Exhibit A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY Prepared By: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 July 16, 2014 Resolution No. 301.4-166 N.C.S. Page 3 CITY OF PETALUMA KELLER COURT COMMONS CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: Project Location: Project sponsor's name and address: Property Owners: Keller Court Commons City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Jacqueline Turner, Principal Planner (707)778-4314 000 West Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (Intersection of West and Keller) Steven La Franchi & Associates Steven La Franchi 140 Second Street, Ste.312 Petaluma, CA 94952 Keller Court LLC Jim Soules, Manager 200 West Street, Petaluma CA 94952 General plan designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: Residential 2 ( R2) The project consists of the development of 1.66 acres Description of project: and includes a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from R2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD), Landmark Designation to designate the existing farmhouse as a historic resource, and a Tentative Subdivision Map with 8 lots and 2 parcels. Site improvements include the construction of eight 2 - bedroom detached homes clustered around a central courtyard and associated improvements. (See expanded description below) Surrounding land uses and setting; briefly The project site is located in an established describe the project's surroundings: residential neighborhood at the northerly end of Keller Street between Cherry Street to the northwest and West Street to the southeast. The site is directly adjacent to higher density residential with low density residential to the south and east and medium density residential represented by apartments to the north. Other public agencies whose approval is No Other Agency Approval Required. required (e.g. permits, financial approval, (The project will require demolition, building, grading or participation agreements): and utility permits from the City.) Resolution No, 3014-166 N.C.S. Pa_e 4 KELLER COURT COMMONS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................6 1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................7 1.2. PROJECT LOCATION..............................................................................................................................8 1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: ............................................................................................................... 10 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...................................................................12 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS....................................................................................13 3.1. AESTHETICS...........................................................................................................................................13 3.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES...............................................................................16 3.3. AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................................................17 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................................21 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................................25 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...........................................................................................................................28 3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..........................................................................................................33 3.8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................................................................35 3.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..................................................................................................38 3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING..................................................................................................................42 3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................44 3.12. NOISE......................................................................................................................................................45 3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING...............................................................................................................48 3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES.................................................................................................................................49 3.15. RECREATION..........................................................................................................................................51 3.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.............................................................................................52 3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS....................................................................................................55 3.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §15065) ....................................59 4. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: ........................................................................................ ........................... 60 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure1: Site Location Map..............................................................................................................................9 Figure 2: Tentative Subdivision Map...............................................................................................................9 Figure 3: Project Site looking east.................................................................................................................11 Figure 4: Project Site looking south..............................................................................................................11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria for Residential Land Use.................................................................18 Table 2 Construction Phase Noise Levels.....................................................................................................46 Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 5 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND General Plan: The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008, serves the following purposes: • Reflects a commitment on the part of the City Council and their 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 human activity takes place within the limits of the natural environment; and reflects the aspirations of the community; • 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: Because CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues' (CEQA Guidelines section 15152b) 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 to significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the later project (CEQA Guidelines section 15152d), no additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and the 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 covered in the Master Plan: 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 subdivision 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 http://citvofr)etaluma.net/cdd/plan-qeneral-i)lan.html. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 6 1.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 000 West Street includes a tentative subdivision map for eight single-family lots and two common parcels (Parcels A and B). The General Plan land use designation onsite is Low Density Residential (2.5 to 8.0 du/ac). In conformance with the General Plan designation and hillside protection ordinance, the project proposes a density of 5.75 du/ac. The project is currently zoned Residential 2 (R2) and the applicant is requesting a rezone to Planned Unit Development (PUD). (See Figure 2: Tentative Subdivision Map, below). The project site is generally vacant with the exception of a 1930's metal barn located in the westernmost portion of the site. Site preparation will involve the demolition and salvage of the 1930's metal shed with materials to be re -used in new construction. The site features non-native grasses and Coastal Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) clustered at the site margins. There are six existing onsite easements. Two of the six easements are for the benefit of (FBO) Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 006-083-053 (Parcel 2), located immediately east of the proposed Keller Court access driveway, and APN 006-083-044, located immediately east of the Parcel 2 (See Figure 2 below). Easements consist of a private drainage abutting APN 006-083- 044 at its northern extent and a private access and drainage easement that benefits APN 006-083-053. The former of which is to be abandoned and replaced with a new private drainage easement for the benefit of APN 006-063-053. The remaining four easements, consisting of one public water main easement, two public utility easements and one sanitary sewer easement will remain. Parcel 1 of APN 006-083-053 is located west of the proposed access drive for Keller Court and features an 1897 Queen Anne home known as the Lundholm/ Patocchi residence. As part of the subject project the applicant has applied for designation as a local landmark and the application of an H overlay for Parcel 1. The proposed subdivision consists of an eight (8) lot subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 2,040 square feet to 2,780 square feet will be developed. The proposed single family residences will be comprised of eight 2 - bedroom, 2.5 bath homes, and will feature three different floor plans that exhibit slight variation in elevations and square footage. The eight proposed residences will be distributed amongst three designs: • "Plan A" Residences of 1,466 square feet • "Plan B" Residences of 1,384 square feet • "Plan C" Residences of 1,509 square feet The eight residences will be oriented around a central courtyard and all will feature a large porch fronting the central courtyard. Private yards will be located between residences and the courtyard. The private yards will be supported by a "use and enjoyment easement" thereby allowing a zero side yard and opportunities for homeowner gardening and planting, while at the same time preserving access. The proposed courtyard will be located in the central -east portion of the site and will feature landscaping, a patio, fire pit, and a 407 square foot private commons area building. As proposed, landscaping and fruit trees will be planted on the easterly 50 feet of the courtyard in the area that exhibits a steeper slope. Management of the common parcel will be provided by the Home Owners Association. Parking will be provided through designated garages parking for each residence and 9 undesignated, uncovered parking spaces. All parking will be clustered in the western extent of the site. The three proposed garage structures (A, B, and C) will range in size from 564 square feet to 1,257 square feet and will provide a total of 8 covered parking stalls. A 263 square foot fitness room will be located above Garage B. Ingress and egress will be provided by a proposed private drive, "Keller Court", which will act as the single point of access providing connectivity to West Street. Keller Court has been designed in compliance with the City of Petaluma Public Works standards and has been designed as a curvilinear street thereby providing traffic calming, allowing for the unique courtyard complex, and preserving two protected oak trees. Fire truck and emergency vehicle access is accommodated in proposed ingress and egress plans. The 20' wide private drive will adequately accommodate engine trucks and ladder trucks movements. Egress requirements for engine trucks are accommodated through the provision of a three-point turn around option whereas egress requirements for ladder trucks will be accommodated through the utilization of Keller Street. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Pnee 7 New storm drainage infrastructure is proposed both onsite and offsite in order to accommodate the increase in impervious surfaces that will result from development. Onsite improvements will capture and retain stormwater runoff via a 10,000 -gallon underground storage tank, which is sized to accommodate the operational stormwater runoff expected during a 100 -year storm event. A new private 15" storm drain will extend from the storage tank onsite to a new public storm drain located offsite within Cherry Lane. The proposed 194 linear foot offsite public storm drain within Cherry Lane will connect to the existing storm drain system within Kingfish Court which conveys flows via the regional storm drain facilities. Utilities will be extended to each lot within the PUD via the existing and proposed utility easements. An individually metered water line will loop between Cherry and West Streets and connect to the respective water main stub outs at Cherry and West Streets. The water line will also serve the proposed fire hydrants that will be located on the private drive near the entrance of the project site and in the central portion of the parking area. Wastewater will be accommodated via the installation of proposed sanitary sewer lines that extend from the existing private sanitary sewer line in the eastern portion of the site that connects to the 6" public sanitary sewer line within Cherry Street. The project includes plans to repair and/or extend the existing Cedar Fence with frontage on Cherry Street. A 42" farmhouse fence will provide visual separation between the project site and Parcel 1 which includes the historic, 1897 residence at 200 West Street. Cottage fences with a maximum height of 5' will provide separation around individual lots and a wire fence with a maximum height of 6' will extend along the northeastern portion of the site. Site improvements also include landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and grasses located in and around the periphery of the site. The project features a variety of fruit trees some of which will be free standing with other espaliered along proposed fences. Native and ornamental trees will be distributed along the periphery of the site and provide shade and screening. Apple and Pear Trees are proposed for the sloped portion of the site and will be followed by citrus hedge, which is proposed for the far eastern extent of the site along the property line. Evergreen accents will be distributed along the private road and the existing thirty one 31 Coast Live Oaks along the periphery of the site will remain and provide shading and screening. The applicant has applied to the City of Petaluma for: 1. Rezone from R2 to Planned Unit Development 2. Designation of local landmark and application of—H overlay 3. Tentative Subdivision Map for eight (8) single family lots and two (2) parcels 1.2. PROJECT LOCATION The project site located at 000 West Street at the intersection of West Street and Keller Street. It is within the West Planning Subarea as delineated in Figure 2-1 of the 2025 General Plan. The West Planning Subarea is the largest (1,934 acres) and oldest subarea and supports commercial, residential, institutional, recreational and community -serving land uses. The West Planning Subarea also includes the three designated historic districts, Oakhill Brewster, A Street and the Downtown Historic Commercial District. The majority of buildings located in the subarea are historic structures that provide a human -scaled, walkable series of neighborhoods. Many of the neighborhoods are characterized by large -lot, single family neighborhoods featuring cul-de-sacs that abut the rolling hills located west of the subarea. This subarea also provides a large portion of the City's vacant land acreage with 105 acres remaining undeveloped. The project site is situated north of Keller Street between Cherry Street to the northwest and West Street to the southeast. The Land Use designation onsite is low density residential and is surrounded by this land use designation to the west and northwest. The site is directly adjacent to diverse low density residential (6.1- 12.0) to the south and east. Medium density residential land use is present to north, beyond Cherry Street. Located directly adjacent to the project site, in the southwest corner of the block, is a 10,000 square foot parcel featuring a historic Queen Anne Residence (c.1897) and historically significant palm (Arecaceae) associated with the residence. Resolution No, 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 8 The southeast parcel is occupied by a new single-family home and detached two-story garage that is currently under construction. Several of the existing utility easements onsite serve this parcel (APN 006-083- 053). (Also see Figure 1: Site Location Map, below). s5ry Figure 1: Site Location Map - ; --- m I CA P*P=ELA 1 .1gl 0T�� s a J u rr-----� , Y �! , 4 ____`--______________________________ Figure 2: Tentative Subdivision Map i Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 9 1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the 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 itself 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 subject 1.66 acre project site historically served as low -intensity agricultural land. Today, the site is fallow and not used for crops or grazing. The site consists of undeveloped land within an otherwise developed area. The majority of the site features non-native grassland consisting of disturbed and/or ruderal habitat. The site features a slight slope to the north and more moderate slopes exhibiting an inclination of approximately 2.5:1 (horizontal vertical) to the east (See Figure 3 below). The site topography exhibits a 40 foot variation in elevation across the site with elevations ranging from approximately 50-85 feet above sea level. Under existing conditions two thirds of the site drains to the northeast and the remaining third drains to the northwest. The site features 37 Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) that are primarily located along the northern and western extents of the site, with a few oaks located towards the interior. The project proposes the removal of 7 of the 37 Coast Live Oaks which are to be replaced on a 1:1 ratio as required by Section 17.065 of the City's Municipal Code (See expanded discussion in Section 3.4: Biological Resources). As part of a previously approved administrative Tentative Parcel Map, the single-family home adjacent to the subject subdivision (identified as Parcel 2 on Figure 2 above) is currently being construction. The single-family home on Parcel 2 is visible from West Street and Keller Street and is considered a gateway structure for the proposed Keller Court Commons and will be used to set the tone for the design, materials, and style. The subdivision site is situated on a largely vacant parcel behind the 1897 Queen Anne home known as the Lundholm/ Patocchi residence located at 200 West Street (on Parcel 1 as shown in Figure 2 above). Historically the project site and the residence were part of the same parcel, but were subdivided in 2013. The City processed and approved an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) (File No.13-TPM-0016) that created 2 parcels and a remainder parcel (1.66 -acre subject subdivision parcel). A Condition of Approval #14 in the March 14, 2013 letter approving the TPM, stipulated that a future application to develop the remainder parcel should include local landmark designation for the farmhouse. As described above in the project description, the entitlements include the provision for local landmark designation. The Queen Anne home retains historical integrity and is being considered for designation on the Local Register of Historic Places. The Lundholm/Patocchi residence and the project site are visible from the respective parcels, but intermittent screening exists in the form of vegetation and trees (Figure 4 below show the view from the project site looking towards West Street with the Queen Anne home on the right and the new single-family residential home on the left.) Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 10 Figure 4: Project Site looking south Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page II 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 T 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 / Planning 16. Transportation / Traffic 5. Cultural Resources x 11. Mineral Resources 17. Utilities / Service Systems 6. Geology / Soils x 12. Noise x 18. Mandatory Findings of 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 find 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 mitiqation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Jacqueline Turner, Principal Planner Applicant Signature: Date Date Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 12 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following discussion addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment. 3.1. AESTHETICS Sources: 2025 General Plan and GP EIR; Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report prepared by Horticultural Associates, February 24, 2014; Architectural and Landscaping Plans prepared by MAD Architecture, June 9, 2014. Aesthetics Setting: The natural features that characterize Petaluma and its surroundings provide for a visually rich setting. The City of Petaluma is located in the Petaluma River Valley, which is northwest - southeast trending between Sonoma Mountain and Mount Burdell. The City is flanked by the foothills and peaks associated with these mountain ranges which provide for views of rolling hills and agricultural landscapes. Petaluma is also traversed by the Petaluma River and tributaries, which further contribute to the aesthetic quality of the City. A long established urban form within the City limits contrasts with the surrounding natural and agricultural features and provides for a distinct visual character. The project site at 000 West Street is comprised of 1.66 acres of underdeveloped land surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The site is located within the City's Urban Grown Boundary and within the West Planning Subarea (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan). The West Planning Subarea is composed of well established neighborhoods that include residential, commercial and institutional uses. The West Planning Subarea includes all of the Downtown west of Petaluma Boulevard and, based on its proximity to the historic center, contains a large proportion of the historic buildings in Petaluma, many of which date to the early twentieth century. The neighborhoods are arranged in a grid pattern with tree -lined streets. The West subarea also features a disproportionate amount of Petaluma's vacant lands that are interspersed throughout the area, and largely confined to topographically constrained sites. Aesthetic and visual resources present in the vicinity of the project site include interrupted views of the Sonoma Mountains, prominent Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) located on and around the project site and a historically significant Queen -Ann home located adjacent to the project site as well as a number of historic homes located throughout the residential neighborhood. The Keller Court Commons project includes the removal of seven of the thirty-eight protected coast live oaks, one non -protected box elder and non-native grasses and vegetation that cover the project site. The removed oaks will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio consistent with §17.065 of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The existing 1930's metal shed onsite will be demolished with portions of the materials re -used in the new construction. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 13 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: p 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? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in El © El area? Sources: 2025 General Plan and GP EIR; Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report prepared by Horticultural Associates, February 24, 2014; Architectural and Landscaping Plans prepared by MAD Architecture, June 9, 2014. Aesthetics Setting: The natural features that characterize Petaluma and its surroundings provide for a visually rich setting. The City of Petaluma is located in the Petaluma River Valley, which is northwest - southeast trending between Sonoma Mountain and Mount Burdell. The City is flanked by the foothills and peaks associated with these mountain ranges which provide for views of rolling hills and agricultural landscapes. Petaluma is also traversed by the Petaluma River and tributaries, which further contribute to the aesthetic quality of the City. A long established urban form within the City limits contrasts with the surrounding natural and agricultural features and provides for a distinct visual character. The project site at 000 West Street is comprised of 1.66 acres of underdeveloped land surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The site is located within the City's Urban Grown Boundary and within the West Planning Subarea (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan). The West Planning Subarea is composed of well established neighborhoods that include residential, commercial and institutional uses. The West Planning Subarea includes all of the Downtown west of Petaluma Boulevard and, based on its proximity to the historic center, contains a large proportion of the historic buildings in Petaluma, many of which date to the early twentieth century. The neighborhoods are arranged in a grid pattern with tree -lined streets. The West subarea also features a disproportionate amount of Petaluma's vacant lands that are interspersed throughout the area, and largely confined to topographically constrained sites. Aesthetic and visual resources present in the vicinity of the project site include interrupted views of the Sonoma Mountains, prominent Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) located on and around the project site and a historically significant Queen -Ann home located adjacent to the project site as well as a number of historic homes located throughout the residential neighborhood. The Keller Court Commons project includes the removal of seven of the thirty-eight protected coast live oaks, one non -protected box elder and non-native grasses and vegetation that cover the project site. The removed oaks will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio consistent with §17.065 of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The existing 1930's metal shed onsite will be demolished with portions of the materials re -used in the new construction. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 13 Keller Court Commons Desiqn Concept In the absence of conceptual architectural design for the property, the requisite architectural and site plan review, pursuant to IZO Section 24.010, will take place prior to the issuance of any building permits. At that time the proposed height, massing and architectural design will be reviewed. The tentative subdivision map is consistent with the zoning standards of the proposed re -zone from R2 to PUD. The height parameters, building envelope, and setback requirements established by the PUD zoning district ensure that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing development in the project vicinity. It is understood that the layout and architectural design of the eight residences and associated amenities will be deferential to the historic agricultural use of the site and reflect a farmstead -like character with massing and scale reminiscent of an agrarian vernacular. The proposed buildings will not attempt literal replication, rather the design will reflect a contemporary interpretation. The proposed building materials are expected to include corrugated metal, asphalt shingle and metal roofing, metal/fiberglass clad windows, fiber cement, and new reclaimed wood board siding. The eight residential units will be sited in a U -Shape around the central portion of the site and will be oriented toward the courtyard located in the central -east portion of the site. The residences will feature irregular roof forms that utilize both gabled and shed -roof styles. Each of the residences will be distinct in form, but will feature similar detailing and utilize the same material types. The commons building, to be located in the central portion of the site, will be a single story building with a shed roof and feature expansive windows along the east elevation. Garages will be set back and clustered in the west/northwest portion of the site adjacent to many of the coast live oaks which provides a visual buffer and tempers the visual prominence common of parking facilities. The three garages will house 2-4 vehicles each. The garages will be horizontally oriented and will mimic the materials utilized in the residential construction. The walls will be clad in corrugated metal with the side gabled roof clad in composition shingles. The second story studio above Garage A will be clad in Board and Batten Siding. A one-story shed clad in board and batten will be attached at the north elevation of Garage A. Landscape plantings will be located throughout the site and will be distributed sporadically to present an organically formed landscape. Plants proposed for the project site include native and ornamental trees; accent trees and a number of fruit trees, some of which will be espaliered. Citrus hedges will also be included as will a variety of small and large shrubs. Plantings adjacent to residences include sun and shade shrubs as well as perennials, small grasses and groundcover accents. Aesthetics Impact Discussion: 3.1(a, c) Less than Significant Impact: The 2025 General Plan EIR identifies vistas of Sonoma Mountain and the Petaluma Valley as significant visual resources with notable viewpoints seen from Washington Street Overpass, McNear Peninsula and Rocky Memorial Dog Park. The proposed 8 -lot subdivision development is not located in the direct vicinity to any of the notable viewpoints and would neither obstruct nor diminish any existing viewsheds. The project is proposed on an underdeveloped parcel located within the bounds of the UGB. Since the site is surrounded on four sides by existing residential development the project is considered infill. The GP EIR states that within the built city, infill development would not have a significant effect on the visual quality of the city, because new development will be similar in scale and character to existing development. As proposed the project would result in a density of 5.76 units per acre, which is consistent with the surrounding low density land uses that allow for 2.6-8.0 units per acre. The eastern portion of the project site exhibits a descending slope. Accordingly, the project is required to comply with the City's Hillside Ordinance, §16.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). The project clusters all lots outside of the slope area, and largely retains the naturally sloping eastern edge of the site. Fruit trees and citrus hedges are proposed to be planted along the eastern portion of the site. As proposed, the project generally conforms to the Hillside Ordinance by avoiding substantial slope alteration on the steepest portion of the site. Given the site location, surrounding development and proposed subdivision, the project will not substantially alter the visual character or quality of the site and impacts would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 14 The proposed infill development would not be expected to have a substantial adverse impact on panoramic views or create incongruous visual elements because the height and massing of new development would be similar to existing development in the project vicinity. The lotting shown on the proposed tentative subdivision map indicates a pattern that is similar in scale and intensity to the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, development of the proposed subdivision would not impact scenic vistas or the visual quality of the area and potential impacts would be less then significant. 3.1(b) No Impact: No State Scenic Roadways traverse the planning area, therefore no scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings visible from a State Scenic Highway would be impacted. No Impacts associated with views from a State Scenic Roadway would result from the proposed project. 3.1(d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site is bounded on all sides by existing residential uses, all of which currently contain lighting associated with buildings, landscaping and parking areas. In addition, roadways within the project vicinity contain street lighting that contributes to the existing luminance levels. Exterior lights installed in conjunction with the proposed development will increase artificial light in the vicinity, as will headlights from new cars accessing the project driveway The potential exists for headlights from cars entering and exiting the proposed subdivision to introduce new light and glare onsite and along project area roadways. However, the project access driveway aligns with Keller Street and would not introduce substantial new turning movements that could result in headlight intrusion onto adjacent properties. Landscaping design and screening that utilizes a mixture of shrubs and trees will minimize light and glare onsite and projected onto adjacent properties from vehicle headlights. Accordingly, light and glare from new vehicles is expected to have a less than significant impact. New lighting onsite associated with the parking area, pathways, common areas, and on -building lighting will introduce new sources on light onsite and has the potential to result in light pollution associated with street lamps and exterior residential lighting that could affect nighttime view in the project area. Standard conditions of project approval require that all exterior lighting be directed onsite and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties. Only low -intensity light standards and/or wall -mounted lights will be used (no flood lights) and lights attached to buildings will provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall in order to avoid direct glare, The proposed Keller Court Commons project is required to conform with §21.040.D of the Petaluma IZO, which specifies lighting standards for all new exterior lighting such as the provision that the cone of direct illumination be sixty degrees if the luminary is greater than 6 feet above the ground. In order to ensure that new lighting introduced onsite and in the project vicinity does not constitute a significant impact, Mitigation Measures AES -1 shall be implemented. AES -1 requires that all exterior lighting is directed onto the project site and access ways, and is shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties. With mitigation the project's potential to result in increased glare and light will be reduced to levels below significance. Mitigation Measures: AES -1. 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. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Pape 15 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 shown 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR. Aaricultural Setting: Agricultural lands within the UGB are limited to "Farmland of Local Importance", "grazing land", and 'other land" and there are no identified forestlands within the City of Petaluma. None of the agricultural designations are present on or near the project site. Aaricultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.2(a -e) No Impact: Historically the project site did support agricultural uses, however at present the site is designated low density residential pursuant to the General Plan 2025 Land Use Plan and is zoned residential 2 (R2) pursuant to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). The project site does not include any agricultural or forested land, nor does it support a land use designation or zoning that would permit such use. The project, as proposed, consists of infill development located on a vacant lot and will not impact prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The 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 another use. As the project is infill within the UGB it will not provide an impetus for the conversion of farmland or forest to any alternative use. Therefore, the project will have no impact to agricultural and forestry resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 16 3.3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria Less Than established by the applicable air quality Potentially significant Less than No management or air pollution control district may be significant with significant impact relied upon to make the following determinations. Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El 1:1 Elapplicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Sources; 2025 GP and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; BAAQMD Surface Street Screening Criteria, May 2011; and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Air Qualitv Setting: The City of Petaluma is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is affected by natural geographical and meteorological conditions as well as human activities such as construction and development, operation of vehicles, industry and manufacturing, and other anthropogenic emission sources. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish national and state ambient air quality standards respectively. 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 several air quality monitoring stations, the closest to the project site is located in downtown Santa Rosa at 5th Street, approximately 15 miles north of Petaluma. The Santa Rosa monitoring station records pollutant concentration levels for carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PM25). The Bay Area Air Basin 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 Air Basin is also in non - attainment for the PMto and PM25 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than 20 pg/m3 for PM1e and less than 12 pg/m3 for PM25. In addition, the Basin is designated as non - attainment for the national 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM25) standard and will be required to prepare a State Implementation Plan jSIP) for PM25. 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, Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 17 Petaluma General Plan The City's General Plan sets forth policies and programs to maintain and enhance air quality. There are several policies that are particularly applicable to the subject project, including 4-P-6 to improve air quality through the planting of trees along streets, 4-P15 D to reduce emissions from residential uses, and 4-P-16 to reduce emissions during construction. Air Qualitv Impact Discussion: 3.3(a) No Impact: The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in September 2010 to comply with state air quality planning requirements set forth in the California Health & Safety Code. The 2010 CAP serves to update the 2005 Ozone Strategy and provides control strategies to address air quality pollutants including ozone (03), Particulate Matter (PM), toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). A total of 55 control strategies have been developed as part of the CAP for land use, energy and climate, stationary sources, transportation, and mobile sources. Control strategies are designed to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, PM, air toxics, greenhouse gases, and work towards attainment of state ozone standards, reduce transport of ozone to neighboring basins, and to protect public health and the climate. Measures to implement control strategies include the use of clean and efficient vehicles, Green Construction Fleets, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access, energy efficiency, and others. The 2010 CAP incorporated population projections set forth in the City's 2025 General Plan. Accordingly, the City's General Plan is consistent with the 2010 CAP. Development of the proposed Keller Court Commons Project is consistent with the General Plan and would not result in any conflicts in implementing the CAP. Therefore, the project would have no impacts due to a conflict with implementation of the regional air quality plan. 3.3(b -c) Less Than Significant Impact: Air quality emissions associated with the proposed project would result from short-term construction activities and ongoing operation. BAAQMD Guidelines, as adopted in 2010 include "screening criteria" that provide a conservative estimate above which a project would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to air quality. Projects that are below the screening criteria threshold are reasonably expected to result in less than significant impacts to air quality since pollutant emissions would be minimal. Additionally, when projects fall below the screening criteria levels, a quantitative analysis of the project's air quality emissions is not required. Air quality emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM25) from construction and operation are evaluated pursuant to the 2010 CEQA Guidelines,2 There is no carbon monoxide (CO) emissions threshold applicable to construction emissions. For carbon monoxide (CO), the operational significance threshold is 9.0 particles per minute (8 -hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1 -hour average). The screening level criteria for a single-family development are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria for Residential Land Use Land Use Type Operational Screening Size Construction Screening Size Single -Family 325 du (NO x) 114 du (ROG) Source: Table 3-1, pg. 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010. BAAQMD's 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District complies with CEQA. Nonetheless, the City of Petaluma recognizes these thresholds represent the best available scientific data and has elected to rely on these to determining screening levels and significance. On August 13, 2013 the Court of Appeals issued a decision on the lawsuit that upheld the significance threshold. Table 3-1 of the 2010 CEQA Guidelines is used to assess screening levels. The case has since been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court but not based on the adequacy of the thresholds. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 18 Construction activities may result in air quality emissions generated by the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, trenching, transport of materials, and workers commuting to and from the project site. Table 1 above shows that the screening level to determine significant air quality impacts from construction of a single- family development is 114 dwelling units. The Keller Court Commons Subdivision proposes the development of 8 new single-family residences, well below the screening level. Therefore, construction activities associated with the development of the proposed Subdivision would have a less than significant impact to air quality. Although there are no new stationary "point sources" created (large emitters such as manufacturing plants), the project will include small individual "area sources' such as residential furnaces, water heaters and consumer products such as solvents, cleaners, and paints. Most area source emissions generated onsite would come from the consumption of natural gas associated with residences. Air quality emissions will also be generated during the operation of vehicles (mobile sources). To a much lesser extent onsite landscaping maintenance will also generate air quality emissions. Table 1 above indicates that the operational project level screening size for a single-family development is 325 dwelling units. As an 8 -unit development, the proposed subdivision is well below the established screening size for operational emissions. The Keller Court Commons Subdivision Project will not violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in non - attainment, namely 03, PM10, and/or PM25. Therefore, air quality emissions generated by the proposed project will be less than significant. 3.3(d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as "facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people with illnesses." These facilities may include schools, hospitals or residential areas In Petaluma, sensitive receptors include residential land uses, elementary, junior and high schools, and hospitals, care facilities and convalescent homes. The project is located immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes and has the potential to result in air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during construction activities associated with fugitive dust emissions. Grading and site preparation will result in the redistribution of soil across the project site in order to achieve desired site elevations. Construction activities will generate fugitive dust, which has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that fugitive dust emissions are reduced to levels below significance Mitigation Measure AQ -1 shall be implemented. AQ -1 is set forth pursuant to BAAQMD Basic Control Strategies and requires covering haul trucks, watering during active ground disturbance, limiting idling time, proper maintenance of equipment, and other standard measures. With implementation of AQ -1 potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction will be reduced to levels below significance. At operation the project would not generate emissions that would impact sensitive receptors. As a proposed residential development, air quality emissions generated onsite at operation would be minimal and similar to emissions generated by surrounding residential development. Any impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants at operation of the proposed project will remain below levels of significance. 3.3(e) Less than Significant Impact: As a residential development, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Although there may be occasional odors during construction associated with street paving and architectural coating, these are short term in duration and will cease once construction is complete. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to air quality due to objectionable odors. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 19 Mitigation Measures: AQ -1: The applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices for all construction activities and clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. In addition an erosion control program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Petaluma prior to any construction activity. BMPs shall include but not be limited to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as modified below: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times per day; 2 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material shall be covered, 3. 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. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible; 6. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; 7. 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 [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; 8. 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; 9. Construction equipment staging shall occur as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors; 10. The Develooer shall designate a person with authoritv to reouire increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control oroaram and provide name and ohone number to the Citv prior to issuance of orading 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; and 11. The City's Public Works Inspector shall perform visual inspections during grading to assure that dust control is implemented and standard BMP are enforced. Resolution No, 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 20 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 ❑ ® El ❑ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Formerly 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 El 0in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly 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 1-1 El El Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or El ❑ ® El with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree El H El El preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat El El N conservation plan? Sources: 2025 GP and GPEIR; Biological Assessment performed by Weimeyer Ecological Sciences, March 4, 2014; and Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report prepared by Horticultural Associates, February 24, 2014. Bioloqical Resources Settinq: 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. As reported in the 2025 General Plan EIR several plant and animal species with special -status have been recorded or are suspected to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Petaluma. The City also supports species that are identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity and threats, and are considered sensitive resources. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 21 Within the Urban Growth Boundary, biological resources are largely limited to the Petaluma River and its tributaries, which contain aquatic and riparian resources as well as wetlands. The National Wetland inventory identifies fresh emergent wetlands in the southern portion of the Petaluma River and Northern coastal salt marsh wetland and brackish marsh wetland in the lower reaches of the Petaluma River. The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, prepared in 1996, contains policies and guidelines to protect these important biological resources. The subject 1.66 -acre project site consists entirely of non-native annual grassland habitat that has largely been disturbed and support ruderal habitat. The site does include 37 Coast Live Oaks primarily sited along the northern and western extents of the site. The existing trees provide suitable nesting habitat for native birds but no nests were observed during the Biological Assessment. The site also may provide limited foraging habitat for native birds, however, the loss of the limited foraging habitat is not expected to constitute a significant impact to native birds or special status raptor species. No seasonal wetlands were found to exist on the site. Based on the limited habitat value, the site it is not expected to serve as habitat for any special status plant of animal species. Biological Resources Impact Discussion: 3.4(a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Biological Assessment performed by Wiemeyer Ecological Sciences indicates low habitat value on the project site. Given the sites location in an established residential neighborhood and the disturbed condition of the habitat there is little expectation that special status plant species are present on the site. No special status animal species were observed during the site visit performed as part of the Assessment. The habitat of the site is considered unsuitable habitat for California Red Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, American Badger, Burrowing Owl or any special status bat species. It is further noted that the Biological Assessment did not identify any native bird or raptor nests during onsite observation conducted during the site visit. However, this does not preclude the potential for raptor species to nest or forage on the project site. Raptor species including the red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis) and red -shouldered hawk (Buteo Lineatus) are known to nest and forage in and around urban areas. Furthermore, onsite trees may provide perching and potential nesting opportunities to bird species including migratory birds that are protected under the MBTA. Construction of the project site will result in the removal of several of the established Oak trees, which could potentially impact MBTA species or other nesting species if present. In order to afford protection to such nesting species, General Plan policy 4-P-4, as well as California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the MBTA ensure that potential impacts to migratory bird species are avoided. Mitigation measure BIO -1, set forth below provides that should construction activities occur within the breeding season (Sept - July) then a pre -construction bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. With implementation of mitigation measure BIO -1 potential impacts to nesting birds due to site development will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.4(b) Less than Significant Impact: As described in the Biological Assessment that was prepared for the proposed project, the only plant community observed onsite consists of degraded and disturbed, non-native, annual grassland composed predominantly of wild oat (Avenue Fatua), Soft Chess (Bromus Hordeaceus), small quacking grass (Briza Minor) and field bindweed (Convovulus Arvensis). There were no wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified onsite. Given the sites location in an established residential neighborhood and the lack of any identified natural community, development of the proposed project would not result in substantial impacts to riparian habitat or other natural communities, nor would it conflict with any policies or program protecting riparian resources. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts. 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 or vicinity. Therefore, the project will have no impact to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 22 3.4(d) Less Than Significant Impact: There is no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites on the project site or in the project vicinity. The existing residential development surrounding the project site makes it relatively inaccessible to many species and eliminates the possibility of the site functioning as a movement corridor. Development of the proposed Keller Court Commons Project will not substantially interfere with the movement of fish or other wildlife species including migrating species. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to wildlife corridors and species movements. 3.4(e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Chapter 17 of Petaluma's Municipal code establishes provisions for the protection, preservation and maintenance of mature trees citywide. In accordance with §17.055 of the IZO, a site specific Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report was prepared by Arborist, John C. Meserve, on February 24, 2014. The report includes an inventory of existing trees, evaluation of tree health and value and recommendations to reduce adverse impacts to on-site trees resulting from the proposed project. The Report indicates that of the 38 on-site trees, 30 will be preserved. The Arborist Report finds that 37 of the 38 tree species are Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) and one is a native Box Elder (Acer Negundo). The Box Elder is not a protected tree per the Petaluma Tree Ordinance. All Coast Live Oaks exhibiting a diameter breast height (DBH) of 4 inches or greater are protected pursuant to §17.040 and subject to the tree preservation and removal requirements set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. As proposed seven protected trees (#10, 17, 18, 19, 30, 37, and 38) are recommended for removal based on potential development impacts. As shown on TM -4, tree number 10 is in direct conflict with the courtyard plan and the proposed commons area building. Tree numbers 17, 18, and 19 are growing immediately against the extant 1930s era barn proposed for demolition. It is expected that upon removal of the barn the trees will not be able to stand on their own and therefore are not good candidates for preservation. Tree number 30 is proposed for removal based on poor health and because it represents a potential hazard. Tree numbers 37 and 3B are proposed for removal in order to construct the storm drain that will convey flows offsite via a new drainage pipeline within Cherry Street. The location of the storm drain path was selected as it would result in the fewest impacts to trees. All but one of the trees proposed for removal were given a health rating of 4 and a structural rating of 3 meaning that they exhibit good health and moderate structure. As the balance of the trees onsite are located along the northwest and western periphery the project, they are able to be preserved under the proposed Subdivision. Based on the above information and in accordance with §17.065(A) of the IZO, the protected trees proposed for removal shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 to offset losses to trunk diameter. Tree number 30, which was found to be in poor health and exhibit poor structure, is not required to be replaced. Based on the Conceptual Tree Plan (L2.0) the coast live oaks to be removed exhibit an aggregate total diameter of 102 inches. Pursuant to the tree replacement values set forth in §17.065 of the IZO, tree replacement shall consist of 58 replacement trees exhibiting an aggregate total diameter of 104 inches which satisfies the requirement that protected trees be replaced at a 1:1 ratio as required by Measure BIO -2. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, set forth below, the project will be consistent with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Tree Preservation Ordinance also requires the protection of mature trees to remain onsite. Development of the proposed Project will require construction activities in close proximity to protected trees, which could result in impacts to the integrity of the tree root system if not properly controlled. The proposed site design and installation of infrastructure will result in limited intrusion into tree drip lines, specifically those of trees numbers 12, 27, 35, 36, 48, 51 and 53. Based on site constraints a short retaining wall is to be constructed adjacent to tree number 12 and fall slightly inside the dripline. A maximum of 15% of the driplines of trees number 12 and 27 will be used to accommodate parking (assuming impervious pavement is used). It is recommended that extruded concrete or asphalt curbs be used to eliminate the need for excavation in that area. Tree numbers 35 and 36 are located on Cherry Street and their driplines will be subject to trenching associated with installation of the sewer line installation. In order to provide protection and encourage root regeneration post trenching it is recommended that hand trenching or an air spade be used and efforts such as mulching and irrigation be utilized following trenching. Intrusion into driplines of tree numbers 48, 51 and Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 23 53 will occur upon construction of Lot #8 located in the northwestern portion of the site and will necessitate the use of protective fencing during construction and addition of mulch along the Cherry Street side of the building at operation to provide a modicum of protection. Pedestrian and vehicular Pathways located beneath trees will utilize decomposed granite or will feature GravelPave2. Adherence to recommendations outlined in the Arborist report dated February 24, 2014 as required in Mitigation measure BIO -3 would avoid conflicts with the tree mitigation ordinance. Implementation of measure BIO -3 will ensure that potential impacts to protected trees to remain onsite are reduced to less than significant levels. 3.4(f) No Impact: There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other regional, or state habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma, or would regulate the proposed development on this parcel. Development of the Project will not conflict with any adopted biological resource plan. Therefore, the Project will have no impacts to biological resource management plans, conservation plan, or their implementation. Mitigation Measures: BIO -1. To prevent impacts to nesting birds covered by State and federal law (California Department of Fish and Game Code and the MBTA), the applicant shall avoid the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation between February 1 and July 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 seven 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 in the areas to be cleared, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts, whichever is later. BIO -2. Prior to issuance of tree removal permit, replacement trees equaling a total of 104 -inches of replacement trunk diameter (a total of 58 tree or the equivalent pursuant to zoning section 17.065 (A.3.c.3) shall be shown on the Final Landscaping Plans. BIO -3. In order to ensure that trees to remain onsite are protected during construction activities all design measures outlined in the Tree Mitigation and Preservation Report prepared by Horticulture Associates shall be depicted on construction drawing and implemented throughout all stages of construction. Tree Protection measures shall include, but are not limited to the installation of protective fencing around all trees on-site and that the site margins, use of decomposed granite beneath protected trees, and minimization of soil compaction during grading. When trenching occurs within a trees dripline, the project arborist shall be present to supervise the work and provide direction on the least intrusive techniques to be used. All efforts shall be made to promote regeneration and preservation following trenching activities. Any and all pruning of preserved trees shall follow the International Society of Arborists Pruning Standards. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 24 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theect: j roSignificant with Significant Impact P Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El X❑ F-1 significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El z El El significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique El 2 El El paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those El 11 0 El interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; A CEQA Review and Evaluation for Significant, Lundholm/Patocchi Residence and Olindo Patocchi Garage, 200 West Street, Prepared by Clark Historic Resource Consultants, May 2006. Historic Resources Evaluation, prepared by Clark Historic Resource Consultants, dated Auqust 26, 2011 Cultural Resources Settino: The City of Petaluma features a rich variety of historic and cultural resources that contribute to Petaluma's character and identifiable sense of place. The City and adjacent areas contain resources that date to the inhabitation of the Coastal Miwok Tribe and a number of resources that visibly chronicle the evolution of the City from early settlement through present day Such resources include artifacts, buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, objects, and districts. Within the UGB there exist 14 Native American Resources that have been identified, 19 historic sites and 3 historic districts: Oakhill -Brewster, Downtown, and A -Street. The Downtown Historic District has been designated as a National Historic District. There are upwards of 300 properties have been identified as potentially eligible for listing on a local, state, or national register of historic places. In order to perpetuate the unique character found in Petaluma, the City has adopted policies and programs that serve to compliment and reinforce the sense of place. The City has implemented policies to regularly update and/or expand surveys of local historic resources and pursue incentives and programs that will aid in preservation efforts. Existing policies and regulations governing historic preservation within the City can be found in Chapter 3 of the 2025 Petaluma General Plan and Chapter 15 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The subdivision site is not located within a designated historic district, nor does it contain any individually significant historic resources. However, as mentioned above the 1897 Queen Anne Residence is located adjacent to the proposed subdivision site on Parcel 2. In April 2006, at the behest of the property owner, Clark Historic Resource Consultants performed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the potentially historic buildings. The evaluation reviewed the 1897 Queen Anne Residence (Lund holm/Patocchi residence) located at 200 West St, adjacent to the project site, and the 1930s shed located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lundholm/Patocchi residence and shed were evaluated in accordance with the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The findings of the HIRE indicate that the 1897 Queen Anne residence is considered eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion (1) and (3) based on its association with broad patterns of local or regional history and its embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The 1930s metal shed does not share the same Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 25 historical and architectural associations as the Lundholm/ Patocchi Residence and was found ineligible for the National and California Registers of Historic Places. As mentioned above, the City processed and approved an application for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) (File No.13-TPM-0016) that created 2 parcels and a remainder parcel (1.66 -acre subject subdivision parcel). A Condition of Approval #14 in the March 14, 2013 letter approving the TPM, stipulated that a future application to develop the remainder parcel shall include local landmark designation for the farmhouse. As described above in the project description, the entitlements include the provision for local landmark designation of the Queen Anne home (Lund holm/Patocchi). Cultural Resources Impact Discussion: 3.5(a) Less than Significant Impact: Adjacent to the project site is a 10,000 square foot parcel that features an 1897 Queen Anne residence, known as the Lundholm-Patocchi Residence and the original palm planting located in the front yard facing West Street. The historic resource is located outside of the project site boundaries and will not endure direct impacts associated with build out of the proposed project. However, based on the close proximity to the site, the potential for indirect impacts on the integrity of the historic resource was considered. Integrity is considered within 7 parameters: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The development incorporates design measures that will reflect the aesthetic rhythm, massing, scale and siting of the earlier agricultural buildings on the project site that historically served as a backdrop to the 1897 Queen Anne Residence. All garages will be detached and located in a grouping so as to mimic the surrounding neighborhoods where imposing garages are largely absent. Setbacks and siting of buildings will encourage a setting that is reminiscent of the historical agricultural use of the site and reflect the setbacks of surrounding residences. As cottage -like, two-bedroom homes not exceeding 1,509 square feet, the residences will not be overly imposing or stylized as to detract from the historic resource but will allow for a compatible yet differentiated site. Furthermore, as proposed the existing space between the adjacent parcel with the historic resources and new structures introduced on the project site will be maintained. A "farm fence" will be installed between the 1897 residence and the project site that will further provide visual differentiation between the proposed infill development and the historic home. The project also proposes to retain the seven existing trees located around the Queen Anne residence and will introduce evergreen accent trees and citrus hedge along the farm fence that will provide an additional buffer to further differentiate the historic home from the proposed Subdivision. The site is located within an established neighborhood featuring diversity of architectural styles that showcase the evolution of residential development over the past century and a half. Based on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, lotting pattern, vegetative screening and incorporation of historically inspired, quality materials the project is not expected to compromise the integrity of the historic home due to an indirect impact. As proposed the project provides for adequate setback buffers, screening, and distinguishing features such that any indirect impact to the integrity of the historic value of the Queen Anne residence would be less than significant. 3.5(b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City of Petaluma has a rich archeological history due to the presence of the Coast Miwok Indians during prehistoric times. As such, undisturbed lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, particularly lands in the vicinity of ridgetops, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, ecotones, and sources of water have a greater possibility of containing a prehistoric archaeological resource. The subject site is not located within any areas of elevated potential for the occurrence of archeological resources, however, there remains potential for archeological discoveries in the alluvial soils onsite. 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). Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 26 As set forth below, measure CUL -1 is provided in order to ensure that should any archeological resources be encountered during grading, all ground disturbing activity shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the artifact and recommend further action. Implementation of CUL -1 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 resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.5(c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Petaluma General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological or unique geological resources within the boundaries of the UGB. Moreover, the project site has been previously utilized including activities that would have resulted in ground disturbance. Therefore limited expectation exists for paleontological resources to be present on the project site. Nevertheless, potential remains for the discovery of buried paleontological resources. Because the potential for inadvertent discovery of paleontological or unique geological resources exists, mitigation measure CUL -2, as set forth below, will be instituted. CUL -2 will ensure that proper procedures are followed in the event of discovery; thereby reducing potential impacts to levels below significance. 3.5(d) Less Than Significant Impact: No evidence suggests that 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 to be present, all requirements of state law pursuant to CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be duly complied with, including the immediate cessation of ground disturbing activities near or in any area potentially overlying adjacent human remains including contacting the Sonoma County Coroner upon the discovery of any human remains. If it is determined by the Coroner that the discovered remains are of Native American descent the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted immediately. If appropriate, the project sponsor shall retain a City -qualified archeologist to provide adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval. It is expected that compliance with CA HSC Sect.7050.5 and performance of actions therein will ensure that in the event of accidental discovery of historically significant remains all impacts will remain at levels below significance. 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 resource be identified a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction activities. CUL -2. In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities all ground disturbing activities shall halt and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery and make treatment recommendations. Resolution No. 201.1-166 N.C.S. Page 27 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geoloqv and Soils Settinq: The Bay Area, including the City of Petaluma, is located in a seismically active region, primarily associated with the San Andreas Fault System. The City of Petaluma is susceptible to the effects of regional seismic activity that in the past have produced moderate to strong ground shaking reaching intensity levels of V to VIII according to the modified Mercalli Scale. The only known active fault trace identified by the State under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 is the Rodgers Creek Segment of the Hayward -Rodgers Creek Fault zone. The traces of the Rodgers Creek fault have not been active within the last 200 years, but do show activity within the last 11,000 years. There are no earthquake fault zones and no known active faults within the City's UGB. Nonetheless, seismic events in the region have the potential to result in geologic hazards from ground shaking, such as ground failure and seismically induced instability. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 28 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No ro t: Would theec P 1 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X other 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 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 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 ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating E] ® 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X the disposal of waste water? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; GP EIR Fig, 3.7-5; Updated Geotechnical Report performed by Miller Pacific Enqineerinq Group, April 8, 2014; and Soil Investigation Performed by Giblin Associates, July 6, 2005. Geoloqv and Soils Settinq: The Bay Area, including the City of Petaluma, is located in a seismically active region, primarily associated with the San Andreas Fault System. The City of Petaluma is susceptible to the effects of regional seismic activity that in the past have produced moderate to strong ground shaking reaching intensity levels of V to VIII according to the modified Mercalli Scale. The only known active fault trace identified by the State under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 is the Rodgers Creek Segment of the Hayward -Rodgers Creek Fault zone. The traces of the Rodgers Creek fault have not been active within the last 200 years, but do show activity within the last 11,000 years. There are no earthquake fault zones and no known active faults within the City's UGB. Nonetheless, seismic events in the region have the potential to result in geologic hazards from ground shaking, such as ground failure and seismically induced instability. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 28 In addition to seismic activity, expansive soil and soil erosion are also of concern within the City of Petaluma. The clay -rich soils in Petaluma that are typical of low-lying regions and valley floodplains have a tendency to shrink or swell according to fluctuations in soil moisture content. The expansion and contraction of such soils has the potential to damage buildings, utilities and roadways through gradual cracking, settling and weakening of foundations and infrastructure. 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 Giblin Associates on July 6, 2005 with a supplemental report prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group on April 8, 2014. The Investigation considered the future development of 1-2 story, wood -framed, cottage -like structures, the installation of paved circulation areas and new infrastructure. The proposed residences and associated site improvements will be located on lots that exhibit a minimal slope to the north. Eastern portions of the site slope more steeply with a maximum inclination of approximately 2.5:1 in an easterly direction. The site exhibits a 40 -foot variation in elevation across the entire site. To assess subsurface conditions on site the geotechnical engineer performed five exploratory borings to depths of approximately 5 feet. The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with the mapped regional geology including Wilson Grove Formation Sandstone and Holocene Fan deposits located on the steeply sloped easterly portions of the site. Near -surface conditions consist of one to three feet of relatively loose silty/clayey sand above increasingly dense stiff/clayey sands (SC) and sandy clays (CL). At depths of two to four feet the borings indicated weathered sandstone bedrock. The Geotechnical Report identified two primary concerns to be considered in design and construction of the project site, including the following: 1. Providing uniform foundation support on the weathered sandstone; and 2. Providing adequate resistance to strong seismic ground shaking The Geotechnical Report provides recommendations for site preparation and grading techniques, excavation strategies, foundation design, and other parameters to protect the proposed improvement from the identified Geotechnical concerns. Geolouv and Soils Impact Discussion: 3.6(a. i) No Impact: The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults directly traverse the site. Rodgers Creek fault is approximately 6 miles to the northeast and the San Andreas Fault is approximately 17 miles to the southwest. 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. Therefore, the subject project would have no impacts associated with risk exposure from an identified Alquist- Priolo surface rupture. 3.6(a. ii) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proximity of the City's UGB to the Hayward- Rodger's Creek Fault Zone places it within Zone VIII -Violent of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level. By virtue of its location, new residences and structures onsite may be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. An earthquake in the Hayward Rodgers -Creek fault zone with a 7.1 magnitude could create peak ground accelerations up to or greater than 0.6 g. The resulting vibrations would likely cause primary damage to buildings and infrastructure with secondary effects being ground failures in loose alluvium and landslides from poorly compacted fill. Both the primary and secondary effects of seismic activity pose a potential risk of loss of life or property. Conformance to the standard requirements set forth in the 2013 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 minimized. Based on review of the proposed project site and Section 1613, "Earthquake Load," the CBC parameters for a Site Class D will be utilized. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 29 Site Class D requirements include recommendations for foundation types, appropriate structural systems, and ground stabilization strategies. Adherence of design and construction activities to Class D specifications will ensure that the proposed subdivision 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. The project applicant's adherence to California Building Code regulation for seismic activity including proper incorporation of CBC guidelines into the design of foundation, grading and infrastructure will ensure that impacts related to seismic activity remain at less than significant levels. Measure GEO-1 below requires that the project foundation and grading and infrastructure adhere to the California Building Code regulation for seismic activity. With adherence to CBC requirements and implementation of measure GEO-1 the project is expected to effectively reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 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. Potential for liquefaction is most pronounced when the groundwater table is shallow (typically less than 50 feet below the surface) and the liquefaction potential becomes increasingly heightened as the water table becomes shallower. The Petaluma water table is generally found 10-20 feet below the surface. Figure 3.7-5 of the GP EIR indicates that much of the UGB falls within a "Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Level" with the area abutting the Petaluma River exhibiting a "High to Very High Liquefaction Hazard Level". The project site at 000 West Street is located outside of the areas identified as exhibiting "High to Very High Liquefaction Potential" pursuant to the General Plan EIR, Figure 3.7-5, Geologic Hazards. Neither the soil investigation performed by Miller Engineering nor the soil investigation performed by Giblin Associates encountered groundwater during any of the test borings. Furthermore, the subsurface conditions feature discontinuous layers of loose, silty clay over increasingly dense clayey sands and sandy clays which exhibit limited potential for liquefaction. Based on the site location outside of those areas identified as having heightened potential for liquefaction, absence of shallow groundwater and subsurface conditions which feature dense clayey sands at lower depths, the project site is determined to have less than significant impacts due to adverse effect of liquefaction. 3.6(a. iv) Less than Significant with Mitigation: The potential for a risk of landslide is dictated by several factors including precipitation conditions, soil types, steepness of slope, vegetation, seismic conditions and level of human disturbance. When certain conditions are present landslides can be triggered as a result of seismic activity. The Petaluma Planning Area has a history of landslides that have generally occurred on slopes steeper than 15% and are confined to areas underlain by geologic units that have demonstrated stability problems in the past. The majority of the project site at 000 West Street exhibits a minimal slope in the northern portion of the site that will support the majority of development. The eastern portion features a slope of approximately 28%. The balance of development will be sited on the northwest and southwest portions of the project with lots 8 and 1 and the community center located on the portion of the site that becomes increasingly steep. The eastern portion of the site adjacent to these areas is proposed for grading which will necessitate a retaining wall to support new hillside contours. It is not yet known whether these walls will be unrestrained or restrained where horizontal separations would be undesirable. It is however, recommended that reinforced concrete walls be used and designed to accommodate pressure per cubic foot or pressure per square foot as outlined in Table F of the Geotechnical Report. The portion of the site exhibiting steeper slopes of ± 28% will be planted with an orchard or the like and will not support residential development, nor undergo substantial recontouring or grading. Compliance to design recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical report and required per GEO-2 below will ensure that all potential impacts related to landslides are reduced to less than significant levels. 3.6(b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Development of the project site will require site preparation and grading activities that will potentially result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil if not properly controlled. Water and wind serve as the primary catalyst of soil erosion, with steeper slopes intensifying the effects. Vegetation removal as part of the site preparation process as well as grading and ground disturbing activities associated with development can heighten the potential for and accelerate soil erosion. Resolution No. 201 4-166 N.C.S. Page 30 Site preparation will involve demolition limited to the small shed and grubbing including the removal of vegetation such as brush, trees and root systems, and dense growths of grass. Any voids in the soil resulting from site preparation will subsequently be backfilled with compacted soil. Areas intended for grading will be removed to an average of four inches. Excavation will then be performed where necessary and exposed soil scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Site preparation, excavation and grading will impact the existing topsoil and could result in soil erosion. 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 and loss of topsoil to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts due to soil erosion would be less than significant after mitigation. 3.6(c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site exhibits an elevation change of approximately 40 feet across the site with a minimal slope on the majority of the site and an increasingly steep slope in the eastern extents of the site. The 2005 Soil Investigation performed by Giblin Associates identifies soil creep in the eastern portion of the site where weak, upper soils are located on a slope. Soil creep refers to the long term, gradual, downhill migration on the order of approximately an inch per year; this phenomenon is common to hillsides in the Sonoma County Area. The 2005 and subsequent 2014 Geotechnical Report concludes that foundations of drilled, cast in place, reinforced concrete piers that sufficiently extend into the shallow sandstone bedrock and adherence to standard CBC stipulations are sufficient to ensure that impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse would be reduced to less than significant levels. Adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and compliance with CBC regulations (GEO-1) will ensure that the project would have less than significant impacts due to the presence of a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Implementation of measure GEO-1 and GEO-2 will reduce potential impacts associated with soil stability to level below significance. 3.6(d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The Geotechnical Report does not identify the presence of expansive soils within the boundaries of the project site. The subsurface conditions indicate 1-3 feet of relatively loose silty/clayey sand over increasingly dense clayey sands and sandy clays with weathered sandstone bedrock encountered at depths of approximately 2-4 feet. The soil types identified by the borings are not especially predisposed to hold expansive potential. However, there may be isolated zones of moderately expansive clays discovered during excavation activities. Should such pockets be encountered, mixing them with granular materials as recommended in the Geotechnical report, will ensure that proper placement and compaction is achieved that substantially reduces the impact potential. With mitigation measure GEO-2 impacts associated with the presence of expansive soils will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.6(e) No Impact: The proposed project will be connected to the existing sewer system that treats all wastewater effluent generated within the UGB. There are no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems proposed as part of the subdivision. Therefore, there will be no impact resulting from the adequacy of soils to support septic tanks or other wastewater disposal system. Resolution No. 201.4-166 N.C.S. Page 31 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. 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. GEO-3. As deemed appropriate by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official all recommendations as outlined in the Soils Investigation report prepared for the subject property by Giblin Associates and supplemented by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (2005 and Updated in 2013), including but not limited to foundations system design and excavation and the use of fills, are herein incorporated by reference and shall be adhered to in order to ensure that appropriate construction techniques 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. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 32 3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Greenhouse Gas Settinq.: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats up the surface of the Earth. GHGs are generated both from natural geological and biological processes and through human activities including the combustion of fossil fuels and industrial and agricultural processes. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global climate change include carbon dioxide (COA nitrous oxide (NZO), methane (CH3), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions account for about 85 percent of the GHG emissions. To address GHGs at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. The City of Petaluma has taken steps to address GHG emissions within city limits. The City 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. In addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P-27. General Plan Goal 5-G-8, which calls for the City to "expand the use of alternative modes of mobility serving regional needs," 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 effort 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. In November 2010, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). 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 GHGs 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 was the first regional air district to adopt numeric thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial projects. The guidelines identified 1,100 metric tons (MT) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per year (CO2e/yr.) or 4.6 MT/year per service population (residents/employees) as a numeric emissions level, below which a project's contribution to global climate change would be considered less than significant. 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 less - than -significant if it either: Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 33 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theroject: P 1 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either El El 21 El directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 1:1 El ❑X El regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR. Greenhouse Gas Settinq.: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats up the surface of the Earth. GHGs are generated both from natural geological and biological processes and through human activities including the combustion of fossil fuels and industrial and agricultural processes. Other than water vapor, the GHGs contributing to global climate change include carbon dioxide (COA nitrous oxide (NZO), methane (CH3), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions account for about 85 percent of the GHG emissions. To address GHGs at the State level, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, which requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 375 has also been adopted, which seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. The City of Petaluma has taken steps to address GHG emissions within city limits. The City 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. In addition, the City of Petaluma is currently preparing a Climate Action Plan in partnership with the County and other local jurisdictions. This effort will implement General Plan Policy 4-P-27. General Plan Goal 5-G-8, which calls for the City to "expand the use of alternative modes of mobility serving regional needs," 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 effort 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. In November 2010, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen). 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 GHGs 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 was the first regional air district to adopt numeric thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial projects. The guidelines identified 1,100 metric tons (MT) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per year (CO2e/yr.) or 4.6 MT/year per service population (residents/employees) as a numeric emissions level, below which a project's contribution to global climate change would be considered less than significant. 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 less - than -significant if it either: Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 33 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, H. 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) COZe 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. 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 to evaluate project level significance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 3.7(a -b) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed subdivision will result in GHG emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, worker trips, and material delivery and hauling. Construction GHG emissions are short-term and will cease once construction is complete. The BAAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions resulting from construction activities. Rather, BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction. Best management practices are specific under AQ -1 above. GHG emissions generated from construction of the proposed subdivision will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment. Therefore, environmental impacts from construction generated GHGs due to project implementation will be less than significant. The Air District's established screening criteria of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e' was used in evaluating the project's potential to result in an impact due to GHG emissions at operation. For a Single-family development, the BAAQMD screening threshold to determine potentially significant impacts from GHGs at operation is 56 dwelling units'. As a single-family development that proposes the construction of 8 new units and associated infrastructure, the proposed Keller Court Commons Subdivision is below the screening level threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, the subdivision's ongoing generation of GHGs at operation would have less than significant impacts on the environment. Mitigation Measures: None Required. ' "Bay Area Air Quality Management District: CEQA Guidelines', Table 2-1, prepared May 2010. J Table 3-1, pg. 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 34 3.8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Sources: Petaluma GP and GP EIR. Hazardous Material Setting: 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." Regulations governing the use, management, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste and materials are administered by Federal, State and local governmental agencies. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 35 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 El El❑ Elresult, 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 El El El Elairport, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ El emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: Petaluma GP and GP EIR. Hazardous Material Setting: 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." Regulations governing the use, management, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste and materials are administered by Federal, State and local governmental agencies. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 35 The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) (formerly known as Cal/OSHA), is charged with enforcement of state regulation and the supervision of workplaces in California that are not under direct federal jurisdiction. State worker health and safety regulation applicable to construction workers include training requirements for hazardous waste operation and emergency response. The 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. As the designated Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA), the Petaluma Fire Department manages the acquisition, maintenance and control of hazardous waste by industrial and commercial business citywide. Historic Sanborn Maps indicate the site previously included eight or nine buildings consisting of agricultural sheds and poultry houses. Other than the 1930's metal shed, which was historically devoted to automotive storage, none of the previous buildings remain onsite. Based on the low intensity agricultural uses associated with the property there is little expectation that any recognized environmental conditions are present on the site. In addition, the land uses characterizing the surrounding area are limited to low density residential and therefore are not expected to have introduced any hazardous or potential hazardous materials in the project vicinity Hazards/Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion: 3.8(a -b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed project will involve the demolition of the 1930s metal shed followed by the construction of an 8 -unit single-family subdivision. Site preparation, construction activities and material delivery may result in the temporary presence of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to fuels and lubricants, paints, solvents, insulation, and electrical wiring onsite. Although these potentially hazardous materials may be present 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 any ongoing use or generation of hazardous materials other than common household hazardous waste onsite. As an outbuilding constructed pre -1980, the metal shed does have the potential to contain lead based paint (LBP). Disturbance of the lead based paint during demolition activities could expose workers to potentially hazardous compounds or release such compounds into the environment if not properly managed. Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead -Based Paint and Lead Hazards, defines lead-based paint as paint or other surfacing coating that contains an amount of lead equal to, or in excess of, one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2) or more than 0.5% by weight. In practice, this is interpreted to mean that any detectable amount of lead is regulated. For example, employees who perform trigger tasks (such as manual demolition) are required to receive employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. In addition, there are standard work practices required such as the use of wet methods and vacuums. It is required that all demolition and general work activities be conducted pursuant to all federal, state and local regulation as required by DOSH, Federal OSHA, USEPA, DTSC and BAAQMD. Mitigation measure HAZ-1, set forth below, requires that sampling of the metal shed be conducted to assess the presence of lead based paint and if identified that removal be conducted by a lead abatement contractor. With the implementation of HAZ-1 potentially significant impacts associated with demolition of 1930 metal shed will be reduced to levels below significance. Prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction activities, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements. BMP shall include measures to prevent spills and require onsite materials for cleanup. The applicant shall comply with all federal and state regulations as overseen by the Sonoma County's CUPA. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 36 In the event that construction activities involve the on-site storage of potentially hazardous materials a declaration form shall 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 and adherence to HAZ-1 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(c) No Impact: The project site is not located within a quarter mile of any existing or proposed schools. The closest school, Mary Collins Elementary School is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. Therefore, the project will result in no impacts related to the emission of hazardous materials or waste within one-quarter mile of a school. 3.8(d) No Impact: 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. 3.8(e -f) No Impact: The project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or located in close proximity to a private airstrip; the nearest airport is the Petaluma Municipal Airport located approximately 3.0 miles (geodesic distance) northeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impacts associated with airport -related hazards. 3.8(g) No Impact: The project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project will not alter any emergency response or evacuation routes. Site plans include ingress and egress access that accommodate emergency vehicles and provide connectivity to the existing circulation and street system. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no impact on the emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 3.8(h) No Impact: The project site, located in the West Planning Subarea within the UGB is bounded by residential 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 are expected. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of the 1930s metal shed, lead-based paint samples shall be collected and screened for detectable lead concentration. In the event that lead-based paint is identified then federal and state construction worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during demolition activities. If loose or peeling lead-based paint is identified, it shall be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations established by SCWMA. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 37 3.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 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 ElElproduction 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 ❑ ❑ X❑ ❑ 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 El Less Than ® El of surface runoff in a manner, which would Potentially Significant Less than No Would the Significant with Significant Impact project: P 1 Impact Mitigation Impact the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ElEl © ❑ 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 ElElproduction 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 ❑ ❑ X❑ ❑ 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 El El ® El 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? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 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 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; Preliminary Stormwater Detention and Retention Calculations prepared by ADF, March 2014; and TM -10. Resohnion No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Pale 38 Hvdroloqv and Water Qualitv Settinq: The Petaluma River is the primary watercourse within the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma watershed (an area of approximately 46 square miles). The Petaluma River is tidally influenced and flows in a southeast direction into San Pablo Bay. The Petaluma River is used for recreational boating and water sports as well as 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. The Keller Court Commons Subdivision is not in the immediate proximity to the Petaluma River or any of its tributaries. Under existing conditions, two-thirds of the project site drains to the northeast with the remaining one- third to the northwest. The City of Petaluma collects Storm Drainage Impact Fees as a means of mitigating storm drainage impacts occurring as a result of development. 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. 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, Low Impact Development (LID) requirements establish limitations on the stormwater runoff emanating from development sites. New development, including the Keller Court Commons Subdivision, is required to mimic pre -developed conditions, protect water quality, and retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction 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 the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Hvdrologv and Water Qualitv Impact Discussion: 3.9(a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project has the potential to contribute stormwater runoff during construction activities and at operation that could degrade water quality if not properly protected. As a 1.66 -acre development, the Keller Court Commons Subdivision project shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the NPDES pursuant to mitigation measure HYDRO -1 below. The intent of the SWPPP is to prevent offsite runoff of pollutants and includes measures such as hydro mulching, use of fiber rolls at storm drain inlets, anti -tracking pads, spill prevention, designated wash out areas, and others. With implementation of water quality control and waste discharge requirements as required by the NPDES General Construction permit and pursuant to HYDRO -1, the subject project will not violate any water quality of discharge requirements and potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 3.9(b) Less Than Significant Impact: The City has adequate water supply resources to accommodate development of the subdivision 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. Groundwater reserves will not be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore, the Keller Court Commons Project would have no impacts to groundwater reserves including interference with groundwater recharge (Also see Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems for discussion regarding water supplies). Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 39 3.9 (c -d) Less Than Significant Impact: Currently precipitation that falls on the project site sheet flows in a northerly direction towards Cherry Street where it runs off and enters the public storm drain system. The project would not alter the drainage pattern of any stream or river, nor would it result in erosion, siltation or flooding on or offsite. The proposed project improvements would retain the general direction of the surface flows towards Cherry Street, but would introduce underground pipes, detention and conveyance to manage stormwater. These improvements would minimally alter the course of the existing surface drainage regime by conveying stormwater runoff through an underground storm drain system. However, flows will continue to mimic pre -development conditions with two thirds of the site draining to the northeast and the remaining one third draining to the northwest. This minimal change to existing conditions would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, nor would it substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. Rather, existing flow volume and direction would largely be retained. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. 3.9(e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Under the existing condition two thirds of the site drains to the northeast, while the remaining one third drains to the northwest. As proposed as part of the Keller Court Comment Project development drainage to the northeast will be reduced to less than half of the current drainage area, with the balance of flows draining towards the northwest. The project proposes the installation of onsite and offsite storm drain facilities to accommodate surface flows generated by the introduction of impervious surfaces onsite. Onsite improvements consist of a series of storm drain pipelines and drop inlets that convey surface flows to the underground 10,000 -gallon storage tank that will serve as an onsite stormwater detention feature. All down spouts will be connected to the closed storm drain system or will be directed to vegetated bio-swales or similar surface to achieve LID requirements. The storage tank will have the capacity to capture the 851" percentile of a 100 -year storm event and will feature a perforated bottom that sits upon a 1.5' layer of drain rock to allow for percolation. The storage tank will feature a specialized manhole that regulates the release of stormwater in a manner that mimics pre -development flow rates. The Preliminary Stormwater Detention and Retention Calculations report quantifies the stormwater runoff capacities and expected surface flows and has set forth the hydrologic parameters accordingly. Onsite improvements also include the installation of 50 linear feet of a 15' private storm drain that will connect to the proposed storage tank and convey flows to the public storm drain to be located beneath Cherry Street. Off Site improvements provide for the installation of 194 linear feet of a 15" public storm drain to be dedicated to the City that extends beneath Cherry Street and conveys flows to Kingfsh Court northwest of the project site. This proposed improvement varies from the existing route in that flows bypass two catch basins prior to entering the Kingfish storm drain manhole. As the Preliminary Calculations show the proposed onsite and offsite drainage features would be sized appropriately to accommodate increased flows resulting from the proposed improvements onsite. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that adequate capacity is provide the project shall implement mitigation measure HYDRO -2 below, which requires that final storm water calculation be provided demonstrating adequate capacity and flow rate release of the detention feature consistent with the pre -development stormwater flow scheme. The use of pervious pavers and decomposed granite in pathways as well as the onsite landscaping, and design of the detention tank will encourage percolation onsite. As such, the proposed Keller Court Commons Project would be consistent with the Low Impact Development (LID) regulations that require a zero net increase in runoff. The introduction of new public/ private storm drains facilities and measure HYRDO-1 requiring that improvements are sized appropriately will ensure that the runoff will not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and contribution of runoff will be reduced to less than significant. 3.9(f) No Impact: No other water quality degradations are expected to occur from the project development. As mentioned above, implementation of the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will assure that there are no other impacts to water quality due to the subject project. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 40 3.9(g -i) Less than Significant Impact: The City of Petaluma has adopted a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (Communitywide LOMR). FIRM panel 982 of 1150 indicates that the Keller Court Commons subdivision site is outside of the mapped 100 -year floodplain. The site is located within Zone X, which indicates a minimal risk area that is outside the 1% and 0.2 % annual chance floodplain. As such, the project would not place structures within a zone subject to a flooding hazard. No structures developed as part of the subject project would impede or redirect flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, the Keller Court Commons Subdivision Project would have less than significant impacts related to hazards associated with flooding. The proposed storm drain and detention system was reviewed and evaluated and was determined to be sufficient to reduce the risk of flooding to levels below significance. Therefore, development of the project would have less than significant impact due to risk of flooding to people and housing. 3.90) No Impact: The project area is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. There are no substantial water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there will be no impact from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow resulting from project implementation. Mitigation Measures: HYDRO -1. The project shall prepare and submit a SWPPP for review and approval by Public Works prior to issuance of grading permits. The City 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. At a minimum, the plan shall: (a) identify specific types and sources of storm water pollutants; (b) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and (c) specify and incorporate appropriate control measures. 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. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 41 3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Wproject: Would the P 1 Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 El ® El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N plan or natural community conservation plan? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; and PBAC Letter, June 2, 2014 Land Use and Planning Setting: The City's land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space and public lands. Approximately 44% of the UGB lands are designated for residential development with 40% of the existing residential development consisting of single family residential. The project site is located within the West Planning Subarea, which consists primarily of residential land uses, interspersed with some commercial, institutional and community -serving uses. The project site is located on land that is designated low density residential and is surrounded by other residential land uses at similar or greater intensities than what is proposed. Petaluma's General Plan 2025 Policies contained in the Petaluma General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The following policies from the General Plan are particularly applicable to the subject project: 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-3: Preserve the overall scale and character of established residential neighborhoods. 5-P-19: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and pedestrian friendly in design. 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. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 42 Land Use and Planninq Impact Discussion: 3.10(a) Less than Significant: The project proposes the redevelopment of a currently underutilized lot that is surrounded by existing residential development similar in scale and density to the proposed Keller Court Commons subdivision. Division of an established community typically occurs when a new physical feature, in the form of an interstate or railroad, physically transects an area, thereby removing mobility and access within an established community. The division of an established community can also occur through the removal of an existing road or pathway, which would reduce or remove access between a community and outlying areas. The redevelopment of the subject site and the rezone from R2 to PUD is consistent with the surrounding established uses and will provide continuity within the existing neighborhoods. It should be noted that as a predominantly vacant and unoccupied parcel the site has been used informally as a cut through path by pedestrians travelling between Cherry Street and West Street. This path may have been established circa 2006 at the time all previous agricultural buildings were removed. The project would result in the closure of this informal path by introducing fencing, vegetation, and other improvement features that would present a barrier to public access. The informal dirt path is not considered a 'critical path" connecting West Street to Cherry Street, nor is it identified as a pedestrian path on any of the City's Pedestrian Plans. The removal of the informal path is not considered to be divisive, as it does not preclude travel between two areas. Connectivity can be achieved by utilizing Keokuk and Kentucky Streets that are located approximately 100 yards from the informal dirt path. It is recognized that a limited number of residents utilize the informal path and that similar walking distances can be achieved utilizing public sidewalks. Based on the limited utility of the informal path and the adjacent alternative pedestrian opportunities provided by Keokuk and Kentucky Streets the closure of the informal path due to provide implementation would have less than significant impacts due to the division of an established community. There are no aspects of the project that would substantially reduce mobility or access. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts due to the division of an established community. 3.10(b) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is required to comply with all General Plan policies and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The project proposes a re -zone from Residential (2) to PUD in order to accommodate the enclave that provides for clustering of residences around a common area that is set apart from the designated parking and garages. The density that would be accommodated by the proposed re -zone would achieve General Plan goal 1-P-1, which encourages the efficient development of underutilized lands through infill that is equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses. Additionally, the smaller, 2 bedroom homes reflective of the agricultural vernacular that used to characterize the site will further goal 1-P-3 which encourages preservation of the overall scale and character of established neighborhoods. As proposed the project does not conflict with regulations and policies set forth in the Petaluma General Plan 2025, Implementing Zoning Ordinance, or any other applicable regulation. Implementation of mitigation measures listed throughout this document ensures consistency with applicable land use policies, zoning requirements, and ordinances. Therefore, the project would not result in any conflict to City regulation and potential impacts due conflicts with established regulation would be less than significant. 3.10(c) No Impact: The project is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans that apply to the UGB. Therefore, the project will have no impact to any conservation plan or natural community plan. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 43 3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the UGB. Soil studies conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation did not reveal the presence of any valuable resources onsite. The project site has not been delineated as a locally important resource recovery site. It is not expected that the project will result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources, including those designated as "locally important'. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact that results in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 44 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would theroject: P 1 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 El Elregion EJ 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 GP and GP EIR Mineral Resources Impact Discussion: 3.11(a -b) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the UGB. Soil studies conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation did not reveal the presence of any valuable resources onsite. The project site has not been delineated as a locally important resource recovery site. It is not expected that the project will result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources, including those designated as "locally important'. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact that results in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 44 9115FA NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect result In: Significant with Significant Impact P 1 Impact Mitigation 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne ❑ ❑ © ❑ noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ © ❑ existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ levels 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X levels? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; and GP FIG.10-1: Noise Contours. Noise Settinq: Noise is generally characterized as unwanted sound. Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains and industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma is currently irregular, and thus does not constitute a significant noise source. In the future, the addition of SMART service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB. The City of Petaluma regulates the noise environment through Section 21.040 of the IZO. Residential uses in areas with Ldn 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. Petaluma General Plan indicates that low-density residential land uses are considered normally acceptable in noise environments of 60 dB CNEL/Ldn or less and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dB CNEL/Ldn. The General Plan Noise Contours Exhibit (Figure 10-1) indicate that noise levels at the project site are expected to be 60 dB CNEL/Ldn at General Plan build out. Per Section 21.040.A.3.a of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, 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, and the allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient noise levels and in no case shall the maximum allowed noise level exceed 75 dBA after adjustments are made. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 45 Noise Impact Discussion: 3.12(a, b, c) Less than Significant Impact: As mentioned above, the City of Petaluma regulates the noise environment through Section 21.040 of the IZO, which identifies noise levels of 60 CNEL as acceptable and provides that noise levels up to 70 CNEL are conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. The residential land uses adjacent to the project site are not expected to exceed ambient noise levels of 60 CNEL. There are no major arterials, highways or railways in close proximity to the project site that would elevate noise levels typical of an established low-density residential neighborhood. With present and reasonably foreseeable conditions, noise levels onsite are expected to be within the normally acceptable range. As development of a vacant lot that will be similar in scope and scale as the adjacent land uses, the project is not expected to expose adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors to excessive exterior noise. Impacts from a permanent increase in the ambient noise environment including ground borne vibration are expected to be less than significant. At project operation, the onsite land use and associated noise environment will be typical of a low density development and subject to the City' noise exposure standards. As an 8 -unit subdivision, the Keller Court Commons Project is not expected to introduce a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise environment due to activities onsite or as a result of stationary or mobile sources. The noise generating elements of the proposed project such as outdoor conversations, children at play, the operation of landscaping equipment, car engines and car doors would be similar to the existing noise environmental present within the established surrounding neighborhood. The project is expected to introduce noise elements at levels that are consistent with the surrounding ambient noise conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to the permanent ambient noise environment. 3.12(d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City's Noise Ordinance establishes standards to minimize the temporary noise impacts associated with construction, such as limitations on the time of day and week when construction activities are acceptable. Construction of the subdivision would result in temporary noise disturbances that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors due to the site's proximity to surrounding residential development. Noise generated during construction would vary depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. Construction activities that would generate noise include site grading, excavation, hauling and deliveries, foundation work, and to a lesser extent framing, and exterior and interior finishing. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. No pile driving, jack hammering, or extensive work that would generate substantial ground borne vibration is anticipated. The following table presents typical ranges of the energy -equivalent sound noise levels (Leq) at 50 feet, for domestic housing production. The table above illustrates that construction of the project would increase ambient noise levels during all phases of construction activities. Noise would be generated by trucks delivering and recovering materials at the site, grading and paving equipment, saws, hammers, the radios and voices of workers, and other typical provisions necessary to construct a residential housing project. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 46 Table 2 Construction Phase Noise Levels Construction Phase Construction Equipment Ground Clearing 83 Excavation 88 Foundations 81 Erection 81 Finishing (Paving) 88 Source: US EPA, Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol 1, p 2-104, 1971 Typical Ranges of Noise Levels (daA) at 50 Feel from Construction The table above illustrates that construction of the project would increase ambient noise levels during all phases of construction activities. Noise would be generated by trucks delivering and recovering materials at the site, grading and paving equipment, saws, hammers, the radios and voices of workers, and other typical provisions necessary to construct a residential housing project. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 46 When demolition, ground clearing, excavation, paving and foundation work are occurring near adjacent neighbors, daytime noise levels can be expected to exceed existing noise levels. When construction occurs towards the interior of the site, noise levels at the surrounding existing residences will be reduced. However, construction activities associated with the proposed development has the potential to result in temporary noise levels that would impact adjacent homes periodically over the course of the construction period. Construction related noise impacts are typically only occasionally intrusive and cease once construction is complete. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that noise levels due to onsite construction are minimized mitigation measure NOI-1, set forth below shall be implemented. NOW restricts construction activities to the daytime, waking hours; protecting the neighborhood in the more sensitive evening and nighttime hours. Adherence to measure NOI-1 below, which goes beyond the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, will ensure that potential noise impacts due to the temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise during construction are reduced to less than significant levels. 3.12(e -f) No Impact: The project site is not located within a private airstrip, an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would therefore not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) noise contours from the Petaluma Municipal Airport do not affect the subject site. The project would not expose people residing or working onsite to significant noise levels generated by the Petaluma Municipal Airport. Therefore, noise from the Petaluma Airport will have no impact to people residing or working onsite. Mitiaation Measures: NOW. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors to the subdivision site, all construction activities shall be required to comply with the following and be noted accordingly on construction contracts: Construction Hours/Scheduling: The following are required to limit construction activities to the portion of the day when occupancy of the adjacent sensitive receptors are at the lowest: a. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 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. 2. Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance: All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. 3. Idling Prohibitions: All equipment and vehicles shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. 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. 5. Quiet Equipment Selection Select quiet equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. Motorized equipment shall be outfitted with proper mufflers in good working order. 6 Staging and Equipment Storage: The equipment storage location shall be sited as far as possible from nearby sensitive receptors. 7. Noise Disturbance Coordinator: Developer shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 47 3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; and City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housinq 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. The project would add B new market rate dwelling units. The project is identified as Site 55 within the City of Petaluma Residential Land Inventory, Appendix A to the City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element, prepared 2009. Population and Housinq Impact Discussion: 3.13(a) Less than Significant Impact: The project is located in an existing neighborhood within the UGB and is not expected to directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. The project proposes the construction of eight, 2 -bedroom, residential units. It is expected, based on similar projects that approximately 50% of the homes will serve as one-person households with a balance trending towards active "empty nester" couples downsizing from larger homes. The projected population does not constitute a substantial increase and remains sufficiently below the General Plan 2025 population projections. Although the project will result in the construction of one road to provide access via West St, it will not be a through -road and therefore is not expected to promote further development beyond what is proposed for the project site. The extension of utilities will be limited to provide services to the subject property. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will have a direct or indirect impacts related to growth inducement. Impacts will remain at levels below significant. 3.13(b -c) No Impact: At present the project site contains one existing metal shed and is otherwise vacant; there are no onsite structures that are in residential use. The Project will not displace a substantial number of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project implements the City's Housing Element by contributing eight market units to the existing housing stock within the City of Petaluma. Therefore, the project will have no impacts that displace people or existing housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 48 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No ro Would theect: j p Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes El El 0 El and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of El ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR; and City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housinq 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. The project would add B new market rate dwelling units. The project is identified as Site 55 within the City of Petaluma Residential Land Inventory, Appendix A to the City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element, prepared 2009. Population and Housinq Impact Discussion: 3.13(a) Less than Significant Impact: The project is located in an existing neighborhood within the UGB and is not expected to directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. The project proposes the construction of eight, 2 -bedroom, residential units. It is expected, based on similar projects that approximately 50% of the homes will serve as one-person households with a balance trending towards active "empty nester" couples downsizing from larger homes. The projected population does not constitute a substantial increase and remains sufficiently below the General Plan 2025 population projections. Although the project will result in the construction of one road to provide access via West St, it will not be a through -road and therefore is not expected to promote further development beyond what is proposed for the project site. The extension of utilities will be limited to provide services to the subject property. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will have a direct or indirect impacts related to growth inducement. Impacts will remain at levels below significant. 3.13(b -c) No Impact: At present the project site contains one existing metal shed and is otherwise vacant; there are no onsite structures that are in residential use. The Project will not displace a substantial number of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project implements the City's Housing Element by contributing eight market units to the existing housing stock within the City of Petaluma. Therefore, the project will have no impacts that displace people or existing housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 48 3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the Project: Significant with Significant Impact 1 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? ❑ ❑ El ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ © ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ z ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR. Public Services Setting: Lands within the UGB are well served by established public services including fire and police protection, schools and parklands. In order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City services to accommodate the demand generated by new development the City charges one-time impact fees on new private development. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service related to fire and police protection services, open space, parkland and other such public services. Public Services IMDact Discussion: 3.14(a -b) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located in the West Planning Subarea within an existing neighborhood that is well served by public services. The increase in residents resulting from the proposed subdivision will result in a negligible increase in demand for police and fire service. Incremental increases in demands for fire and police service have been previously anticipated as part of General Plan build out and are accounted for through the Fire Suppression Facilities impact fee and Law Enforcement Facilities Fee that are intended to offset the impacts of growing demands for such services. General Plan policy 7-P-19 establishes a four minute travel time and a six minute response time for emergencies within the city. The project is located approximately 1 mile from Fire Station # 1, at 198 D Street. The project is within the response radii (see GP EIR figure 3.4-2) and travel time is achievable within the targeted 4 minutes. The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 because of the redundancy of approach access, the ability of emergency response vehicles to override traffic controls with lights, sirens, and signal pre-emption, and their ability to travel in opposing travel lanes in congested conditions. The addition of project trips to the adjacent grid street network is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds sufficient to cause significant delays for emergency vehicles. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 49 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 from new development are less than significant. 3.14(c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts or require new school facilities. The project site is located within the Petaluma Elementary School District and in close proximity to the Cinnabar School District. The General Plan projects that the Petaluma Elementary School District will experience an increase in enrollment which is expected to exceed school capacity at General Plan buildout by a total of 175 students. However, the Petaluma Joint Union High School District will experience a decrease in enrollment by General Plan buildout due to a shift in the population demographics and will have excess capacity. In order to address the anticipated capacity limit, the General Plan identifies redistribution between the districts, which would provide for adequate capacity based on the projected population and student enrollment projections. Based on current capacities, sufficient school facilities are in place to accommodate any minor increase in enrollment associated with development of the Keller Court Commons Project. Additionally, the project is subject to the payment of statutory school impact fees to offset any cumulative impacts on the school system. Furthermore, the nature of the development which features 2 bedroom Cottage -like structures is expected to support a balance of single residents and is not expected to house larger families. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to schools. 3.14(d) Less Than Significant Impact: The City has adopted a citywide parks standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The project is located approximately 0.5 miles from both Oak Hill and Penry Parks and is 0.6 miles from Cherry Valley Park. All of the parks provide passive and active recreation opportunities within walking distance of the project site. The subject project, proposing the construction of eight, 2 -bedroom residences, will 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 park lands due to the Keller Court Commons Project 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 surrounded by established residential development and is well served by existing public services. The project will not generate a substantial increase in demands that warrant the expansion or construction of new public facilities or services. Therefore, no impacts related to other public facilities are expected. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 50 3.15. RECREATION Would the project' 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? Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; and Figure 6-1 Parks and Open Space. Recreation Setting: The City of Petaluma contains approximately 1,300 acres of parks and open spaces, which represents approximately 18% of the 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. Parkland development and open space acquisition impact fees are required and offset any cumulative impacts of new development on recreational resources. Recreation Impact Discussion: 3.15(a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed subdivision may result in a very limited increase in the use of nearby parks which include Oak Hill, Penry and Cherry Valley Parks; all of which are located within approximately 0.5 miles of the project site. The nearby parks have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional use by new residents introduces as part of the proposed project. Increased patronage to Oak Hill, Penry or Cherry Valley Parks, or other parks within the UGB, generated by the subject 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. Therefore, impacts to recreational facilities resulting from the Keller Court Commons Project would be less than significant. 3.15(b) No Impact: The project does not include active recreational facilities and does not require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in any adverse impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 201.4-166 N.C.S. Page 51 3.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR. Transportation and Circulation Setting: The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco and 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. The Petaluma General Plan 2025 was adopted in May 2008 and specifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets wherein the minimum acceptable operation is LOS D. Policy 5-P-10 states, "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." The project will be subject to the payment of development impact fees, including the Traffic Mitigation fee to offset its contribution to citywide traffic. 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. Generally a single family detached residential development of 50 units is anticipated to create 500 trips per day. As an 8 -lot subdivision, the proposed project is expected to generate less than 500 trips per day and contribute less than 50 trips during the peak hour. Accordingly, a site-specific traffic impact analysis was not conducted. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 52 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: P J 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR. Transportation and Circulation Setting: The City of Petaluma is bisected by U.S. 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco and 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. The Petaluma General Plan 2025 was adopted in May 2008 and specifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets wherein the minimum acceptable operation is LOS D. Policy 5-P-10 states, "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." The project will be subject to the payment of development impact fees, including the Traffic Mitigation fee to offset its contribution to citywide traffic. 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. Generally a single family detached residential development of 50 units is anticipated to create 500 trips per day. As an 8 -lot subdivision, the proposed project is expected to generate less than 500 trips per day and contribute less than 50 trips during the peak hour. Accordingly, a site-specific traffic impact analysis was not conducted. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 52 The major arterial serving the project site is Petaluma Boulevard North, which is a two lane arterial, located approximately 500 feet east of subdivision site. The project site is located at the northern terminus of Keller Street, which is a neighborhood street that runs parallel to Petaluma Boulevard. Access to the site from Petaluma Boulevard would be via West Street. The project driveway would be located off of West Street directly across from Keller Street. On -street parking is provided along West Street. Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion: 3.16(a -b) Less than Significant Impact: Access to the project site is provided by West Street, which is a minor arterial. Residents will enter the site via a private drive (Keller Court) located off of West Street that will lead to the detached garages. As proposed, the driveway will function as Court and will not connect through to Cherry Street. Rather, the Court will terminate at the proposed garages located in the northwest portion of the site. As proposed the parking will be clustered within the terminus of Keller Court and will consist of detached garages that provide 8 covered parking stall, as well as 9 unassigned, uncovered parking spaces, for a total of 17 parking spaces. The proposed parking spaces are expected to provide sufficient parking facilities for residents and visitors. The garages will include extra space that can be devoted to storage; however, residents will be required by the HOA to utilize the garage for car parking. The proposed private Court and appurtenant parking facilities will adequately meet onsite -parking needs. As an 8 -lot subdivision, the project is not expected to generate vehicle trips that would cause traffic levels to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established for designated roads or highways. As described above, the 2025 General Plan identifies LOS D and above as acceptable levels of service. The project will not cause a substantial increase in traffic relative to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system nor will the project affect level of service or substantially increase delays at intersections in the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts to LOS due to the project's trip generation will be less than significant. 3.16(c) No Impact: The project will have no impact on air traffic patterns, given the nature and location of the residential development, which is well outside of the established airport flight pattern. 3.16(d) Less than Significant Impact: The adequacy of sight distance for vehicles exiting the proposed subdivision onto West Street is sufficient. At the project site, West Street is a two-way, minor arterial with standard improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk along both sides of the street. There is no posted speed limit and therefore the California Department of Motor Vehicles prima facie speed limit of 25 mph for residential streets applies. The existing 3 -way intersection of West Street and Keller Streets is stop -controlled on all approaches and situated at the top of a hill that slopes east toward Petaluma Boulevard North. Pursuant to the Highway Design Manual, roadways with speeds of 25 mph should have stopping sight distance of at least 150 feet in each direction. Sight distance on West Street at the project site is unrestricted for approximately 450 feet. Although West Street dips downhill due to a decline west of the site, it is possible to view the top of an approaching vehicle. Additional the Keller Street and West Street intersection is stop sign controlled, which further limits vehicle speed. Thus sight distance is sufficient at the project driveway. The project's design provides sufficient set back from roadways and maintains visibility around corners. The introduction of shrubs and trees associated with onsite landscaping will alter the current onsite visibility. However, the proposed landscaping plan considers visibility in the selection and location of plants shrubs and trees. As proposed, there are no hazards that impede or block visibility or represent an incompatible design feature. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impact resulting from site design hazards. 3.16(e): Less than Significant Impact: The private road, "Keller Court" will have a width of 20 feet which would allow for 2' offset of the fire truck body path within which to maneuver. Site circulation was determined to be adequate, including sufficient street widths on the project's private court to allow for fire engine trucks access and the driveway provides sufficient width to accommodate the ladder truck. Fire engine trucks will be able to turn around via a three point turnaround option and the Fire ladder truck will have the option of using Keller Street to exit the site. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 53 The proposed Keller Court has been reviewed and meets all standard conditions imposed by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. Therefore, emergency vehicle access is adequate and potential impacts due to a conflict with emergency access will be less than significant. 3.16(f) Less than Significant Impact: The Project conforms to adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Class III Bike lanes currently exist along West Street. As proposed the project will not introduce any improvements that would conflict with the existing bike lane. The project introduces pedestrian and bicycle connectivity by providing internal sidewalks and travel lanes that accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and connect to the existing sidewalks and bike lanes in the vicinity. As mentioned above under the Land Use and Planning discussion, an informal pedestrian path currently transects the project site that provides connectivity between West and Cherry Streets and would be closed as result of the proposed project. Pedestrian access and connectivity is readily available from Keokuk and Kentucky Streets located in close proximity to the project site The closure of the informal path resulting in the diversion of pedestrian access to formal sidewalks located adjacent to the project site will achieve General Plan goals and code requirements related to maintaining adequate pedestrian access. All modes of transportation including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian are expected to adequately serve the project. There are no aspects of the project that would decrease performance or safety of existing alternative transportation facilities. The project is designed to seamlessly connect to the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts due to a conflict with an established regulation or plan pertaining to alternative modes of transit would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 54 3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR ; TM -9; and TM -10 Utilities and Service Svstems Settinqs: The City of Petaluma collects Impact Fees for wastewater, storm drain, and other utilities and service systems. The one-time impact fees are charged to offset the cost of improving or expanding city facilities in order to accommodate new private development. The fees are utilized to fund the construction or expansion related to capital improvement necessitated by cumulative growth citywide. The Keller Court Commons project site is currently underutilized and development will require limited extension of public utilities to meet the service demands generated by new development onsite. The extension of services will not require substantial infrastructure improvements or enhancements in order to adequately serve the project site as the surrounding area is well served by existing public utilities. 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. Groundwater serves as an emergency water supply in the event that SCWA water deliveries are curtailed. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 55 Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Would thero ect: P 1 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve El 1:1 ® El 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 El El 0 El 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 © El to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ El 0 El related to solid waste? Sources: 2025 GP and GP EIR ; TM -9; and TM -10 Utilities and Service Svstems Settinqs: The City of Petaluma collects Impact Fees for wastewater, storm drain, and other utilities and service systems. The one-time impact fees are charged to offset the cost of improving or expanding city facilities in order to accommodate new private development. The fees are utilized to fund the construction or expansion related to capital improvement necessitated by cumulative growth citywide. The Keller Court Commons project site is currently underutilized and development will require limited extension of public utilities to meet the service demands generated by new development onsite. The extension of services will not require substantial infrastructure improvements or enhancements in order to adequately serve the project site as the surrounding area is well served by existing public utilities. 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. Groundwater serves as an emergency water supply in the event that SCWA water deliveries are curtailed. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 55 The City's Water Resource & Conservation District (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 UWMP updated the water supply/demand projections set forth in the General Plan 2025 by extending the term of water analysis through the year 2035. The UWMP water analysis further refined the supply and demand 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 typically 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 and to 80,000 acre-feet in 2035. This expectation is based on a number of factors including the fact that the physical infrastructure 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 has 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. 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) as a means to ensure 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 Title 22 requirements for unrestricted use. The wastewater treatment system is comprised of more than 195 miles of underground piping and 9 pump stations, with plans for incremental expansion until 2025. 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. 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 Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 56 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, establishes 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, as well as the policies set forth in the General Plan including: 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 -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) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, nor necessitate the expansion or construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The estimated wastewater generation of the proposed project falls within the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer lines and the City's wastewater treatment plant as discussed in subsections 3.17 b and a below. The project does not propose any industrial uses that would generate wastewater requiring special treatment or would contain constituents exceeding applicable standards. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and impacts would be less than significant. 3.17(b) Less than Significant Impact: The expected wastewater generated by the project is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma General Plan 2025 and will not require the expansion of treatment facilities or the construction of new facilities. Applicable City water and wastewater capacity fees will be collected from the applicant in order to fund the applicant's share for use of existing facilities and planned improvements. The proposed 8 -unit subdivision includes the construction of an 8 -inch water main which will connect to the existing public water main stub out on the private drive near West Street and to the existing water main beneath Cherry Street. A proposed the sanitary sewer line serving the residential lots will be connected to an existing private sanitary sewer line located in the northeastern portions of the project site that connects to the existing city sewer system via a stub out on Cherry Street. The residential lots will be connected to the public sewer main by way of a sewer lateral of a private sewer main extending beneath the lot frontage. Wastewater flows will be conveyed to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility that has sufficient operating capacity to handle the minimal additional flows generated by the Keller Court Commons 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 impacts to wastewater treatment capacities. (Also see response 3.17(d) below for discussion on water facility impacts). 3.17(c) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed subdivision will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. The introduction of buildings, paved circulation areas, and paved parking facilities will increase stormwater runoff. At present there is a public storm drain located in Kingfish Court, southwest of the project site. The project proposes the installation of a 15" public/private storm drain that will convey runoff generated by impervious surfaces to the existing stormwater facilities in Kingfish Court. The project will also install a 10,000 -gallon storage tank in the western corner of the site, which will be able to accommodate the 85th percentile of runoff produced during a 100 -year storm event. The detention tank will feature a perforated bottom allowing percolation into the ground and a specialized manhole that will meter out flows consistent with the pre -development condition. Installation of the new storm drain pipeline onsite and associated stormwater management facilities onsite, within Cherry Street and Kingfish Court will not result in significant environmental impacts, as the offsite improvement will all occur within the existing street rights of way. Therefore, impacts due to the new storm drain pipeline would be less than significant. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 57 3.17(d) Less Than Significant Impacts: This project is not expected to create a new water demand that would exceed water supplies. The proposed subdivision is within the UGB and is within the density range anticipated by the General Plan. As noted, 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. Per Policy 8-P-4 of the Petaluma General Plan 2025, City staff is required to monitor actual demand for potable water in comparison to the supply and demand projections in the 2006 Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report. 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 within available SCWA supply capacity. Conservation efforts including tiered water rates and the conversion of the Rooster Run Golf Course to recycled water have kept annual and peak demands within the available SCWA supply at approximately 3,190 million gallons per year, with an average day maximum month peak demand of 12.42 million gallons. 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's impacts to water supplies and related infrastructure would be less than significant. 3.17(e) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is a residential development 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 8 single- family dwelling units is well within the flow capacity analyzed as part of the General Plan. The proposed project will not generate wastewater that exceeds the capacity of the City's 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 capacity of wastewater treatment facility. 3.17(f) Less Than Significant Impact: The Keller Court Commons project, consisting of 8 single-family dwelling units, is expected to contribute to the generation of solid waste within the UGB. However, the amount of solid waste 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 to serve city service needs. Although the project will generate additional solid waste, the project's contribution is considered minimal and is not expected to exceed landfill capacity. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact due to the disposal of solid waste. 3.17(g) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is only expected to generate solid waste typical of residential uses. Policy 4-P-21 requires waste reduction in compliance with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (ColWMP). 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 project 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 project 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, the project would have a less than significant impact due to solid waste disposal. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Paye 58 3.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §15065) 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: 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 ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ to eliminate a plant 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 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ project are considerable 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 El 0 El El substantial adverse effects on 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 anticipated by 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 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 Keller Court Commons 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 on underutilized lots. Public utility and service providers will be capable of serving the project with existing or planned facilities. Potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at levels below significance, and long-term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. 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 identified mitigation measures. Resolution No, 3014-166 N.C.S. Page 59 4. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: General Plan and Zoning Ordinance General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment General Plan Chapter 2. Community Desiqn, 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 BAAQMD CAP I General Plan Chapter 7. Community Facilities, Services & Education General Plan Chapter 6, Water Resources General Plan Chapter 9. Economic Health & Sustainability General Plan Chapter 10. Health & Safety General Plan Chapter 11 Housing Implementing Zoning Ordinance/ Maps Published Geological Maps General Plan 2025 EIR SMART Master Plan BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Technical Appendices: The following resources were prepared in order to further identify project specific parameters. Copies of these technical documents are incorporated herein by reference are available for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, in the Community Development Department. A. "Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report," prepared by Horticultural Associates, February 24, 2014. B "Biological Assessment," prepared by Wiemeyer Ecological Sciences, March 4, 2014. C. "A CEQA Review and Evaluation for Significance, Lundholm/Patocchi Residence and Olindo Patocchi Garage, 200 West Street," prepared by Clark Historic Resource Consultants, May 2006. D. "Updated Geotechnical Investigation, Keller Court Planned Unit Development," prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, April 2014. E. "Soil Investigation, West Street Minor Subdivision," prepared by Giblin Associates, July 6, 2005. F. "Preliminary Stormwater Detention and Retention Calculations," prepared by ADF, March 2014. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Page 60 Exhibit B A City of Petaluma, California Community Development Department I85a Planning Division 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: KELLER COURT COMMONS File Number: File No. PLMA-14-0002 Address/Location: 000 West Street at Keller, Petaluma, CA 94952 APN: 006-083-054 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been developed to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and proper and adequate monitoring/reporting of such implementation. This MMRP shall be adopted in conjunction with project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is the intent of this MMRP to: (1) document implementation of required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (applicant, contractor, or project manager); (3) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring/reporting; (4) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and (5) ensure compliance. The City of Petaluma's Planning Commission has adopted those mitigation measures within its responsibility to implement as binding conditions of approval. The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the monitoring/reporting responsibility, reporting requirements, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Implementation The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the engineering, planning, and building divisions. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans. 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the project. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Pafle 61 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractor, and agents involved in the project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. 4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements. 5. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 6. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 7. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval. 8. If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Monitoring and Reporting The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the engineering, planning, and building divisions, as well as the fire department. Responsibilities include the following: 1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits. 2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans. 4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. MMRP Checklist The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the timeframe to which the measure applies, the person/agency/permit responsible for implementing the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure. Resolution No. 2014-166 N.C.S. Pace 62 N p yr N p N m G G 9 L' . Y v o pu a G Ui J, Z N ui m E m m .• .a L u' Z ;� a O r o r- a� m � o d Oil ' � ,p @ > @ � ❑ ,t] O a m 'P m NTS m Z �a cr cr O W r d O C N nCa @ N O .p L d � Z ✓ m G p ao W W O` w D oG m v u, c E b m G c u@� v 2 O '-mpg d D 3 9 y N p yr N p N m G G 9 L' . Y v o pu a G Ui J, Z N ui m E m m .• .a L u' Z ;� Y G o. N G a 01 r o •° N ay! @ Oil ' � ,p @ > @ � ❑ ,t] O a m 'P m NTS C N nCa @ N O .p L as ✓ m G p ao D oG m v u, c E b m G c u@� v '-mpg d D 3 9 y m '°'++ m 'O °- d G m N N G E p G D 0 Ua N d 6 O U m m N i Q O- c j o.G'° c a m o.-❑ @ °.'' o N a c -° v�'N-� oL:nL N p o ` c �' �v ° E 'o❑ 'm°m" m 3 v m m> @ a -p m m .n E m v°.�.' c 'p m m -❑ m �@ m C m nu c� c .G p N G a❑ N ro� ^' m L m r+ w p .0 O 0117 1] G C CL oa oED 0 Lm y p o u G L 7 w O y � P cr ¢ O O G o CD 7 �' ) Q- ✓�, 'O N ,'�' E S rcL d d R a U. N W O G N �n G 2 Z �� ��✓ 9 p 6 a E G Y a1 d @ M fr � N m G@ L J a SP' 4 6 ✓y -p N N m N G J� tU � O .p G a O 7 0 N d S p✓ c0 �� N✓ �j � G� 9 G y O G Sy„ Y4 �� m a w E a `p OJ Y✓ Q N 6 N o o�'o u�� 9 0 -0 � .�0 N U✓ p Q d @ i p✓� J O d �6 N✓ N d N tl4 b N D j O G N N O .4 "' d y O p a `^ N L N O Ur `✓ U OLn '� O � ✓@ N Q@ 3 G o 9� S O N N 9 � G 0� 4 0 G C N O✓ .9 ✓ !+ N d G@r d N N p ON a 9 �' �. ✓ d' d@ cA N O 0 O R 4 7 O N N@ A N N ✓ O ✓ 9 N O p G y S@ NO 7 57 J, W G O O 9? d O G G ✓ y G d ✓ 'O J 7 p 0 ✓G R0. 'O O N .i+ C t� @ O N Q Z D' p '6 p, O d d S� (G d '✓� N ui N b d F to ''✓0 T O io p � V a 0. 7 3 d O- 7✓ v ro om O� O N N �% � G O N p `% 3 Oss6 Z, 4 G6 d ti% O 1Y� cG. DN m �-o y'apG oGoP w.p �_ � Q ✓ G .. ,.:, J m m W J a O O U O � � W w �µ cr b � GNU F 4 .Q C n V N O w a y OG m E c � a Q N G G J CG G m d Z D m D ✓ s ° 0 m ro o D a y *y' N io N O w N tf1 V Q w ° r*! i y 4 0 un ° 5 7 0. Z m a o N aE c Q N vn O m d d f0 O O W J .9 NN 61 Y m N c y aF c a,s a c _ F ° �^ F b N 'F✓ C io y° U iN c 0 X m b t o� I II 1 1 1 t � � II 1 i 1 m G U � 4 A � m pr N u N N cm '� "' v E E ✓�. m w U U G d G N O 4 °' Z G U 0 0 0 W C °pt O Z y ice- O y 6 U 'a0 Q.�� a N O J@ y O 'N @ 'U @ N � d O v N C o u ts ' o N O L@ O. N O G O ✓ � @ at °G° G' d .° .p N N G@ @ � > � L '� E ° p, G cr cr J ?I U _.--�'.-- I II 1 1 1 E. 0 W Q �, Wzga pooh - O a o Q � z v z w w a C asc w G J } G _ O � � C Q O O .y m C m CL m T a `0 a 0 0 ff+ Q C R R E O O V1 12 a m Q Q u W a d tl=. 4 4 u0 Z a C C u y m `O C R L o C R O p u a R Q Y C '� 9 v- C u c- L y R gyp• p U C N 2 w .Q '> R p= a m Q .Y N u O N C E 4u-- o c_ C N v Z .O O- -p Q R a u O O }, O O> 0 3 LO p c y O O! C Rt R u Q i R aca 2 a M 0 u > E c 0 o v ° v v o c d v aUi v o ° '' v ±� v°" c 0 EL O 00. Ou Q a 0u tL- Cpi c a v r Q � O N 1' R a Y G a n s a E c o C N qj U W y G N N vs C t - O u '> v ro m W w! 0 u 0 u m` 0 � Li W Q Q J Q O LD y Q y R °• Y F-a0F u o 3 U Q 0 c— v E= m i o -c E u OM p a v M 0 R m L c p E ¢cifD E a O U E }> p C OR o v y E 0 m R U } � U Y = J O O U U U E 0 0 n c c 0 a v C m c `o � Q 2 K o O cr c� a G z K O a w z Q t7 z_ 2 O z CO C z O Q N z O O V EO � U v UJ n W 0 W O LU W y Y U I 0 0 E E 0 U 0 O U v v Y S i L ao»>0 y m O U m U� o' m Y — a o Y v o j 3 v E o c .❑ U L O J `I _O v 0 .v. c u W m❑ E ou c o a o `L-' `o v m v E rca E C u Y v C '❑ O G m L m= N O l.D M u �^ O 'Em v v c •,� .n 'Zn c u m v o E v n= o � rco o. v •a N v c 0 u n 3 v c = o• m o C L O U a mu a a E 'L" c m— ¢ :t N U C❑ o Y ❑ O G C u _ v G ❑ m c `O v a E yr a E c u mm N m o f 'ro E 9; v 0 c b o E v v 0 0 .O -'Z ❑ C OU 4! ` 00 a� m u 2 m 0L.. 'oaE m v -o m m a w °u o L.. O u 3 o uG N O w O u > N al in ` C m L GO c V=1 a u a) —0 c v c m a n _ v' v ` v o Y Y o o v s Y c v o io 2 3 O,u E vl U ❑ d j m N al ❑ m G Y n❑ U Y U'O N C n !p aJ ❑u U L L o v u E v u F .n u u m o M m tfa �-❑ � v— C G C c C G L m y v a m '❑ m m t- N " is c N� Y w'u � -❑ v a� s c 0 N � w N O '- ❑. m OD '� U al ry ❑ VI C CL„ l7 '❑ C Y .n O . C j •- N w -❑ > � ,o c v v Y u n v c u o u O 'm L al ❑ u N m u . v v C =❑ N .❑n v ao- E�� ❑ C 'O v `m 0 U 'a v "- v m ,L❑ m Y ❑ C O m O C❑ 0 > L Q U v a ti u io u o o x Q O n vCi N N� i 000 U m O U' m w m c :o J c _ — m Z CD C C Y m C CU O¢ m m v o `o E m v 0 o .� `o a n E c E 3 u c c E u u w � o �. u u '� -Fu 'C u u ¢ a� -❑ a 0 n� '❑ a c aooa' a 0n'. a auo a ¢u° S i L ao»>0 y m O U m U� o' m Y — a o Y v o j 3 v E o c .❑ U L O J `I _O v 0 .v. c u W m❑ E ou c o a o `L-' `o v m v E rca E C u Y v C '❑ O G m L m= N O l.D M u �^ O 'Em v v c •,� .n 'Zn c u m v o E v n= o � rco o. v •a N v c 0 u n 3 v c = o• m o C L O U a mu a a E 'L" c m— ¢ :t N U C❑ o Y ❑ O G C u _ v G ❑ m c `O v a E yr a E c u mm N m o f 'ro E 9; v 0 c b o E v v 0 0 .O -'Z ❑ C OU 4! ` 00 a� m u 2 m 0L.. 'oaE m v -o m m a w °u o L.. O u 3 o uG N O w O u > N al in ` C m L GO c V=1 a u a) —0 c v c m a n _ v' v ` v o Y Y o o v s Y c v o io 2 3 O,u E vl U ❑ d j m N al ❑ m G Y n❑ U Y U'O N C n !p aJ ❑u U L L o v u E v u F .n u u m o M m tfa �-❑ � v— C G C c C G L m y v a m '❑ m m t- N " is c N� Y w'u � -❑ v a� s c 0 N � w N O '- ❑. m OD '� U al ry ❑ VI C CL„ l7 '❑ C Y .n O . C j •- N w -❑ > � ,o c v v Y u n v c u o u O 'm L al ❑ u N m u . v v C =❑ N .❑n v ao- E�� ❑ C 'O v `m 0 U 'a v "- v m ,L❑ m Y ❑ C O m O C❑ 0 > L Q U v a ti u io u o o x Q O n vCi N N� i 000 U m O U' w, d U z a p 7 mY- P Vr 4 a 0ua a o O ✓ cS ry n N N 6 OW 6i1 Vo A d w N L wy V a ✓ Y y ° Y_ 'a°-' N 6 O a d ro V tL vG N N N O G 9 V N C@ b O N U V1, � v, rn �' a Y o m s w' d c � V O a a d N ',j ✓ J f6 O ,y N ,n p {}1 Y L y d N°✓ u w ✓ � V Q 6 N Y O O w � w, d U z O Y Cm q m N ? CG m c mE ,{ O Ycj� d 6 a f N N 7 J ('L O ?. Z D y Q O. 6 L N¢ N U 7 N Z✓ W N3� y 9 d N 9 F O rQ t� i Z `L y 0 � `cy w O� 2 b 0 f • d r J d b L O Gy O- G m N d O 9 0 Nc VI A d N m E c d 9'on O d 9 oa ✓x � ✓ n y .b 9 @ OD q O j C, •`pp E p ✓ 'N U L O N G V G yay o° o n C 3� G d� Ea'm CO .J0 N ¢ .p V� �✓ N �G d W�� O L y�� O b N y> p- O to G A G N d J✓ L O O G V A G V d J O O L m G '9 d O ' b N � u - y pU'6 0 4 cr � m o Q/ w c N Ci.cr C O oC0 � cr m o m r O G U U N G Q q U ao c C C �'� N 4V O ✓` 9 '✓ 'd fo 6 F N O U N} U D m N S N W �tmm°' aaQE . Y C 9 E� O N J� .Ov O N its N N i N O O- X 0 0 �fl N '6 O � O m F � p ✓ o� d m o? v'inA OA cZ' vAro y r a o f N d G a N N N L O ✓ N 'inG v Us N j ro �' ° C O° O° 'n O ro -d N L C 7 '.}'.+no w O � p ? ✓ N N O N G C S N � N C 0 �O flu c c C N N O C 9 E� O N J� .Ov O N its N N i N O O- X 0 0 �fl N '6 O � O m F � p ✓ o� d m o? v'inA OA cZ' vAro y r a o f N d G a N N N L O ✓ N 'inG v Us N j ro �' ° C O° O° 'n O ro -d N L C 7 '.}'.+no w O � p ? ✓ N N O N G C S N � N C 0 �O m s m io N N b C E E N N m E Cl d otl u tin C 61 9 m O -o c lu 3 v a a O `� 1. o m n c N O, =m c c E E w> o o .N >p b o = = a. c a > o a _' E n v °u c v c a c u '6 u o o � E o d v a w F o m ro E v v nom+ E F v d u c -o R 6 m c o o> o o a p N t2 p o c E O �-v-o n u w E DD 9 O W B N N N O N