HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 04/04/2016Agenda Item #6.A
y,
DATE: April 4, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Resolutions Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Granting an Appeal and Overturning the
Planning Commission's De Facto Denial of Amendments to the General
Development Plan for the Marina Planned Community District.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve:
a) A resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and
b) A resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission's de facto denial
of amendments to the General Development Plan for the Marina Planned Community
District.
BACKGROUND
Project Location
The project proposes to locate a new apartment building on a triangular parcel at the Petaluma
Marina, adjacent to Lakeville Highway /State Route 116 and the US 101 northbound on-
ramp /southbound off -ramp. The apartment site, shown at Figure 1 and located within the Marina
Planned Community District (Marina PCD), is the last remaining area of undeveloped land on
site.
The Petaluma Marina is an approximate 30.59 -acre area at the southern edge of Petaluma's
urbanized area where it transitions into more open and sparsely developed land. The Marina is
generally bound by US 101, the Petaluma River, Pacific Northwest Railroad, Lakeville Highway,
and Alman Marsh. Alman Marsh is 80 acres of pasture /marsh that sits between Shollenberger
Park and the Petaluma Marina on the north. Alman Marsh is a mix of brackish tidal wetlands, fed
daily by the river, and degraded pasture uplands containing seasonal freshwater wetlands.
Page 1
Figure 1— Apartment Building and Marina PCD Location.
Marina Planned Community District
The Marina PCD was established by the City Council on February 1, 1988 via Resolution No.
88 -25. This approval dovetailed with the literal creation of the Petaluma Marina in 1987 and
established succinct development regulations to be applied to office, retail, commercial and
restaurant uses. Regulations governing permitted uses and development standards (e.g., building
size, height) are contained within a General Development Plan.
Since original approval, the Marina PCD has been amended a total of six times (in 1991, 1994,
1995, 1998, 1999 and 2004). A complete summary of these actions, as well as all others related
to the establishment of the Marina PCD, is included at Attachment 3.
The current Marina PCD General Development Plan, adopted by City Council Resolution No.
91 -365 N.C.S. and included at Attachment 4, is prospective and includes a purpose statement,
proposed /allowed uses, maximum building heights, site plan, and building elevations. Under the
current regulations, the proposed apartment site is envisioned to include up to 10,000 square feet
of commercial /restaurant or 30,000 square feet of office uses within a building between two and
three stories in height. Residential uses are not permitted.
The Marina PCD's current General Development Plan site plan is at Figure 2.
Page 2
Lfi��Vly: c HIAe��AY � � i
-- JI
1 r
SJ
\ / \
NII
Figure 2 — Existing Marina PCD — General Development Plan (Site Plan)
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a requested legislative action to amend the Marina PCD
development standards in order to accommodate a new apartment building. If the requested
amendments were approved, a subsequent Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and
Architectural Review request would be necessary at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Marina PCD Amendment
The applicant is proposing an amended Marina PCD to enable construction of the proposed
apartment building and which reflects the current built condition of the Petaluma Marina. The
existing Marina PCD is written prospectively prior to creation of the Marina and construction of
existing buildings. The proposed, amended Marina PCD, located at Attachment 5, seeks to result
in the following:
a) A contemporary set of regulations reflecting the existing environmental setting (i.e., as
Petaluma Marina now exists);
b) Consolidation of the original approval and all subsequent amendments into a single
document;
Page 3
c) Consistency with the regulatory language and format of the current Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO); and
d) Establishment of land use districts, associated development standards and review
processes (i.e., Site Plan and Architectural Review, Conditional Use Permit).
All of these changes embody prior City Council actions (e.g., land uses, development standards),
except as noted below.
• Land Use Districts — Two land use districts are proposed — Public Marina and Open
Space District and Marina Support District. The purpose in creating these districts is to
ensure lands designated Public Marina and Open Space District exclude urban
development and, instead, "provide for uses consistent with public trust ownership such
as water - related commerce and recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and open
space. Uses and development in this district require a site on, or adjacent to, the Petaluma
River to function at all or materially facilitate public access to open space and trails."
One combining district — Parking Combining District - is also proposed. This district was
created to apply to the shared parking lot with the following stated purpose, "To provide
an adequate number of unreserved and reserved off - street parking spaces, both privately
and publicly owned, to facilitate access to all land uses within the PCD, including the
Petaluma Marina." An ancillary purpose of the district is to ensure it is utilized for
parking spaces as opposed to additional, new buildings.
• Residential Use — Consistent with the applicant's request, the Marina PCD inserts
"Dwelling, Multiple" as an allowed use pending issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). A CUP requirement is recommended in order to ensure residential uses do not
proliferate to the detriment of commercial uses dependent upon and supportive of the
marina.
• Development IntensitX — For the proposed apartment site, the amended Marina PCD
removes the prior 10,000 to 30,000 square foot and two to three story building limitations
and instead enacts a single maximum building height limitation of five (5) stories and
sixty -eight (68) feet.
• Public Access Parking — As proposed, the Marina PCD creates new reserved parking
spaces for public access. Near the boat launch, twenty (20) double - length spaces would
be marked as reserved for boaters. That reservation is made in light of the newly codified
shared parking program below.
• Shared Parking — The current Marina PCD excludes off - street parking space standards
per use and, instead, assumes a shared parking scenario. The proposed Marina PCD
retains the shared parking approach but: (a) sets a minimum number of shared parking
spaces to be available at all times (i.e., 762); (b) reserves eighty (80) parking spaces for
the new apartment building; and (c) reserves twenty (20) spaces for boaters.
Page 4
Proposed Apartment Building
The proposed construction project would locate a new L- shaped building, five- stories in height,
upon an existing unpaved area at the northeast corner of the Petaluma Marina. (See Figure 3
below for site plan.) Surface parking spaces surrounding the new building are already paved and
striped. The project includes a proposal to construct carports for up to to ninety (90) spaces to the
immediate north and south of the new building. The project would connect the existing Class I
trail immediately north of the new building to an existing sidewalk on the west side of Baywood
Drive.
-rr�t•; ; "' --��'� ;�' , , _ _ _ I, (I � - "�� dill
I I 1 1 1' ' 1
i
{I1 1 11 1 1 r 1 1 t . -� �i �_�i � _� � _ � � a �I_
\�t� 1 I t
Project Site �'II f� flll�i
�• .t �� 't .`, `� - '� f t.,� I -� -r_�1' r : r nay ` ` � � J ��1 �
1•.5;•', 3.tt ttvt 1 ' `� �e � f '° � '�I
yw
t tt I.
'ti''��'� �1 ' 5+;•51 , \: \ � �. _ _ " ie. f �d - , 1� 1
t, t i t}5 t � '•' F I �t�� � > C� � /' 7 T•1 1 11 ,{ , FII I'.I. J
'•tip {i, .'\ � '.+ �5 l4�Ti'M1545'hYj7
Figure 3 — Proposed Site Plan.
Pedestrian access to the building would be from a common lobby at the far- eastern portion of the
building. Two additional points of emergency egress are provided at the north and south
elevation. Access to each dwelling unit would be through an internal corridor. Elevator access is
provided to floor two through five. Outside the building, sidewalks would line the perimeter with
new crosswalks provided to the west and east of the building. Vehicular ingress and egress to the
project would occur from the intersection of Lakeville HighwayBaywood Drive. A second
egress -only point to Lakeville Highway is provided immediately west of the project.
The proposed building includes design elements reflective of existing buildings at the Petaluma
Marina. These include building material (i.e., lap siding), steeply pitched hipped and gable roofs,
standing metal seam roof material, regular fenestration patterns, and white color. The proposed
building height is five stories and 65 -feet measured to the mid -point of tallest roof element.
Building- mounted arbors accent building corners. A building rendering is included at Figure 4.
The complete plan set for the apartment building is included at Attachment 6.
Page 5
Figure 4 — Proposed North Elevation (Facing Lakeville Highway).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the project at their
November 4, 2015 meeting. The PBAC was generally supportive of the project but requested
that access (including signage) be improved between Lakeville Highway and the Alman Marsh
trailhead and observed that Petaluma Transit Route 24 does not currently pass by the project on
Lakeville Highway. The latter point responded to the project's proposal to install a bus stop
adjacent to the apartment building (on the south side of Lakeville Highway). However, the
Public Works and Utilities Department has since clarified the long term plan to modify Route 24
such that it would utilize the proposed bus shelter.
Concerning improved pedestrian and bicycle access between Lakeville Highway and the Alman
Marsh, the PBAC suggested the use of pole - mounted signage and in -road signage. Presently,
there is no signage at Lakeville Highway or within the Marina property alerting the public to the
presence of the Alman Marsh trail head. Staff concurs with the PBAC comments but, as
explained below, evolved it to implement a new, adjacent and already - planned Class I bike path.
Planning Commission
On December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered a proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and request to amend the Marina PCD at a noticed public hearing. The Planning
Commission approved (3 -1) a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. However, a
motion to approve the Marina PCD amendment resulted in a tie vote (2 -2) and is considered a de
facto denial pursuant to IZO §25.050 rather than a recommendation for denial with requisite
findings. There was no public comment at the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning
Commission staff report and meeting minutes are included as Attachment 7.
In reviewing the project, the Planning Commission provided the following comments:
1. Residential Use — A majority of Planning Commissioner's agreed that a change of use
from commercial to residential would be appropriate for this location. There was also
support for a mix of uses in the Petaluma Marina.
Page 6
2. Class I Bike Path — A majority of Planning Commissioner's agreed with staff's
recommendation (discussed below) to condition the project to require the construction of
a Class I bike path across City -owned APN 005- 060 -065 and dedicate an access
easement (for a future Class I bike path) across APN 005- 060 -066.
3. Apartment Building Design —Two Commissioners expressed concern about the
apartment building's height and design.
City Council
On March 7, 2016, the City Council continued consideration of this project to April 4, 2016. The
continuance was at the applicant's request and was received by staff after public notice was sent.
No public speakers came forward on March 7, 2016.
Appeal
Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §25.050 (Amendments — Public Hearings of the Planning
Commission) provides that, "Denial of an application shall in all cases, except an amendment
initiated by the City Council, terminate the proceedings unless such decision is appealed to the
City Council as provided below." In response to the de facto denial, the applicant submitted, on
December 29, 2015, a valid and timely appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
The applicant's appeal "contends that the Planning Commission erred in failing to recommend
approval by the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Marina PCD." Additionally, the
applicant seeks approval by the City Council but "without conditions requiring construction of
an off -site bike path and dedication of an off -site public access easement owned by others." The
appeal letter is included at Attachment 8.
In a February 2, 2016 email to staff, the applicant requested that staff clarify the recommended
bike path condition would only apply to residential construction at the project site. Additionally,
the applicant presented a request to modify the project description by increasing the number of
residential units from eighty (80) to ninety (90), a potential change that was discussed at the
December 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. This change would be accommodated by
revised floor plans that divide two - bedroom units into one - bedroom units without any effect to
the building height, massing or elevations. The only change to the site plan would be ten (10)
additional caiports to the immediate south of the building.
DISCUSSION
Overview
Because the Planning Commission's action on the Marina PCD modification resulted in a de
facto denial and not one with requisite findings of fact (for denial or approval), staff is presenting
its original recommendation, as offered to the Planning Commission. Dissenting votes on the
Marina PCD modification appeared to support residential use at the Petaluma Marina but did not
support the proposed height and massing of the proposed apartment building. When considering
the analysis below and in the event the City Council concurs with concerns about building height
and scale, an approval action on the Marina PCD modification could include revised and/or new
development standards pertaining to building height, size, step backs, etc.
Page 7
Required Findings
The proposed PCD Amendment and scope of the City Council's review is subject to the
provisions of IZO Chapter 19.030 (Findings). In acting on the proposal, the City Council must
find that said PCD, or modification thereof, clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a
better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
combination of zoning districts, and in addition to such general findings, the IZO requires the
City Council to make the following specific findings (staff analysis in italics):
1. That any P.U.D., or modification of a P.C.D., is proposed on property which has a suitable
relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to
carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project demonstrates that affected thoroughfares
are adequate to carry traffic generated by the project. For existing, baseline and ficture
conditions including the proposed project, study intersections would either operate at LOS D
or better or, for those estimated to operate at LOS E, the project's incremental contribution
of vehicular trips is below the General Plan EIR's threshold to be considered a significant
effect.
The proposed project is subject to the mandatory payment of traffic impact mitigation fees
which, at ninety (90) multiple family dwellings, is estimated to be $752,670. Payment of that
fee is substantially more than would be required under the current Marina PCD and would
be applied towards planned transportation improvement projects. For these reasons, the
project does have a suitable relationship to thoroughfares and they are adequate to carry the
additional traffic generated by the project.
2. That the plan, or modification thereof, for the proposed development presents a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if
necessary to insure compatibility.
The project concerns an existing building site identified by the existing Marina PCD. The
project would modify the planned building for this location by making it taller (i. e., from 2 to
3 stories up to 5 stories) and of a residential use. Existing parking and major landscaping
features of the Marina PCD have already been installed and would be unaltered by the
project.
The proposed location of residential uses is sufficiently removed from existing commercial
uses to prevent incompatibility. Most existing commercial uses, including the Sheraton Hotel,
are primarily accessible from and interact with the east building elevation and abutting
parking lot. The closest commercial building facing the proposed apartments is located
approximately 250 feet to the south and includes ground -level offices, recreational
equipment rental, and a coffee shop.
Concerning public use of the Petaluma Marina, twenty (20) parking spaces would be
adjacent to the proposed apartment building and signed for exclusive use by boaters. This
Page 8
ensures the public's continued use of the Marina (and Petaluma River) and an appropriate
relationship between uses. Additionally, the submitted shared parking study demonstrates the
reservation of ninety (90) parking spaces for apartment residents will not discourage public
use of the Marina nor employee and customer access to existing commercial uses.
3. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan or General Development Plan.
The project concerns a site within an existing asphalt parking lot and, therefore, would not
be located on natural habitat areas. The project is located nearby an open water channel
that leads to the Petaluma River but would not alter any of the ornamental and natural
vegetation present there.
The project would result in the development of a new structure that would be highly visible
from public vantage points but would not obstruct scenic vistas identified by the General
Plan 2025 EIR. The project is not located near any General Plan EIR identified vistas and
would not be visible from the Washington Street overpass, McNear Peninsula or Rocky
Memorial Dog Park nor would the project block viewsheds of the hillsides, ridgelines or
other important vistas such as open space.
The project's location is intended for a building rather than public open space. Existing
public open space at and around the Petaluma Marina would be unaltered by the project.
Submitted architectural plans indicate the project can accommodate adequate private (i. e.,
balconies) and shared open space (i. e., courtyard).
For all the reasons above, the project would protect the natural and scenic qualities of its
site, and adequate available public and private spaces are designated, where existing, and
feasible, where applicable.
4. That the development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in
keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma,
with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City.
The project would result in more robust combination of mixed uses, as contemplated by the
General Plan's Land Use Map Mixed Use designation, and occur at a location within
Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The project is below the maximum floor -area-
ratio permitted by the General Plan and, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure L U-
1, will also comply with the permitted maximum residential density.
General Plan Policy 2 -P -27 directs that, "Enable opportunities for a variety of synergistic
and compatible uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina, " and Policy 2 -P -30, states,
"Encourage new development between the Marina and Lakeville Highway to be compatible
and synergistic with the Marina complex" The project would result in a greater variety of
uses at the Petaluma Marina and, at this particular location and configuration of circulation
and parking features, would not result in an incompatibility. The project's residential use
Page 9
may result in a complementary relationship by providing increased patronage of existing
commercial uses.
However, concerning the topic of circulation, the project falls short of sufficiently advancing
several policies pertaining to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. For the General Plan's
Lakeville Highway Subarea, Goal 2 -G -5 states, "Enhance the connectivity across and
between all land uses along the Lakeville Highway to minimize the barrier it creates by
presence, design and vehicular speed. " The planned Class I bicycle facility abutting the
northern boundary of the Petaluma Marina presents an obvious opportunity to enhance
connectivity and, as Policy 5 -P -4 directs, "New development and /or major expansion or
change of use may require construction of off -site mobility improvements to complete
appropriate links in the network necessary for connecting the proposed development with
existing neighborhoods and land uses. "
Many other additional General Plan policies apply in this instance and state, as follows:
Policy 5 -P -15 Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and expand and improve the bikeway system
wherever the opportunity arises.
Policy 5 -P -20 Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not
interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
Policy 5 -P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing
neighborhoods and require a well- connected pedestrian network
linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5 -P -25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct off -
street bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I standards
shall be applied unless otherwise specified.
Policy 5 -P -27 Locate connections to Class I facilities from parallel routes along the
parcel line of adjoining properties to provide separation from parking
lots and buildings; design connections as Class I facilities.
Policy 5 -P -30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide
access to the trail.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring
development to provide necessary support facilities throughout the
city.
Given the legislative aspect of the project and resulting substantial change and increase in
land use intensity, staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the project
should include: (a) the installation of a Class I bike path between Baywood Drive and
Marina Avenue; and (b) dedication of a public access easement across the abutting parcel to
Page 10
the south (i.e., Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060 -066). The General Plan designates both of
these properties, at Figure 5 -2 (Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities), to include a Class
I bike path. With the inclusion of those planned facilities, a majority of the Planning
Commissioners in attendance and staff concurred the proposed project will be in the best
interests of the City and in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the General Plan.
Figure 5 below depicts the location of the recommended bike path and access easement.
When considering a recommendation for the applicant to construct the Class I bike path
upon City property staff considered both the policy basis and financial implications to the
project. On the later point, staff notes that, on December 7, 2015, the City Council lowered
the traffic impact fee for multiple family dwellings, on a per unit basis, from $11,559 to
$8,363 (or 2801o). At ninety (90) units, this amounts to a $287,640 reduction in fees for the
project; a change made while the development application was in process. In staff's
estimation, this fee reduction exceeds the cost of the recommended Class I bike path.
Figure 5 — Location of Recommended Class I Bike Path and Access Easement.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has learned that the applicant owns only a
3.37% interest in the property (APN 005- 060 -066) recommended to include a public access
easement. The remaining interest is divided between four additional limited liability
Page 11
companies. That property, a former railroad right -of -way, is already subject to an existing
public utility easement for the City's main sewer force line leading to the Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility. That easement alone renders the property undevelopable for urban
development. However, the applicant objects to the recommended condition to work with the
other property owners to establish an additional public access easement.
Environmental Review
In accordance with the CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared by staff to address the project's
potential effects on the environment. The Initial Study and MND were circulated for a thirty (30)
day public review period between November 19, 2015 and December 19, 2015. One comment
letter was received from CalTrans and did not note any issues or concerns with regard to the
Initial Study's adequacy or accuracy. The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2015-
25 (see Attachment 9) recommending that the Council approve the MND for the overall project.
Subsequent to the public review period and December 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant requested an increase in the number of dwelling units from eighty (80) to ninety
(90). In response, staff prepared a Revised Initial Study (see Attachment 10) to determine
whether the unit count change would result in any changes to the prior impact determinations.
The results of that analysis indicate no change to the prior impact determinations.
Both the original Initial Study and Revised Initial Study do not identify any significant
environmental effects. For all potentially significant effects, mitigation measures reducing their
severity to a less than significant level have been incorporated into the project and agreed to by
the applicant.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5, recirculation of the Revised Initial Study for public
review is not required because it does not constitute a "substantial revision" nor does it identify
any new, avoidable significant effects, or any new potentially significant effects, and, lastly, it
does not include any new or modified mitigation measures. The Revised Initial Study includes
new information that merely clarifies the reasons why the project, as modified, would not result
in any new, significant effects.
Therefore, for all the reasons above, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared
rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The project is subject to cost recovery with all expenses paid by the applicant. The applicant has
paid $33,214.64 cost recovery fees to date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Draft Resolution Approving an Amended Marina Planned Community District
3. Summary of Marina PCD Amendments
Page 12
4. Current Marina PCD General Development Plan
5. Proposed, Amended Marina PCD
6. Project Plans
7. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, December 22, 2015
8. Applicant Appeal
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25
10. Revised Initial Study
Page 13
r_��r�•�:r•i�:�i
RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MARINA APARTMENTS PROJECT
LOCATED AT THE PETALUMA MARINA
APN: 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072, -079, -082, -084, -085, and -089
FILE NO: PLZT -15 -0001, PLSR -15 -0011
WHEREAS, Steven Lafranchi of Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates submitted an
application to modify the General Development Plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned
Commercial District ( "Marina PCD ") located at APN 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072,
-079, -082, -084, -085, and -089, on behalf of property owner Petaluma Marina Office Investors,
LLC, to list multiple- family dwelling as a permitted use and increase the maximum building
height to five (5) stories, all to enable construction of a proposed ninety (90) unit apartment
building and other associated site improvements located at the northwest corner of Petaluma
Marina at APN 050- 060 -089 and 005- 060 -072 ( "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the submitted application includes a Site Plan and Architectural Review
request and, pursuant to the modified Marina PCD General Development Plan, would also
include a Conditional Use Permit request - all of which would be acted upon by the Planning
Commission at a separate, subsequent public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the
City on May 19, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the
Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the
City relied on the Program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 20205, certified on April
7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) with 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 §§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, on or before November 19, 2015, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a 30 -day public
comment period commencing November 19, 2015 and ending December 19, 2015 and a Notice
of Public Hearing to be held on December 22, 2015 before the City of Petaluma Planning
Commission, was published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 1,500 feet of
the Project as well as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project, the MND, the supporting
Initial Study, the staff report dated December 22, 2015 analyzing the MND and the Project, and
V- �
Page 1 of 3
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 hearings; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2015 -25 and, in doing so, forwarded a recommendation that the City Council adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Marina Apartments Project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study applies the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
(BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act - Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012,
including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. As lead agency under
CEQA, the City of Petaluma has the discretion to rely upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
and thresholds of significance since they include the best available scientific data and most
conservative thresholds available for comparison of the Project's emissions. Comparison of the
Project's emissions against these thresholds provides a conservative assessment as the basis for a
determination of significance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in the Initial Study, including evaluation using
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, the Project does not make a
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality or greenhouse gas emissions
impact found to be significant and unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 EIR, because the
Project's emissions are below significance thresholds identified; 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 Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during
normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the
record of proceedings for the proposed project is the City of Petaluma Community Development
Department, 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952; and
WHEREAS, while the Initial Study for the Project identified potentially significant
impacts, all significant impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level and therefore the
Project would not result in any significant impacts to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. The Project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation
because the project includes multiple family dwellings, is below the maximum floor
area ratio of 2.5, and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1, is below the
Page 2 of 3
maximum residential density of 30.0 housing units per acre.
2. The Project is, for the reasons discussed in the December 22, 2015 Planning
Commission staff report and April 4, 2016 City Council staff report, consistent with
the following General Plan policies: Policy 1 -P -1 (Development Within UGB); Policy
1 -P -2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1 -P -11 (Land Use Intensification); Policy
1 -P -27 (Parking Solutions); Policy 2 -P -5 (Arterial Corridors); Policy 2 -P -I1 (River
Oriented Development); Goal 2 -G -5 (Lakeville Highway Connectivity); Policy 2 -P-
27 (Petaluma Marina - Land Uses); Policy 2 -P -30 (Petaluma Marina — Compatibility).
With the Project conditioned to include: (a) the installation of a Class I bicycle
facility between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue at APN 005- 060 -065; and (b)
dedication of a public access easement across the abutting parcel to the south (i.e.,
Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060 -066), the City Council finds it to be consistent with
the following General Plan policies: Policy 5 -P -15 (Expand and Improve Bikeway
System); Policy 5 -P -20 (New Development); Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian
Connectivity); Policy 5 -P -25 (Multi -Use Trails); Policy 5 -P -27 (Class I Facilities);
Policy 5 -P -30 (New Development); and Policy 5 -P -31 (Bicycling and Walking).
These conditions would only apply to residential construction within the Marina
PCD.
3. Pursuant to the analysis in the Initial Study, the Project does not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic and/or
noise impacts identified in the General Plan 2025 FIR because although the Project
would contribute vehicle trips to intersections identified in the General Plan EIR as
operating at an unacceptable LOS at build -out, the affected intersections have either
already been determined to acceptably operate at an LOS E or LOS F due to
overriding considerations and conflicts with other General Plan policies or the
Project's contribution to those intersections are below the threshold established by the
General Plan EIR (i.e., cause the LOS to deteriorate to the next lowest level).
4. With regard to noise, the Project is considered to result in an effect that is less than
cumulatively considerable because the project excludes new stationary noise sources
and its incremental contribution through vehicular trips is insufficient to result in a
perceptible change in noise level.
C. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the MND, the Initial Study, 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.
D. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included as Exhibit A, is hereby
adopted. Implementation of the mitigation measures included therein mitigates or avoids
significant environmental effects.
Page 3 of 3 1 _1
Lei ■ � a
City of Petaluma, California
e,
Community Development Department
Y8$ Planning Division
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS
File Number: File No. PUT -15 -0001. PLSR -15 -0011
Address /Location: 0 Marina Avenue, Petaluma, CA
(APN: 005 - 060 -089; 005 - 060 -052, -054, -059, -070, 072, -082, -084, and -085)
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. CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with
project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The purpose of this MMRP is 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 following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction 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.
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. 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.
t_- T
E
w
O
a
to
t
O
Q
(D
c
ru
w
C
O
C
O
O
2
m
E
O
cD
a)
d
O
U
V)
a)
E
(6
Q.
Q
a)
c
WE
O
N
d'
Q
Q
— 6
n
O
a)
bA
M
n.
C)
W
W ~
I- ui
LL
0 0
C:c CL
o2
o
O
F- z
W W
a �
-
}
O a
C
U
G
Q
Q
0
c
c
a
Q.
J
O
O� .�
O
•N
C
cu
Z
z
I L. Q
c
Q
c
L
a
O Q
� bn
u a c
bA
c
v
U
_ al _
c`ai
_
U a)
OC
U)
Q o c
a
_
O(6
U
N
d
Q n
Q a
Q a
LU
Z
L
Q
U c O2j c
c
z
p t �O
c
pUj O
,n
�
L
F
+1 ? 4"'
U .�
�
CL
2
F-
>i
3 a)
C kn
O
Z
W
a"' � C a)
'n Q) O
C
y a) L
C O
C O
U
O C C E +'
O C S--
a)
. 'n
Z
W
U ca (6 sue... >•
E
U fb
v
C C
p a)
O
J
U n- Q.. a)
C p ci a1 >
E
-a O ski'
fl- C E
c�c
-0 p
U
C C
O ' U
7
c�
p > N
OU z U> .p
p O
U U E
U
C -o .p
Z
U .�
0
Q
C a) O a) +-' a) '- a) "O bA
C `c" +' ha (1)
— > i- C C O a) a) (1) •
"�
..O N cC6
N C .0
. 'FAA i ' CO �- t
'cu
(�
— C n3 C p
p > —
a) O O a)
.p
7 N—
O bA
L al — m m
LO
cA
�
U> v° r ca v
7
m n U
bn v>° -r--o
L
0
N ..p Q
'� L a) C
c Q- .I--� 'n N 'L
1—
Z
a� o n�� o
E U
W L aj ±' �
4--
-o 1 o 'n 'n v Q N ca
Q i
bA +-+ cb O C w>
C O
� +�
p
7 bA O O N p C
r
U Q 0 (O M +,
O_ a) m la
m '�'' -�i +' +' 'C C m L cO
Z
N o a) U Q 'F' '+'' -C -p
v� 'Fn C C
v- > a) '� E U
E°
1—
c 3 a) o N
U
s_ a) Q O
a)
O.. > > W Q.
X +- C
m
.Q C
Q
O a) c6 u F- 0 O >-
-O
a) '� a) U
L M a) v- a) q
'O
W
+-+ U C cb p +. Q. p
'd U a) n3 + 'n ..Q L
a) L :H' -
CN Q- >
O •v +� L cb U .0 .N
\ C + O C U) on 4 �
Q
O O
m � Q L '� �
- _0 bA �
c a) i� +� a)
� n
'0 = L U m
"a O �
'n +� , a) +1
,F-+ o
'n o
fa � U U �
m
C U O �, � O
ca 4 e c E U
W
N
Q
c c m c c c
O C cO sn O O W 41
OU
o a a)
"O •O
} c
L O S -Q w m E
W
'N '> LJ Q "O U a)
� O Q a)
a) a) hA v U C' .0 -0 a
pC
a) fB Q E a) `� " c a)
E
C� `° c a c o +� —
N a)��., U O
O U M>
'b.0 a) U CO Q w
E
Q
0
y ,; bA a) y Ln .� a) M
E i .0 i
E
C +L' Q. i bA `� Q
W O N
N
p -� C O_0 O L C t
U
@ N ca
C Q) C C
L '�
Z
Q
I _ Cc '0 1) O >- O Q) °
s c °)
O C
a> C LE
° U
C7
m° c L
O Q E c0 N C
— -c U
'' v v
U a) n o c Co
C N C .O z p
+� ..O
a) 'n -a O `` a)
+�+
'n -p C 7
(1)
N N O O
O .Q cb bA +' L
c0 7 - a) m a) O
_ tB ..O 'n
N L C
O +� m L +' a)
>. N bA > O O" 41 O C
W
sn
E Q �5 V � U a) L ..0 ,t-+
E
c6 p p
.Q Ln C C O
bA
'c
v
a) p n N +�
o N U
o ao X° Q n a)
o
a)
m e n c a) a) L
0 (U
c
c ca c c ns .
a .� bb •c
H :o a) p
m c
Q
.Q
E m w o u
a) C C 'n $
E O °) n a)
N a3 N ;F, '6
Q `° o) >
O
cn
_
a) n W M a) O >� n3 t
, E `n
a ca E '� L
L -a v E
a
> Q p
o
U L aa)) c U
a) E o c L u a)
Q
75 o
i ` N U>
a) a) E E
z
c bA
U N U "O vCi •'n O
O n cCE ;N
Q) Q3 4) to ..O O U Q a) c6
a
t O a)
Q
a) O
N m UM
U
..0
N LL O.. "6 a) fb .Q n3 h L
-' C
i-- i-+ 'n .- U L
���1.
cc cL6 "6 +�-� .0
Q _
L!'1
/�
(D
V
0'
J
O
O
O
0;
F3
m
m
(D
LU
(.9
O
N
d'
Q
Q
— 6
n
O
a)
bA
M
n.
O
a
bA
O
CL
a)
C
l6
bA
C
O
c
0
c
0
fiS
bA
i
cu
E
m
N
a-
4-
0
U
;1
C
a)
E
t
f0
Q
Q
v
(6
C
0
N
ct
L
Q
Q
O
�t
a)
bA
CL
CL
0
W
W ~
F- J
O O
02
u
O
F- Z
W W
CL
LU
G J
�
0 a
F-
u 2
j
U
Q
a
C7
O
w
c
c
0
c
CL
W
.0
0
z
Z
N
Z
O Q
c ti4
U O
C W)
U O
c bn
O
c
U
1—
CL
U
_
O
_
Ouj
a
CL
m
a s
¢
a m
W
w
Z
b0
c c
O •=
bA o
C
N
a)
L
a
O'
u
C O
O
(D
U L () O
C ' .; a)
a) U a) L
� a)
z
_O
F-
a) U
C L
a) Q t
E E OL +�
c ca
C U -O
O
Q
N
p -p
OU O_
b.0 .N m
° _
p
ate-+
U
O�V)
O�
0 a)
O ro O
O
Z
U '
C L
— M
0
— —
C
m
O
J
0
+ a) m W
E• C
� N a) E
'~_ C L L
4- U (B L
.}� 0
U
L
U E -,
O
E 4
.''_'' 0
E o o
O
v-
-0
O O O
-O
-0
7 a)
4�
O.
Z
(n U CO
N a) U E
N m .�
U V
p
Q
a) a) a) 'a- O a)
0
a) (3) +' b.0 0 a) b0
m
C a) Ln O
-C U
a) = '�'� .0
t C 00 L C
O
c
L .c >' a)
0 4-- L `� ca -o
+� 0 E
-°
L_V
a)
0
0 a o
Ln
�^ a)
U W
m +L.+ N S N
�
m N ,-t_�' (D v- ,O
> cD p"
v
VL�
C
O +� U -p C
;t a) E O O (D
cn 'n C O U)
L' 'C O c '�
(iS
N
r
°
iIi a) L
a) O
fl.. O L a) � O
v� U
U O O
c6
a)
z
Q
p
.L
U C O a)
O Co a) �6 p L
v •0 a
C L "O cb a)
E
W
u
m s �°
a)
o o O •0
ra .c t L
O 3
bA
O 3
L 0
O a) 'FO''
Ln
u 0 O C -0
N 3
`�' C m o-
L O C2 ate-+
E a) a, j, _O
i fD
O? U 4, a)
Q
Q
t0
m "6
+-+ CL Q m •a) +�
d O a)
N "O Q •a) ..° N -C u
t+ C
±' n3 n3 L
'�
O
`+-
a
W
U 0
4-- — O .O 0 (B
:�' X° 0 w c a-+ <II
N —°
a)
Q
Qs� ��
�� Cl �-0 o
° �m
W
Q
t0
N �' a) 0 a) O
U '+�
C 4-- u E `+- y
a) c'fi "6
U .�
00 +., cn 'O .0
m 0 a) Q) N p
E
C2 .yam
3
cWc
G
�
o o -0 � Ln
y"
cu c s N E a)
O C
=s o> u
.L ro
T
Z
v--, }'
° O
c-I O cn ' bA
Q a) U .O d C
.0 'n W X �-
-
'�' O a) U m O
6' O
a)
O a) `n
O_
d. — _
.a) _
C C
C C ° Zn
m
O N a) O lO C n
a) C a)
°
Z
(n .0
L
F-
N c
U ai n v
o +� a) o 0°
O +�
•0
-O
Q
C
a)
o n
N
to O v--� "6 C U
U n O c
-"ap
C a) U
+ ca (a 0 > c
N V
C
`6 0 -0 L
aa))
O ca
3 L O_
' ca
O '-6
N
O C L c0 c0
a) 'O Q
c0 �n ° �n a) __
J _° a)
.,.,
+�
++
C2 fn
C Q)
°
> a) c
W
° O C7 c'
cB ° c ca °
E
a)
o- a f6
E
0
E '�
N
'� N i a' cD co .Y
n3 d N
m
C O a)
U
a)>u
Cal
0 Q T •L E a) m
_
> O
m 0 O N hC0
L
CL
O
p E Q
++ U)
0,
C O O Q 0
m +, 0 U d +-�
W
U a) a) C N
Q(D a) O O_
— LO Q) ,� .°C
Q 0 C U) cn
O
U
(n
v°- a'�-� m
w �
p
W'
�
N
g
_
O
O
O
J
Z
Z
Z
0
N
ct
L
Q
Q
O
�t
a)
bA
CL
CL
O
4.
L
O
Q.
a�
-a
c
f6
to
C
O
C
O
c
O
m
E
O
a
4-
O
u
i
Ln
C
v
E
l6
Q
Q
a)
'L
(6
C
Q0
C
N
Q
2
O
Ln
a)
M
(6
CL
1 -8
0
W
W ~
LL
I- J
O
O
O
u
F-
z
W
w
a
UJ
UJ
J
}.
O
a
F-
u
>
G
U
Q
Q
0
d
w
0 6
J
N
m
i
C
Z
In
O
a)
z
�:,E
I—
O
Q
U.°_'t'..
E
a
a
=
-I c6
0
w
'+° a)i
a
m
w
ago
W
0
�
z
U
Q
U
O
Z
°
C7
O
z
Q
o O
Z
U
0
W
C
(1)
Q H
z
G
J
C C
O
0
O
C
"O W
—
O
L
O C
�L L
a]
(D Z5
z
0
Q
4-
O
M M 'O ,Ln
C C C O
O C
O
C >-
O
t V7
DQ
C U
C
L
O
4�-
a)
7
US
~'
O E
C -a (6 O U
L
�-
L
i
C M
Q) -O -O
O...fl-
°
a)
6
_ N
Q.
c
L
C
O
6
� LL
L c
+� o
v
o Q
°
6A M i
a) a)
U
N
°�
o c >
6A O Q
-0 a)
—_
(D
-Q °
o
N a)
"O
o
v }',
U Q) U "O
Q
—_ y
O a) �' C
O N
a)
C
z
L C
s0 Q- L a)
(D
n
(D 3
C l6 a)
U LO O
(6 i
W
v L
U o > c
°
° N
E
ca +�
i o�
O 1
6u
C
L N
a)
C -Q (D bA
O
y Q)
C Q)
°U
f0 i `� Q)
O
'�' Y
t4'n Q)s...
C
60 >,
O >, -o
° -O �
'C
,C
bCA
4)
C i-
O
O
C L
O O
a-+ U
C Q)
O
"O
C O
.0 O
U
i C
Q)
u
"6 C
Q
D
++
`�' 4- L
'A ++ E O
m
a) L
"6 V
Q Q a) m
6 Q w
4) a)
C
OU
W
�- N
O -
Ll
(D E
C 6A
.0 C
a) > i
.0
.Q
G
2
O U
tD O
C
O Ln
6
i O
O O
N C
E
L
W C a)
N N`
.>
F-
I- L
N
Q
Z
O
O a)
O
0 S -a pp, °
a) �
``� t6
�
._
C
� a) n3
-C O
4)
b-0 C
.�
0
Q
C
Q) �..�
N ns C
� '-�
6 L
to ..0 (6 O
O L
O E
L
Q
C
O N
�'
Q)
`n
C
'�i- -� v� a)
Q
i--� O
N
O
(D
u
-C
U
cD
C C
a)
—_
<D
Q
m
m LO
a) O
F-
N y
(6
"O
a) >
O
"O
U
a)
}; 41
a) L
to a) Q
C
a) -Q
41
Q
cn
(n o C
M a-• O C
c6 OL -o
Q. "O a)
C
O a) CC
CL
a)
Oa--�
"6
O U, O
O
�_
W a) E
O
E 'O
6
z
O
C U
O
O O ° -°
(D
> O
C � (D
a)
-0 0
O � O C
J 6 a)
U
CL L )
W c6
-O
O N a)
'U
L i a) (D
O
N .0 a)
Q
O O E
'U Q-
..0
+� a) -C
O •� 4-
C
O
N CM O �+
C O a) -Q 7
>
'('' C
O C
� -
C
O• O +�
6
W >- 7
m�
O
O_
7
C
m
l�n U In
U L '�
-�
� O �--�
- U U
.6
(6
-�
a)
-Q
° N p
M Vn 4 - .Q Q d
°U .0
O Q a)
'O
.O C
h Q..O-
'4
(D an
a)
@
U C L
()
.0
— O
W C O
+-
L
N cn
a)
L7
..0
cn
O a)
c-I U O..
6
N 4) E
L
,i O_
O 6
4 U (6 N
[D
L.n Q
Q0
C
N
Q
2
O
Ln
a)
M
(6
CL
1 -8
UO
O
L
a
bA
y�
L
O
Q-
a)
C
t6
bA
C
O
C
O
C
O
. P
m
0
m
E
m
a
a
4-
O
U
cn
c
a)
E
m
Q
a)
m
C
'L
m
C
O
N
E
Q
zo
t— I
t-
O
a)
bn
m
m
a
0
W
w F-
LU
O O
�5;
Z
O
O <
i Z
w w
J c
CL W
G J
}
ac
O G
U
Q
Q
0
O
cz
a
w
o2f
o2S
J
N
N
m
i C
O
C
i
Z
Z
C�:, E
C
E
C
CL o
+_ m
a)
L
m
+_
V)
O_ ,.O CL
Q
Q+
®
CL
w
+
n m v
Q a D 0
a o (3u)
Q a
(33)
Q a
W
cc
0
Q
z
O
uc
o
O
O
O U
L
Q
O U
L
Q
O U
Z
L
Q
Q
E—
L
O U
L
O V)
L
O V)
Z
w
c c
c c
J
M c c
O
m
a c E
m
O m
o- c E
o m
n c
C
c
L
L
L
o
o
Z
u 0) O
-a �
at O
a a
a) O
-a -0
O
Q
.0 a)
u U
a) T Y a) ^ a) N a)
N_ C N U bA —
"O a) - w } '6
N C O
a) 'O
a)
(�
_U
c U)>
..0 ..O
O m o c ai m
C -Q
>. a) a)
O C
m
O
N
C O E C
—,
> O U
U
F"
a)
Q N
-O —
= Y a C O 6 l6
cb C
G t Q1 N
O ,+_T'
N m
C
>
O C N
N a) U a) N
G
L >•• UM
N O � C
`� V) in C b.0
U
'a
L
bb Y Y al
'O
�
a)
U
t o m .0 O _C a) 0
C m "6 C Y
a) V)
Y .>
Z
I- u Y Q M
a o. N a m
m +-
6 _m
bn _0
LU
u L
�6 L >> v� .� o
'A o E .bn U
+' U
O T
T
cn .o
— O "O +. o �.
"O O _ a)
O C
C
F-
O
..0 a) '= am+ C a) ..O O
cC6 C '~ � C OL 'L
Q
0 N
.:L O
Q O
o0 a)
m E
L� ..c N -C'', N al
co E@
?� bA
0.
W
a)
U Y
Q O F- Q 0 O S
{O.s
ha E . W C L
Y-c
N L
cr
Q)
O Q � O m
cn
•E '.F bn a)
m Y
OL a)
NE
c>o bb
> W 'o n° a n
c
4-- a) •c c so
E O+
C
WO-
.L'
O
in O L fl_ m
X N
U
p U U
L4-
C
O
,
.F Q1
)
c
Ln
O
)
m
0 O �O
m
a)
> � "a
m
m O
o
u
. aN )
O m
O
U
v
v
N
Q
-
O O
O
O
.0
.0
Y _
j.
a)
Q
1 Q
i O E U
Y
O
7
m
N a) m
m a)
'u
Y L Y
Y a
-O
m
O
N
3 O
0
i
U m O
° 0
o
C ' M M Nu
4-
cn O 7
..Q " v> '~ � T m E
C
O
C U ..0 C � m -o
J .,C
t � O
O U O
i- O Y O '- L
C O c O m L O
3
Q
U C w C Q)
m O U
°rn
..0
�n m
Y
3
N
Y u u a) 3 c
N
E oc '�° m
3
0
o v o °o
o
° c
u bcn
4 Q
a)
o
c
L
Li
a
E
av m a) c bn �' o
A
v
O
a) E 'm E
° n
Q
3
n
C Q
Q U c� L
O C— T "6 �n Q.
O_
F
m
c
C C > a)
Q
m a) '.N
m a) -c
vi
Q) .0 O a3
C37
Z N U 0 O m a)
C In
H
a) c .0
O O m O O i
a) .�
Q) LJ i
oc
c
0 o O N E °)
o
�O
S E E coo > E vc-
�- axi
N
�
N
M
Z
ti
ii
LL
O
N
E
Q
zo
t— I
t-
O
a)
bn
m
m
a
O
d
to
O
Q
C
fiS
cM
C
O
a-+
C
O
C
O
bA
41
i
m
E
7
(6
v
a
O
V
N
C
a)
G
(6
Q
Q
�L
(6
�L
i
0
N
.Q
Q
1-1,0
°
a)
bA
d
0
w
w ~
LL z
LU
J
00
u
O
�- z
W W
J C
0 W
Oacc
G
c
U
G
Q
a
O
w
m
CL
W
06
J
v \
11.1
y
m
�"'
C
L a) O
z
z
Z
O a) .N
P:
cc:
0
W
N
Q. 7 +-+
a
0
Q a 0 C
W
z
>
Q
O
C7
z
4� o y
U�cs
z
_O
F—
CU
"- u ° °
OC
Q
Z
U cr
. a � ::3 o a)
O
> L _ U
4 Q
W
Q-
o OO L a) O
z
J
U t6 L- N
Co ,
E
p
a
L
—
O D L a) a)
U
z
CL
-Q
F-
CL G)
o > n
,^
V_
N 'L C
Q (6
L
C
O
O
G
3 °
f6 >` E
L
F-
0 O
\ O
z
LU
c>v v
3
°
G
4- � v-
i--
= O
:°'0
a
:3 — o
a•
W
•>-j
a Co
�-
uj
N
CO M
O J a..,
O
>_
L
cWc
G
Q.
z
O
O
Q
Q
L) on +-
Z
}�—
N (Q a)
Q
~
O U i
U (3) N
++j
CC
N @ C
E
Q Q O
a) U
U
— E
a)
Q a) { N
d'
w
Q
0
N
.Q
Q
1-1,0
°
a)
bA
d
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY
MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MARINA
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE PETALUMA MARINA
APN: 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072, -079, -082, -084, -085, and -089
FILE NO: PLZT -15 -0001, PLSR -15 -0011
WHEREAS, Steven Lafranchi of Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates submitted an
application to modify the General Development Plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned
Commercial District ( "Marina PCD ") located at APN 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072,
-079, -082, -084, -085, and -089, on behalf of property owner Petaluma Marina Office Investors,
LLC, to amend and restate it in a manner that would enable construction of a proposed ninety O
unit apartment building and other associated site improvements located at the northwest corner
of the Petaluma Marina at APN 050- 060 -089 and 005- 060 -072; and
WHEREAS, the submitted application includes a Site Plan and Architectural Review
request and, pursuant to the modified Marina PCD General Development Plan, would also
include a Conditional Use Permit request - all of which would be acted upon by the Planning
Commission at a separate, subsequent public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070, to
consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report dated December 22, 2015, analyzing the application, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") determination included therein; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, a motion before the Planning Commission to
approve an amended General Development Plan for the Marina PCD resulted in a tie vote and,
thereby, resulting in a de facto denial of the request under Implementing Zoning Ordinance
§25.050; and
WHEREAS, Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §25.050 (Amendments - Public
Hearings of the Planning Commission) provides that, "Denial of an application shall in all cases,
except an amendment initiated by the City Council, terminate the proceedings unless such
decision is appealed to the City Council as provided below," and, in response to the de facto
denial, the applicant submitted, on December 29, 2015, a valid and timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's action; and,
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public
hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's de facto denial was held by the City Council
on April 4, 2016, where all persons interested had the opportunity to be heard; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
a -1
A. The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the de facto denial by the
Planning Commission and, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §19.040, the City
Council adopts the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan of the Petaluma
Marina Planned Commercial District ( "Marina PCD "), attached hereto as Exhibit A, based on
the following findings required by Implementing Zoning Ordinance §19.030:
1. The proposed amendment to the General Development Plan of the Marina PCD is, for
the reasons discussed in the December 22, 2015 Planning Commission staff report
and April 4, 2016 City Council staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma
General Plan policies: Policy 1 -P -1 (Development Within UGB); Policy 1 -P -2
(Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1 -P -11 (Land Use Intensification); Policy 1 -P-
27 (Parking Solutions); Policy 2 -P -5 (Arterial Corridors); Policy 2 -P -11 (River
Oriented Development); Goal 2 -G -5 (Lakeville Highway Connectivity); Policy 2 -P-
27 (Petaluma Marina - Land Uses); Policy 2 -P -30 (Petaluma Marina — Compatibility).
With the Project conditioned to include: (a) the installation of a Class I bike path
between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue at APN 005- 060 -065; and (b)
dedication of a public access easement across the abutting parcel to the south (i.e.,
Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060 -066), the proposed amendment to the General
Development Plan of the Marina PCD is also consistent with the following General
Plan policies: Policy 5 -P -15 (Expand and Improve Bikeway System); Policy 5 -P -20
(New Development); Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian Connectivity); Policy 5 -P -25 (Multi -
Use Trails); Policy 5 -P -27 (Class I Facilities); Policy 5 -P -30 (New Development);
and Policy 5 -P -31 (Bicycling and Walking). These conditions would only apply to
residential construction within the Marina PCD.
2. The project concerns an existing building site identified by the currently approved
Marina PCD. The project would modify the planned building for this location by
making it taller (i.e., from 2 to 3 stories up to 5 stories) and of a residential use.
Existing parking and major landscaping features of the Marina PCD have already
been installed and would be maintained in a substantially same condition by the
project.
The proposed location of residential uses is sufficiently removed from existing
commercial uses to prevent incompatibility. Most existing commercial uses,
including the Sheraton hotel, are primarily accessible from and interact with their east
building elevation and abutting parking lot which do not face and are removed from
the proposed apartment building. The closest commercial building facing the
proposed apartments is located approximately 250 feet to the south and includes
ground -level offices, recreational equipment rental, and a coffee shop.
Concerning public use of the Petaluma Marina, twenty (20) parking spaces would be
adjacent to the proposed apartment building and signed for exclusive use by boaters.
This ensures the public's continued use of the marina (and Petaluma River) and an
appropriate relationship between uses. Additionally, the submitted shared parking
study demonstrates the reservation of parking eighty (80) parking spaces for
apartment residents will not discourage public use of the marina nor employee and
customer access to existing commercial uses.
For all the reasons above, the project presents a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby
properties and adequate landscaping and/or screening is included to insure
compatibility.
3. The project concerns a site within an existing asphalt parking lot and, therefore,
would not be located on natural habitat areas. The project is located nearby an open
water channel that leads to the Petaluma River but would not alter any of the
ornamental and natural vegetation present there.
The project would result in the development of a new structure that would be highly
visible from public vantage points but would not obstruct scenic vistas identified by
the General Plan 2025 EIR. The project is not located near any General Plan EIR
identified vistas and would not be visible from the Washington Street oveipass,
McNear Peninsula or Rocky Memorial Dog Park nor would the project block
viewsheds of the hillsides, ridgelines or other important vistas such as open space.
The project's location is intended for a building rather than public open space.
Existing public open space at and around the Petaluma marina would be unaltered by
the project. Submitted architectural plans indicate the project can accommodate
adequate private (i.e., balconies) and shared open space (i.e., courtyard).
For all the reasons above, the project would protect the natural and scenic qualities of
its site, and adequate available public and private spaces are designated, where
existing, and feasible, where applicable.
4. The project would result in more robust combination of mixed uses, as contemplated
by the General Plan's Land Use Map Mixed Use designation, and occur at a location
within Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The project is below the
maximum floor- area -ratio permitted by the General Plan and, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1, will also comply with the permitted
maximum residential density.
General Plan Policy 2 -P -27 directs that, "Enable opportunities for a variety of
synergistic and compatible uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina," and Policy 2 -P -30,
states, "Encourage new development between the Marina and Lakeville Highway to
be compatible and synergistic with the Marina complex" The project would result in a
greater variety of uses at the Petaluma Marina and, at this particular location and
configuration of circulation and parking features, would not result in an
incompatibility. The project's residential use may result in a complementary
relationship by providing increased patronage of existing commercial uses.
However, concerning the topic of circulation, the project falls short, as proposed, of
sufficiently advancing several policies pertaining to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
For the General Plan's Lakeville Highway Subarea, Goal 2 -G -5 states, "Enhance the
connectivity across and between all land uses along the Lakeville Highway to
minimize the barrier it creates by presence, design and vehicular speed." The planned
Class I bike path abutting the northern boundary of the Petaluma Marina presents an
obvious opportunity to enhance connectivity and, as Policy 5 -P -4 directs, "New
development and /or major expansion or change of use may require construction of
off -site mobility improvements to complete appropriate links in the network
necessary for connecting the proposed development with existing neighborhoods and
land uses."
Many other additional General Plan policies apply in this instance and state, as
follows:
Policy 5 -P -15 Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and expand and improve the bikeway system
wherever the opportunity arises.
Policy 5 -P -20 Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not
interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
Policy 5 -P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing
neighborhoods and require a well - connected pedestrian network
linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5 -P -25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct
off - street bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I
standards shall be applied unless otherwise specified.
Policy 5 -P -27 Locate connections to Class I facilities from parallel routes along
the parcel line of adjoining properties to provide separation from
parking lots and buildings; design connections as Class I facilities.
Policy 5 -P -30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide
access to the trail.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and
requiring developmen t
throughout the city.
walking more desirable by providing or
to provide necessary support facilities
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the City Council finds the project shall
include: (a) the installation of a Class I bike path between Baywood Drive and Marina
Avenue at APN 005- 060 -065; and (b) dedication of a public access easement across
the abutting parcel to the south (i.e., Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060- 066).With the
inclusion of those planned facilities, the proposed project will be in the best interests
of the City and in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the General Plan.
M
For all the reasons above, the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan
of the Marina PCD is consistent with the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare.
B. Prior to acting on this application, the City Council considered a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) prepared for the Project, and, based on its review of the entire record herein,
including the MND, the Initial Study, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and
all comments received, the City Council found 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.
�m�
Petaluma Marina
Planned Community District (PCD)
Amended and Re- Stated 2015
w
This page intentionally left blank
,,�— I
Petaluma Marina
Planned Community District
Table of Contents
1.0 Marina PCD
1.1 Purpose
2.0 Definitions
2.1 Purpose
2.2 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases
2.3 Definition of Public Marina and Open Space Land Use Type
3.0 Applicability
3.1
Terms
3.2
Location
3.3
Effect of Prior Actions
3.4
Relationship to IZO
4.0 Land Use Districts
4.1 Purpose
4.2 Land Use Districts Established
4.3 Land Use District Map
4.4 Land Use District Purposes
5.0 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
6.0 Development Standards
7.0 Access & Parking
7.1 Purpose
7.2 Bicycle Parking
7.3 Vehicle Parking Spaces
7.4 IZO Provisions Not Applicable
8.0 PCD Modifications
9.0 Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR)
9.1 SPAR Procedures
Exhibit A: Land Use District Map
-$
This page intentionally left blank
-9
1.0 Marina PCD
1.1 Purpose: The purpose of the Petaluma Marina Planned Community District
( "Marina PCD ") is to provide a mix of land uses that are compatible with public
use of the marina facilities, and to foster public access to the marina facilities and
connections to other open space areas within the community.
2.0 Definitions
2.1 Purpose: To establish the definitions of terms and phrases that are technical,
specialized or that may not reflect common usage.
2.2 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases: All specialized terms and
phrases used in the Marina PCD are defined at City of Petaluma Implementing
Zoning Ordinance ( "IZO ") Chapter 27 (Glossary), excepted as noted herein.
2.3 Definition of Public Marina and Open Space Land Use Type: Publicly owned
land whose primary purpose is for uses consistent with public trust ownership
such as water - related commerce and recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation,
and open space. Uses and development in this district require a site on, or
adjacent to, the Petaluma River to function at all or materially facilitate public
access to open space and trails.
3.0 Applicability
3.1 Terms: These regulations apply to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the Marina PCD in the same manner provided at IZO §1.040 (Applicability
of the Zoning Ordinance).
3.2 Location: These regulations are applicable to all properties within the PCD as
shown at Exhibit A.
3.3 Effect of Prior Actions: The following actions were incorporated into the Marina
PCD by City Council Resolution 2015 -XX and, except as provided in Section 10
below, shall no longer be in effect:
a) City Council Resolution No. 91 -353
b) City Council Ordinance No. 1876
C) City Council Resolution No. 91 -365
d) City Council Resolution No. 91 -113
e) City Council Resolution No. 98 -247
f) August 23, 2004 Minor Marina PCD Amendment
3.4 Relationship to IZO: Except as noted herein, when the Marina PCD is silent on
a matter, the IZO shall apply. The Marina PCD shall apply in all other cases.
Page 1 1 T-` (0
4.0 Land Use Districts
4.1 Purpose: To precisely indicate the areas to be used for each particular land use
within the Marina PCD.
4.2 Land Use Districts Established: The Marina PCD is divided into two land use
districts:
a) Public Marina and Open Space District
b) Marina Support District
4.3 Combining District Established: A portion of the Marina Support District within
the Marina PCD is subject to one combining district:
a) Parking Combining District
4.4 Land Use District Map: The boundary of each land use district and overlay
district is shown on Exhibit B.
4.5 Land Use District and Combining District Purposes: The purpose of each
land use district and combining district within the Marina PCD is as follows:
a) Public Marina and Open Space District — To provide for uses consistent
with public trust ownership such as water - related commerce and
recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and open space. Uses and
development in this district require a site on, or adjacent to, the Petaluma
River to function at all or materially facilitate public access to open space
and trails.
b) Marina Support District — To provide for a variety of synergistic and
compatible land uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina.
C) Parking Combining District — To provide an adequate number of
unreserved and reserved off - street parking spaces, both privately and
publicly owned, to facilitate access to all land uses within the PCD,
including the Petaluma Marina.
4.6 Combining District Regulations: Land use within the Parking Combining
District shall be restricted to off - street vehicle, bicycle parking both day use and
long -term, as well as short -term parking for vehicles with boat trailers.
Page 12
5.0 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
Page 13 0.® � 12—
6.0 Development Standards
Page 14 a- i
REQUIREMENT By DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT FEATURE
]PUBLIC MARINA AND OPEN SPACE
MARINA SUPPORT DISTRICT
DISTRICT
LOT SIZE
Mininuon area and width required for each lot in a new subdivision
Minimum Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
Minimum Width
Minimum Depth
NA
NA
SETBACKS
Minimum setbacks required.
Primary structure
0 ft
0 ft
Front
0 ft
0 ft
Side — Interior
0 ft
0 ft
Side — Street side
0 ft
0 It
Rear
Minimum setbacks required.
Accessory Structure
Not Permitted
Not Permitted
Front
5 ft
5 It
Side — Interior
5 ft
5 ft
Side — Street
0 ft
5 ft
Rear
FloorArea Ratio. Gross building f oor area divided by the building site area.
BUILDING INTENSITY/DENSITY
Residential Density. Dwelling units pe r net acre of develo able land.
NA
2.5
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
NA
30 du /ac
Maximum Residential Density
Maximum allowable height of structures
measured from finished first f oor
BUILDING HEIGHT
elevation to roof peak. See IZO §12:020
for modifications.
1 Story - 30 It
2 Story — 41 ft
Principal Building
30 ft
3 Story — 53 ft
4 Story — 66 ft
5 Story — 68 ft
NA
91 ft
Cupola/Architectural Element
15 ft
15 It
Accessory Structure
USABLE OPEN SPACE
NA
NA
Page 14 a- i
7.0 Access & Parking
7.1 Purpose: To facilitate public access to the Petaluma Marina through the
provision of off - street parking spaces and access ways for vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians. To provide adequate off - street parking spaces for the employees,
customers, and residents at shared parking lots within the Marina Support
District.
7.2 Bicycle Parking: Bicycle facilities shall be provided in accordance with IZO
§11.090 (Standards for Bicycle Facilities).
7.3 Vehicle Parking Spaces: Except as provided below, individual uses within the
Marina PCD are exempt from the requirement to provide off - street parking
facilities. Rather, the Marina PCD shall, at all times, maintain shared off - street
parking facilities, as follows:
a) 762 unreserved off - street parking spaces for all land uses; plus
b) 80 reserved off- street parking spaces for a Dwelling, Multiple use at APN
005 - 060 -089 and 005 - 060 -072; plus
C) 20 reserved off - street parking spaces at APN 005 - 060 -072 for public
access to the waters of the Petaluma Marina and connecting waterways,
inclusive of reserved spaces for vehicles with boat trailers.
7.4 IZO Provisions: The following IZO standards shall not apply in the Marina PCD:
a) §11.030(B) (Off- Street Parking Facilities to Serve One Use)
b) §11.030(C) (More Than One Use on a Site)
C) §11.060 (Number of Automobile and Bicycle Parking Spaces Required)
8.0 PCD Modifications
8.1 Modification Procedures: From time to time, it may be necessary and desirable
to modify the Marina PCD. Modifications shall be in accordance with IZO Chapter
19 (Planned Unit District and Planned Community District).
9.0 Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR)
9.1 SPAR Procedures: All new development or changes to the exterior of existing
structures or site features shall require Site Plan and Architectural Review in
accordance with IZO Chapter 24 (Administrative Procedures). The Director may
grant administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for minor additions or
modifications to existing buildings and /or site features.
9.2 SPAR Findings: All new development or changes to the exterior of existing
structures or site features shall, in addition to the findings required by IZO
§24.010(G)(1), also be found to be substantially consistent with the building form,
materials and architectural style of existing buildings at the Petaluma Marina.
Page 15 a_( q
10.0 Existing Structures
10.1 Permitted: The Marina PCD amends and restates the prior actions referenced
in Section 3.3 above, and the Marina PCD is not intended to make any existing structure legal
non - conforming. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Marina PCD, any structure
existing in the PCD on the effective date of the Marina PCD shall be deemed permitted under
the Marina PCD.
Page 16
ATTACHMENT 3
MARINA PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT: DECISION - MAKING HISTORY
1986: Resolution 1186 -294 adopted by the City Council on October 27, 1986
Certifying, Approving and Adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Petaluma Marina and Office Park Project and associated Improvements.
1988: Resolution #88 -25 adopted by the City Council on February 1, 1988
Resolution Approving the Planned Community District (PCD) Development Program for
the Petaluma Marina and Office Complex (AP Nos. 005- 060 -006, 024, 027 and 028).
Creates a development of 26.12 acres for Office, Retail, Commercial, Restaurant and
Hotel uses, with a maximum of 250,000 square feet and a range of 805 — 878 parking
spaces.
A seaport/resort architectural style shall be used for all buildings in the PCD, where white
clapboard siding, multi -paned windows, French doors and pitched standing seam metal
roofs are key elements of this style. Balconies are proposed on the marina side of the
hotel and the three -story office buildings.
1988: Ordinance #1713 adopted by the City Council on February 1, 1988
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Classification No. 1027 N.C.S., as amended, by
Classifying 27.42 Acres located at the southern terminus of Baywood Drive, from M-
L/FP-C, to PCD /FP -C, AP Nos. 005- 060 -006, 024, 027, 028.
1989: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Approval on January 29, 1989
Approved designs for Buildings A, B and C (first phase of office /retail buildings),
harbormaster's office and freestanding restroom building.
Building Permits submitted for construction indicate that: Building A is 33,000 square
feet; Building B is 36,000 square feet
(Building C is proposed to be 54,700 square feet. As March 19, 1998, MOPA
has not submitted a SPARC application for administrative review).
1990: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Approval on January 25, 1990
Landscaping Plans are approved for a 779 space parking lot.
1990: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Approval on July 26, 1990
Sign Program is approved by SPARC.
Page 1 �._
1990: Declaration of Easements, Covenants and Restrictions and Reciprocal Easements
for the Petaluma Marina Project
City Manager signs document, recorded on September 14, 1990, which creates 791
parking spaces.
1991: Resolution #91 -365 adopted by City Council on December 16, 1991
Approves the Amended Planned Community District Development Program for the
Petaluma Marina and Office Park.
Increases the total acreage from 26.12 to 30.59 acres.
Increases the allowed square footage from 250,000 to 312,500.
Increases the number of parking spaces to 898.
Adds a 1.3 acre parcel and a portion of the Northern Pacific Railroad spur.
USE CATEGORY 1988 PCD DISTRICT
Marina Basin/
Public Uses
Office Uses
Commercial
Restaurants/
Deli's
Hotel
Total Square Feet
7 - 8 acres open space
194 berths
134,750 - 202,265 sq. ft.
7,000 - 10,000 sq. ft.
8,500 - 11,500 sq. ft.
25,875 - 93,750 sq. ft.
75 - 125 rooms
250,000
1991 PCD DISTRICT
8 acres open space
190 - 200 berths
98,500 - 199,000 sq. ft.
0 - 47,000 sq. ft.
0 to 25,500 sq. ft.
110,000 - 135,000 sq. ft.
1.25 - 154 rooms
312,500
1991: Ordinance #1876 by the City Council on December 16, 1991
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Classification No. 1027 N.C.S. as amended, by
Classifying and Rezoning Lands Adjacent to the Petaluma Marina and Office Park (AP
Nos. 005- 060 -044 and a portion of 005- 060 -006) from C- H/FP -C to PCD/FP -C.
1994: Administrative Approval by the Planning Director on October 12, 1994
A Minor Planned Community District Amendment affecting the permitted location of
restaurant uses.
Allows up to 25,500 square feet of restaurant uses for the business park, excluding any
restaurant uses in the proposed hotel.
1995: Resolution #95 -113 adopted by City council on May 1, 1995.
Denial of a request to amend the Planned Community District regulations to permit fast
food restaurants with drive through facilities.
Allows up to 25,500 square feet of restaurant uses for the business park, excluding any
restaurant uses in the proposed hotel.
Page 2
1998: Resolution No. 98 -247 N.C.S. adopted by City Council on November 16, 1998
Approves an Amended Planning Community District Development Program to allow an
increase of 30 additional hotel rooms (for a total of 184 rooms).
1999: Administrative Approval by Planning Director on May 24, 1999
Approves a minor Planned Community District Regulation amendment to enclose a
rooftop dining area on the south elevation of the Sheraton Hotel.
1999: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Approval on May 27, 1999
Approves a landscape plan for the Sheraton Hotel located at 745 Baywood Drive.
2002: Administrative Approval of Sign Program Amendment on August 5, 2002
Approves an amended sign program allowing the Sheraton Hotel to install on free-
standing sign.
2004: Administrative approval by the Planning Director on August 23, 2004
A Minor Planned Community District Amendment shifting the allowable commercial
square footage between parcels, as follows:
• Main Marina Building (735 -775 Baywood) to have up to 18,000 square feet of
commercial space (an increase over the 10,000 square feet currently allowed);
• The vacant triangular parcels (adjacent to where Lakeville Highway and the flood
channel meet, 785 Baywood) to have up to 14,000 square feet of commercial space
(an increase over the 10,000 square feet currently allowed); and
• The vacant old railroad spur parcel (between Public Storage /Yardbirds and the
Marina parking lot, APN 005- 060 -065) to have up to 12,000 square feet of
commercial space (a decrease over the 24,000 square feet currently allowed).
This approval includes a condition that commercial space is only allowed on the ground
floor. "Commercial" uses, as used within this action and the Marina PCD, means, "Retail
sales and services except as prohibited or further regulated by this program."
Page 3
1,
J
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
ATTACHMENT 4
Tsolution No. 91 -365 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, .California
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE PETALUMA MARINA AND
OFFICE PARK
(AP No.'s 005- 060 -06, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
and a portion of 60)
WHEREAS, the project site was rezoned to Planned Community District by Ordinance
numbers 1713 N.C.S. and 1875 N.C.S.; and
12 WHEREAS, by action taken on November 26, 1991, the Planning Commission considered
13 and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to conditionally approve an amended
14 PCD Development Program for the Petaluma Marina and Office Complex; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental
17 Quality Act have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the
18 adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Resolution No. 91 -353.
19
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby conditionally
j approves the amended PCD Development Program attached as "Exhibit A" for the
212 Petaluma Marina and Office Park pursuant to Section 19A -504 of Zoning Ordinance 1072
23 N.C.S., as amended based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
24
25 Find_ in4
26
27 1. The development proposed is in substantial harmony with the General Plan of the
28 City of Petaluma, because it represents a continuation of the established land use
29 pattern and will provide an opportunity for the development of a coordinated,
30 attractive, quality commercial project at an important entrance to the City. The
31 development can be coordinated with existing and planned development of the
32 surrounding areas through SPARC review.
33
34 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed and the City traffic
35 engineer has determined that the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable
36 and adequate to serve the proposed user as conditionally approved, and the
37 anticipated traffic which will be generated thereby.
38
39 3. Building permits for the second stage of the protect (Building B and associated
40 pparking lot improvements) have been issued and the development of the PCD will
41 be initiated within a reasonable time by submittal of development plans for the next
42 stages of the project.
43
44
4�6
91 -365 1 ��
Res. No ........................... N.C.S.
ao� - .. .. o�.
1
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
77'
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
I
4. The proposed development pro &ram is to be administered by the City Planning
Department and SPARC, and will insure that development will be appropriate in
area, location, and overall planning to the purpose intended; and that such
development will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding areas. The
requirement that specific sensitive uses be Conditional Uses, requiring review by the
Planning Commission, will insure that these uses to not detract from the purpose
and objectives of the PCD program.
Condition
1. The proposed PCD Development Program shall be modified as follows:
a. Fast food restaurants shall be removed �on E.4• CONDITIONAL USES. I D
PRINCIPAL USES and listed under
b. Drive through ' restaurants shall be removed from Section EA
CONDITIONAL USES and listed under Section E.5: Prohibited Uses.
C. Sections E.4.f and F.5, relating to the site layout, shall be modified to permit
up to two freestanding buildings 'on the 1.3 acre triangular shaped parcel
(APN 005- 060 -06).
d. Section F.4 relating to signs shall be modified to read:
Si =: : An amended master sign program for the Marina PCD shall be
approved by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. The sign
program shall coordinate signs for the hotel marina, office, retail, and
boat launching into one aesthetically integrated program. The sign to
rogram may permit one permanent project identification etaluma
viewed and easily readable, primarily from the River,
Boulevard and, by proximity, the freeway. Siggnnss for retail tenants of
the former NWPRR shall be consistent iiTi tthe req n the sloped
Section G of the signage program and may be located
portion of the roof facing Lakeville provided that they are integrated
into the design, of the building and roof structure and approved by
SPARC. - The sign program may also permit signs on two sides of the
main copula displaying the hotels name and corporate trademark.
e. Section E.4.e shall be modified to read as follows:
Any use similar in nature to a Permitted Principal or Conditional use,
but not specifically listed in this program that, as determined by the
Planning Director, are pto ected to create a substantial increase in the
demand for parking, invo�ve impacts on surrounding uses which can
not be mitigated through the Design Review process, or are in conflict
with the overall design concept put forth in this PCD program.
Reso. 91 -365 NCS 2
LI, - Z_
IL
4
5
6
2. The thirteen (13) mitigations adopted by Resolution No. 91 -353 approving a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Petaluma Marina and Office Park proposal
are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval for the PCD program.
mopapcdr /dd2
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council' by the Charter of said City.
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by rc as to
REFERENCE: fo
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular){ meeting
on the ...J.Fath ............. day of ....... D. ecemhet :.............................. 19.9.1.., by the
following vote: 9-ii o eY..........
AYES: Read. Davis, Mavor Hilligoss, Nelson
NOES: Na
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CA 10.85
noun 3
Res. No ..... 9.1-..3.6.5........ N.C.S.
1 PETALUMA MARINA AND OFFICE COMPLEX
PLANNED COMMUNITY PROGRAM
Amended December, 19911
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. PURPOSE OF PCD ZONE
The uniqueness of this project's site characteristics and location and the
unique cooperative public - private venture of the marina project itself create
special needs for pre - planning that this Planned Community District (PCD)
is intended to address. The purpose of the Petaluma Marina Office Complex
PCD is to encourage the unified planning of the area in question to achieve a
variety of complimentary land uses and building designs. The PCD zoning
classification will insure development of the area in accordance with the
provisions of the Program. This PCD' does not, however, lock the
development plan into an unchanging construction plan, but rather is
intended to act as a master plan, guideline and goal toward which
development should proceed.
The project scope, description, and other characteristics may be modified by
the City Council and project sponsor to reflect new information, fiscal and
market conditions, new development in the area, and other relevant factors.
26
Another purpose of this PCD is to assure the long -term viability of the
marina by adding as principal uses hotel and office activities. Accessory and
,7 7
1J
conditional uses (as listed in Section E of this program) will work to support
uJ
and enhance the principal uses together as an integrated unit.
30
31
B. DESIGN CONCEPT
32
33
All new buildings will be evaluate by Site Plan and Architectural Review
34
35
Committee for compatibility with the following design concept and the
schematic elevations prepared by Ron Nunn Associates and ADR (see
36
Exhibit "D" for an example elevation) on file in the City of . Petaluma
37
Planning Department:
38
39
A series of 1, 2, 3, and 4 story buildings will accommodate the proposed
40
312,500 square feet of floor space. The central component comprised of
be four stones, with
41
Building D (proposed for either hotel or office) will
42
office and commercial buildings on either side stepping down to three and
43
44
two stories. The buildings on AP. No. 005 - 060 -06 will be two or three stories
and the building on the portion of AP No. 005- 060 -60 (the former NWPRR
45
spur) will be two stories.
46
47
A seaport/resort architectural style shall be used for all buildings in the
48
PCD, including the use of white clapboard siding, multi -paned windows,
49
50
french doors, and pitched standing seam metal roofs. Balconies are
on the manna side of the hotel and the three -story office buildings.
51
proposed
All buildings would be of composite wood -frame and steel or structural steel
52
construction.
XrHIBI I .:�z,.r 1 RESO. q 1. ° 36 5 N C S L-E I.
1 A boardwalk (approximately eight feet wide) is proposed along the entire
basin side of Buildings A, B, and C. A 10,000 square foot plaza is proposed
in the "U "- shaped area formed by the hotel and office building footprint. A
4 full service restaurant may be located overlooking the marina.
5
5 Exact uses of the plaza area have not been determined, although they will
7 probably be related to the hotel and restaurant. A plaza swimming pool and
g outdoor dining area are indicated. A restaurant /delicatessen /coffee shop is
9 also a possible use.
10
11 Three passageways are indicated between the proposed main buildings.and
12 one passage way on each end, for a total of five passageways in order to
13 provide convenient pedestrian access to the marina.
14
15 C. SETTING (see attached location map "Exhibit A ')
16
17 The project site is located within the City limits near, the edge oft the
18 Petaluma urbanized area; south of the Lakeville Highway and approximately
19 500' east of U.S. 101. Land to the east of the site includes a substantial
20 wetlands area which is privately owned and undeveloped. A Sonoma County
21 Water Agency drainage channel and levee run adjacent to the west boundary
22 of the property. The main Northwestern Pacific Railroad manmade drainage,
23 west of the channel, between the site and
24 ditch runs the length of the northern boundary of the site. The land to the
25 north is privately owned and is developed with mixed use /commercial
26 development fronting on Lakeville Highway (i.e., offices, mini- storage, and a
jlarge paved parking area).
D. PROJECT SITE AND EXISTING USES (see attached site plan "Exhibit C ")
30
31 Project development as currently proposed would occupy the following area:
33 1) Lots 1 through 6 (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 005- 060 - 53,54,55,56,57,58) as
34 shown and designated upon that certain map entitled Petaluma
5 Marina Parcel Map No. 247, filed in the Office of the County
35 Recorder on February 27, 2990 in Book 454 of Maps, pages 9 and 10,
37 Sonoma County Records (collectively comprising approximately 12.15
acres);
39 2) Parcels 2 and 3 described in that certain Compromise Title Settlement
Agreement recorded March 22, 1988, under Document No. 88-
40
41 022143, Sonoma County Records (collectively comprising
42 approximately 13.98 acres);
43 3 Assessor's Parcel No. 005 - 060 -06 (approximately 1.3 acres);
44 4� A portion of Assessors Parcel No. 005 - 060-60 (a proximately 1.97
45 acre portion of the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad Spur);
46 5) Assessors Parcel No. 005 - 060 -44 (approximately 1.33 acres containing
47 the 799 Baywood Office Building).
48
49 The total acreage of the PCD is approximately 30.59 acres.
50
51 Baywood Drive has been extended onto the site and is now the primary road
52 access for the project. Marina Avenue (formerly Petroleum Avenue), will be
the future secondary entrance between the Petaluma Marina and the
4' Lakeville Highway. A third entrance -only access to the project from
2 PESO-9 1 ® 36 5 N C S LA -5
1
Lakeville Highway via the new 101 northbound exit /Lakeville Highway
- '
Interchange is also proposed.
4
5
The southern portion of the site is currently occupied by the recently
completed 'City of Petaluma Marina and boat launch ramp facility and the
"Exhibit ").
775 Baywood Drive office building ( "Building A" on attached C
6
7
Most of the site utilities for the marina and commercial projects are
complete, as is the parking servicing 775 Baywood and the Marina. There is
8
9
currently a 3,500 square foot office building on APN NO. 005- 060 - 06(799
10
Baywood). The remainder of the site is undeveloped.
11
12
E. CHARACTER OF PROPOSED LAND USES
13
14.
The proposed land use is for a 194 berth public marina and accessory uses
15
owned by the City of Petaluma, 312,500 square feet of building space and
16
approximately 898 parking spaces. MOPA, or its successors in interest, and
17
the City of Petaluma have each granted to the other easements .for parking
18
and access. These easements shall be amended by MOPA to include the new
19
additions to the Petaluma Marina and pedestrian and bicycle access prior to
20
issuance of building permits for the new parcels. Square footages of the
21
proposed uses (see chart below) will be annually confirmed by MOPA, or its
22
successors in interest, if requested by the Director of Planning.
23
24
1. PROPOSED USES BY PARCEL
25
26
a. AP Nos 006-050-53,54,55,56,57.58.59 (Main Marina Parcel)
j
Marina Basin /public uses 8 acres, 194 berths
Office 98,500 - 145,000 square ft.
.�y
30
Commercial 0- 10,000 square feet
31 2
Restaurants 0- 11,500 square feet
Hotel (125 -154 rooms) 110,000 - 135,000 sq.ft. (up to one
33
additional restaurant is included in the
34
hotel square footage)
35
36
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 255,000 square feet
37
38
39
b. AP No. 005 - 060 -06
40
41
Office 0- 30,000 square feet
42
Commercial 0- 10,000 square feet
43
Restaurants 0-10,000 square feet
44
45
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 30,000 square feet
46
47
C. PORTION AP NO 005- 060 -60 (portion former railroad spur)
48
49
Office 0- 24,000 square feet
50
Commercial 0- 24,000 square feet
51
Restaurants 0 -4,000 square feet
52.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 24,000 square feet
.;4
3 RESO- q 1® 96 5 N C S
1
d. AP No 005- 060-44 (799 Baknvoodl
Office 0 -3,500 square feet
.,
4
Commercial 0 -3,500 square feet
5
5
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 3,500 square feet
7
8
Although square £ootages of uses may vary within ranges shown, total
9
square footage of structures shall not exceed 312,500 square feet.
10
11
2. PERWITED PRINCIPAL USES
12
13
a) Marina /Public Uses: A public marina containing one public
14
boat launching facility, a 1,000 square foot marina
15
administration and maintenance facility, a 500 square foot
16
public restroom facility, boat washing facilities, and a disposal
17
system for boat septic systems, and comparable uses as
18
determined by the Planning Director.
19
b) Office: Professional business offices such as insurance, real
20
estate, yacht brokers; banks, savings and loans and other
21
financial institutions; professional offices such as attorneys,
22
accountants, architects, engineers; medical, dental and optical
23
offices or similar and compatible office uses as determined by
24
25
the Plannin Director.
c) Commercial. Retail sales and services except as prohibited or
26
further regulated by this program.
d) Restaurant: Any food service ranging from full- service sit -
t
down restaurant to coffee shop /deli, or any combination
29
thereof, and nightclubs.
30
e) Hotel: A structure or coordinated series of structures
31
containing individual guest rooms or suites, where lodging is
32
provided for transients for compensation, and accessory
33
support facilities, including convention meeting facilities, a
34
restaurant and related businesses and services normally
associated with hotel uses as determined by the Director of
35
36
Community Development and Planning. Hotel may include up
37
to 9,000 square feet of restaurant and up to 3,000 square feet
38
of 'Commercial.
39
40
3. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES
41
42
All accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted principal
43
use as determined by the Planning Director.
44
45
4. CONDITIONAL USES
46
47
a Marina: Fueling facilities for boats.
48
b� Office: Laboratories; offices using hazardous or explosive
49
materials in a quantity to warrant regulation by the Fire
Marshal; business and technical schools.
501
c) Commercial: Convenience markets; arcades; commercial
51
j
recreation.
d) Restaurant: Portable restaurants (e.g., hot dog wagons), and
fast food restaurant.
RES0. 9 1. ° 36 5 N C S 4_1
I
.7
4
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
i
.20
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.i4
e)
Any use similar in nature to a Permitted Principal or
Conditional use, but not specifically listed in this program that,
as determined by the Planning Director, are projected to
create a substantial increase in the demand for parking, involve
impacts on surrounding uses which can not be mitigated
through the Design Review process, or are in conflict with the
f)
overall design concept put forth in this .PCD program.
Any free standing buildings not shown on the master schematic
site plan (Exhibit C) except that up to two free- standing
the 1.3 acre triangular shaped
buildings shall be permitted on
parcel(APN 005-060-06).
5. PROHIBITED USES
a.
auto repair, automobile service stations, auto dealers,
b.
automatic car washes
sales and rental of appliances, tools, and other household
equipment
sales and rental of construction equipment, farm equipment,
C.
mobile homes, and trailers
d.
building ,materials sales yards, carpenter, electrical, plumbing
sheet metal and upholstery shops
on site storage of goods;
e.
wholesale establishments involving
and warehousing
f.
soft drink bottling plants
gg
h.
creameries
outdoor nurseries, green houses and fruit stands
L
grocery stores except convenience markets
J ,
k.
on board living
bowling alleys, roller skating rinks and other similar large draw
commercial recreation facilities
1.
ambulance services
m.
mortuaries, crematoriums, columnbariums
n.
animal hospitals, veterinary clinics, kennels and pet stores
o.
drive- through restaurants.
F. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Maximum - height* 1 story - 30 feet
2 story - 41 feet.
3 story - 53 feet
4 story - 66 feet
Cupola - 91 feet
* Height of a building is defined as the vertical distance as measured.
from the finished first floor elevation of each building to the roof peak
of each building. Flag poles and cupolas are allowed on the building
roofs above the stated maximum height.
2. Open Space: Approximately 1.16 acres of usable landscaped open
space primarily along the south edge of the marina basin and an
approximately 4 acre wetland area east of the marina entrance
channel will remain undisturbed (See Exhibit "C)
5 ftFSo. 9 -1 ° 3 6 5 N C S _�
23
24
25
2.6
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
rry,
s4
H.
Exhi i
3. Landscaping: Landscaping of the site shall be in conformance with
the approved landscaping plan on file with the City of Petaluma
Planning Department. A revised landscaping plans to including the
new AP Nos. 005 - 060 - 06,44, and the portion of 005 - 060-60 to be
included in the Marina PCD shall be submitted for approval by Site
Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
building permits for these sites.
4. Sin : An amended master sign program for the Marina PCD shall be
approved by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. The sign
program shall coordinate signs for the hotel marina, office, retail, and
boat launching into one aesthetically integrated program. The siggn
program may permit one permanent project identification to be
viewed and easily readable, primarily from the River, Petaluma
Boulevard_ and, by proximity, the freeway. Signs for retail tenants on
the former NWPRR shall be consistent with the requirements of
Section G of the signage program and may be located on the sloped'
portion of the roof facing Lakeville provided that they are integrated
into the design of the building and roof structure and approved by
SPARC. The sign program may also permit signs on two sides of the
main copula displaying the hotels name and corporate trademark.
5. Site Layout: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance
with the master site plan (Exhibit C) except that up to two
freestanding buildings shall be permitted on the 1.3 acre triangular
shaped parcel (APN 005 - 060 -06).
DEVELOPMENT
Development of the site is expected to occur incrementally. Development
within the district shall proceed by submitting development plans for
approval by the site plan architectural review committee, or an application
for a Use Permit in compliance with the provisions of Section 26 -500 of the
Zoning Ordinance when required; or tentative or parcel map, if necessary.
VARIATIONS
Whenever the I standards contained in this PCD program do not address an
aspect of physical development or use within the development, the Planning
Director may regulate this development by interpreting the most comparable
sections of other City Zoning Districts. The Director may also refer such
questions of development standards or uses to either SPARC or the Planning
Commission for a decision. Any decision by the Director, SPARC, or
Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council through standard
appeal procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
"A" location map
"B" Assessor's parcel map
"C" site plan
"D" example elevation
mopapcd / dd2 /12/23/91
WV
.9:L° 36 5NCS
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY
MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MARINA
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE PETALUMA MARINA
APN: 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072, -079, -082, -084, -085, and -089
FILE NO: PLZT -15 -0001, PLSR -15 -0011
WHEREAS, Steven Lafranchi of Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates submitted an
application to modify the General Development Plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned
Commercial District ( "Marina PCD ") located at APN 005- 060 -053, -054, -059, -065, -070, -072,
-079, -082, -084, -085, and -089, on behalf of property owner Petaluma Marina Office Investors,
LLC, to amend and restate it in a manner that would enable construction of a proposed ninety O
unit apartment building and other associated site improvements located at the northwest corner
of the Petaluma Marina at APN 050- 060 -089 and 005- 060 -072; and
WHEREAS, the submitted application includes a Site Plan and Architectural Review
request and, pursuant to the modified Marina PCD General Development Plan, would also
include a Conditional Use Permit request - all of which would be acted upon by the Planning
Commission at a separate, subsequent public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070, to
consider the application and at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report dated December 22, 2015, analyzing the application, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") determination included therein; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, a motion before the Planning Commission to
approve an amended General Development Plan for the Marina PCD resulted in a tie vote and,
thereby, resulting in a de facto denial of the request under Implementing Zoning Ordinance
§25.050; and
WHEREAS, Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §25.050 (Amendments - Public
Hearings of the Planning Commission) provides that, "Denial of an application shall in all cases,
except an amendment initiated by the City Council, terminate the proceedings unless such
decision is appealed to the City Council as provided below," and, in response to the de facto
denial, the applicant submitted, on December 29, 2015, a valid and timely appeal of the Planning
Commission's action; and,
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public
hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's de facto denial was held by the City Council
on April 4, 2016, where all persons interested had the opportunity to be heard; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1�- �
A. The City Council hereby grants the appeal and overturns the de facto denial by the
Planning Commission and, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §19.040, the City
Council adopts the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan of the Petaluma
Marina Planned Commercial District ( "Marina PCD "), attached hereto as Exhibit A, based on
the following findings required by Implementing Zoning Ordinance §19.030:
1. The proposed amendment to the General Development Plan of the Marina PCD is, for
the reasons discussed in the December 22, 2015 Planning Commission staff report
and April 4, 2016 City Council staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma
General Plan policies: Policy 1 -P -1 (Development Within UGB); Policy 1 -P -2
(Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy I -P -11 (Land Use Intensification); Policy 1 -P-
27 (Parking Solutions); Policy 2 -P -5 (Arterial Corridors); Policy 2 -P -11 (River
Oriented Development); Goal 2 -G -5 (Lakeville Highway Connectivity); Policy 2 -P-
27 (Petaluma Marina - Land Uses); Policy 2 -P -30 (Petaluma Marina — Compatibility).
With the Project conditioned to include: (a) the installation of a Class I bike path
between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue at APN 005- 060 -065; and (b)
dedication of a public access easement across the abutting parcel to the south (i.e.,
Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060 -066), the proposed amendment to the General
Development Plan of the Marina PCD is also consistent with the following General
Plan policies: Policy 5 -P -15 (Expand and Improve Bikeway System); Policy 5 -P -20
(New Development); Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian Connectivity); Policy 5 -P -25 (Multi -
Use Trails); Policy 5 -P -27 (Class I Facilities); Policy 5 -P -30 (New Development);
and Policy 5 -P -31 (Bicycling and Walking). These conditions would only apply to
residential construction within the Marina PCD.
2. The project concerns an existing building site identified by the currently approved
Marina PCD. The project would modify the planned building for this location by
malting it taller (i.e., from 2 to 3 stories up to 5 stories) and of a residential use.
Existing parking and major landscaping features of the Marina PCD have already
been installed and would be maintained in a substantially same condition by the
project.
The proposed location of residential uses is sufficiently removed from existing
commercial uses to prevent incompatibility. Most existing commercial uses,
including the Sheraton hotel, are primarily accessible from and interact with their east
building elevation and abutting parking lot which do not face and are removed from
the proposed apartment building. The closest commercial building facing the
proposed apartments is located approximately 250 feet to the south and includes
ground -level offices, recreational equipment rental, and a coffee shop.
Concerning public use of the Petaluma Marina, twenty (20) parking spaces would be
adjacent to the proposed apartment building and signed for exclusive use by boaters.
This ensures the public's continued use of the marina (and Petaluma River) and an
appropriate relationship between uses. Additionally, the submitted shared parlting
study demonstrates the reservation of parking eighty (80) parking spaces for
apartment residents will not discourage public use of the marina nor employee and
customer access to existing commercial uses.
For all the reasons above, the project presents a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby
properties and adequate landscaping and /or screening is included to insure
compatibility.
3. The project concerns a site within an existing asphalt parking lot and, therefore,
would not be located on natural habitat areas. The project is located nearby an open
water channel that leads to the Petaluma River but would not alter any of the
ornamental and natural vegetation present there.
The project would result in the development of a new structure that would be highly
visible from public vantage points but would not obstruct scenic vistas identified by
the General Plan 2025 EIR. The project is not located near any General Plan EIR
identified vistas and would not be visible from the Washington Street overpass,
McNear Peninsula or Rocky Memorial Dog Park nor would the project block
viewsheds of the hillsides, ridgelines or other important vistas such as open space.
The project's location is intended for a building rather than public open space.
Existing public open space at and around the Petaluma marina would be unaltered by
the project. Submitted architectural plans indicate the project can accommodate
adequate private (i.e., balconies) and shared open space (i.e., courtyard).
For all the reasons above, the project would protect the natural and scenic qualities of
its site, and adequate available public and private spaces are designated, where
existing, and feasible, where applicable.
4. The project would result in more robust combination of mixed uses, as contemplated
by the General Plan's Land Use Map Mixed Use designation, and occur at a location
within Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The project is below the
maximum floor- area -ratio permitted by the General Plan and, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1, will also comply with the permitted
maximum residential density.
General Plan Policy 2 -P -27 directs that, "Enable opportunities for a variety of
synergistic and compatible uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina," and Policy 2 -P -30,
states, "Encourage new development between the Marina and Lakeville Highway to
be compatible and synergistic with the Marina complex" The project would result in a
greater variety of uses at the Petaluma Marina and, at this particular location and
configuration of circulation and parking features, would not result in an
incompatibility. The project's residential use may result in a complementary
relationship by providing increased patronage of existing commercial uses.
However, concerning the topic of circulation, the project falls short, as proposed, of
sufficiently advancing several policies pertaining to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
For the General Plan's Lakeville Highway Subarea, Goal 2 -G -5 states, "Enhance the
connectivity across and between all land uses along the Lakeville Highway to
minimize the barrier it creates by presence, design and vehicular speed." The planned
Class I bike path abutting the northern boundary of the Petaluma Marina presents an
obvious opportunity to enhance connectivity and, as Policy 5 -P -4 directs, "New
development and /or major expansion or change of use may require construction of
off -site mobility improvements to complete appropriate links in the network
necessary for connecting the proposed development with existing neighborhoods and
land uses."
Many other additional General Plan policies apply in this instance and state, as
follows:
Policy 5 -P -15 Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and expand and improve the bikeway system
wherever the opportunity arises.
Policy 5 -P -20 Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not
interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
Policy 5 -P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing
neighborhoods and require a well - connected pedestrian network
linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5 -P -25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct
off - street bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I
standards shall be applied unless otherwise specified.
Policy 5 -P -27 Locate connections to Class I facilities from parallel routes along
the parcel line of adjoining properties to provide separation from
parking lots and buildings; design connections as Class I facilities.
Policy 5 -P -30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide
access to the trail.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or
requiring development to provide necessary support facilities
throughout the city.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the City Council finds the project shall
include: (a) the installation of a Class I bike path between Baywood Drive and Marina
Avenue at APN 005- 060 -065; and (b) dedication of a public access easement across
the abutting parcel to the south (i.e., Assessor Parcel Number 005- 060- 066).With the
inclusion of those planned facilities, the proposed project will be in the best interests
of the City and in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the General Plan.
G — L,
5. For all the reasons above, the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan
of the Marina PCD is consistent with the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare.
B. Prior to acting on this application, the City Council considered a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) prepared for the Project, and, based on its review of the entire record herein,
including the MND, the Initial Study, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and
all comments received, the City Council found 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.
!S--!5
EXHIBIT A
Petaluma Marina
Planned Community District (PCD)
Amended and Re- Stated 12015
s ®6
This page intentionally left blank
5 -1
Petaluma Marina
Planned Community District
Table of Contents
1.0 Marina PCD
1.1 Purpose
2.0 Definitions
2.1 Purpose
2.2 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases
2.3 Definition of Public Marina and Open Space Land Use Type
3.0 Applicability
3.1
Terms
3.2
Location
3.3
Effect of Prior Actions
3.4
Relationship to IZO
4.0 Land Use Districts
4.1 Purpose
4.2 Land Use Districts Established
4.3 Land Use District Map
4.4 Land Use District Purposes
5.0 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
6.0 Development Standards
7.0 Access & Parking
7.1 Purpose
7.2 Bicycle Parking
7.3 Vehicle Parking Spaces
7.4 IZO Provisions Not Applicable
8.0 PCD Modifications
9.0 Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR)
9.1 SPAR Procedures
Exhibit A: Land Use District Map
N ►
This page intentionally left blank
1.0 Marina PCD
1.1 Purpose: The purpose of the Petaluma Marina Planned Community District
( "Marina PCD ") is to provide a mix of land uses that are compatible with public
use of the marina facilities, and to foster public access to the marina facilities and
connections to other open space areas within the community.
2.0 Definitions
2.1 Purpose: To establish the definitions of terms and phrases that are technical,
specialized or that may not reflect common usage.
2.2 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases: All specialized terms and
phrases used in the Marina PCD are defined at City of Petaluma Implementing
Zoning Ordinance ( "IZO ") Chapter 27 (Glossary), excepted as noted herein.
2.3 Definition of Public Marina and Open Space Land Use Type: Publicly owned
land whose primary purpose is for uses consistent with public trust ownership
such as water - related commerce and recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation,
and open space. Uses and development in this district require a site on, or
adjacent to, the Petaluma River to function at all or materially facilitate public
access to open space and trails.
3.0 Applicability
3.1 Terms: These regulations apply to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the Marina PCD in the same manner provided at IZO §1.040 (Applicability
of the Zoning Ordinance).
3.2 Location: These regulations are applicable to all properties within the PCD as
shown at Exhibit A.
3.3 Effect of Prior Actions: The following actions were incorporated into the Marina
PCD by City Council Resolution 2015 -XX and, except as provided in Section 10
below, shall no longer be in effect:
a) City Council Resolution No. 91 -353
b) City Council Ordinance No. 1876
C) City Council Resolution No. 91 -365
d) City Council Resolution No. 91 -113
e) City Council Resolution No. 98 -247
D August 23, 2004 Minor Marina PCD Amendment
3.4 Relationship to IZO: Except as noted herein, when the Marina PCD is silent on
a matter, the IZO shall apply. The Marina PCD shall apply in all other cases.
Page 11
4.0 Land Use Districts
4.1 Purpose: To precisely indicate the areas to be used for each particular land use
within the Marina PCD.
4.2 Land Use Districts Established: The Marina PCD is divided into two land use
districts:
a) Public Marina and Open Space District
b) Marina Support District
4.3 Combining District Established: A portion of the Marina Support District within
the Marina PCD is subject to one combining district:
a) Parking Combining District
4.4 Land Use District Map: The boundary of each land use district and overlay
district is shown on Exhibit B.
4.5 Land Use District and Combining District Purposes: The purpose of each
land use district and combining district within the Marina PCD is as follows:
a) Public Marina and Open Space District — To provide for uses consistent
with public trust ownership such as water - related commerce and
recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and open space. Uses and
development in this district require a site on, or adjacent to, the Petaluma
River to function at all or materially facilitate public access to open space
and trails.
b) Marina Support District — To provide for a variety of synergistic and
compatible land uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina.
C) Parking Combining District — To provide an adequate number of
unreserved and reserved off - street parking spaces, both privately and
publicly owned, to facilitate access to all land uses within the PCD,
including the Petaluma Marina.
4.6 Combining District Regulations: Land use within the Parking Combining
District shall be restricted to off- street vehicle, bicycle parking both day use and
long -term, as well as short -term parking for vehicles with boat trailers.
Page 12
5.0 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements
PUBLIC TRUST LANDS
— CUP
Public Marina and Open Space
P P
LODGING
Lodging - H otel /M otel
– P
RECREATION, EDUCATION & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
— P
Commercial Recreation - Indoor
� FitnesslHealth Facility ���� - -��
School - Specialized Education and Training
Studio - Art, Dance, Martial Arts, Music, etc.
— CUP
P - -
— CUP
— P
RESIDENTIAL
Dwelling, Multiple
— CUP
Home Occupation
— S(1) IZO §7.050
RETAIL
Artisan Shop
— P
General Retail
— P
Restaurant, Cafe, Coffee Shop
—� P
SERVICES - BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL
ATM
— P
Bank, Financial Services —
P
Business Support Service
— P
Medical Services -Minor
— P
Office - Business, Service, or Government
— P
Office - Professional, Administrative
— P
SERVICES - GENERAL
Personal Services
— P
Notes:
(1) Permitted within Dwelling, Multiple use.
Page 13 C I Z-
6.0 Development Standards
Page 14 �� 1
REQUIREMENT BY DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT FEATURE
PUBLIC MARINA AND OPEN SPACE
MINA SUPPORT DISTRICT
AR
DISTRICT
LOT SIZE
Minimum area and width required for each lot in a new subdivision
Minimum Area
NA
NA
NA
NA
Minimum Width
Minimum Depth
NA
NA
SETBACKS
Minimum setbacks required.
Primary structure
0 ft
0 ft
Front
0 ft
0 ft
Side — Interior
0 It
0 ft
Side — Street side
0 ft
Oft
Real.
Minimum setbacks required
Accessory Structure
Not Permitted
Not Permitted
Front
5 ft
5 ft
Side — Interior
5 ft
5 ft
Side — Street
0 It
5 ft
Rear
Floor Area Ratio. Gross buildingfloor area divided by the building site area.
BUILDING INTENSITY/DENSITY
Residential Density.',Bwelling units pet net acre o develo able land.
NA
2.5
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
NA
30 du/ac
Maximum Residential Density
Maximum allowable height of structures
measured from finished fist, floor
BUILDING HEIGHT
elevation to roof peak See IZO §12.020
for modifications.
1 Story - 30 ft
2 Story -41 It
Principal Building
30 ft
3 Story — 53 ft
4 Story — 66 ft
5 Story — 68 ft
NA
91 It
Cupola/Architectural Element
15 It
15 ft
Accessory Structure
USABLE OPEN SPACE
NA
NA
Page 14 �� 1
7.0 Access & Parking
7.1 Purpose: To facilitate public access to the Petaluma Marina through the
provision of off - street parking spaces and access ways for vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians. To provide adequate off - street parking spaces for the employees,
customers, and residents at shared parking lots within the Marina Support
District.
7.2 Bicycle Parking: Bicycle facilities shall be provided in accordance with IZO
§11.090 (Standards for Bicycle Facilities).
7.3 Vehicle Parking Spaces: Except as provided below, individual uses within the
Marina PCD are exempt from the requirement to provide off - street parking
facilities. Rather, the Marina PCD shall, at all times, maintain shared off - street
parking facilities, as follows:
a) 762 unreserved off - street parking spaces for all land uses; plus
b) 80 reserved off - street parking spaces for a Dwelling, Multiple use at APN
005 - 060 -089 and 005 - 060 -072; plus
C) 20 reserved off - street parking spaces at APN 005 - 060 -072 for public
access to the waters of the Petaluma Marina and connecting waterways,
inclusive of reserved spaces for vehicles with boat trailers.
7.4 IZO Provisions: The following IZO standards shall not apply in the Marina PCD:
a) §11.030(B) (Off- Street Parking Facilities to Serve One Use)
b) §11.030(C) (More Than One Use on a Site)
C) §11.060 (Number of Automobile and Bicycle Parking Spaces Required)
8.0 PCD Modifications
8.1 Modification Procedures: From time to time, it may be necessary and desirable
to modify the Marina PCD. Modifications shall be in accordance with IZO Chapter
19 (Planned Unit District and Planned Community District).
9.0 Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR)
9.1 SPAR Procedures: All new development or changes to the exterior of existing
structures or site features shall require Site Plan and Architectural Review in
accordance with IZO Chapter 24 (Administrative Procedures). The Director may
grant administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review for minor additions or
modifications to existing buildings and /or site features.
9.2 SPAR Findings: All new development or changes to the exterior of existing
structures or site features shall, in addition to the findings required by IZO
§24.010(G)(1), also be found to be substantially consistent with the building form,
materials and architectural style of existing buildings at the Petaluma Marina.
Page 15 C °— (Lk
10.0 Existing Structures
10.1 Permitted: The Marina PCD amends and restates the prior actions referenced
in Section 3.3 above, and the Marina PCD is not intended to make any existing structure legal
non - conforming. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Marina PCD, any structure
existing in the PCD on the effective date of the Marina PCD shall be deemed permitted under
the Marina PCD.
Page 16 ,s--(5
EXHIBIT "A"
MARINA PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
LEGEND
PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING PCD BOUNDARY LINE
PARCEL /
SITE INFORMATION
�KEVIGGE
HIGHWAY � a>
a
ADDRESS
OWNERSHIP
A
005- 060 -072
m°
79 0
CITY OF PETALUMA
B
005- 060 -085
PARCEL H
PETALUMA MARINA OWNERS ASSSOC.
PARCEL J s5
005 - 060 -070
as
CITY OF PETALUMA
D
005 - 060 -053
775 BAYW00 DRIVE
MARINA OFFICE DE LLC
E
PARCEL A
765 BAYWOOD DRIVE
PARCEL B
F
005 - 060 -082
72
.o
9'pCF
85
Z
Q
PETALUMA MARINA INVESTORS LLC
54 `F
005 - 060 -089
Z
PETALUMA MARINA INVESTORS LLC
1
005 - 060 -079
799 BAYWOOD DRIVE
N
J
53
- - - - --
CITY OF PETALUMA
K
005 - 060 -059
PQ,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
82
84
PARCEL G
70
PARCEL K
5s
PARCEL C
LEGEND
PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING PCD BOUNDARY LINE
SITE INFORMATION
PARCEL
APN
ADDRESS
OWNERSHIP
A
005- 060 -072
- - - --
CITY OF PETALUMA
B
005- 060 -085
- - - --
PETALUMA MARINA OWNERS ASSSOC.
C
005 - 060 -070
- - - --
CITY OF PETALUMA
D
005 - 060 -053
775 BAYW00 DRIVE
MARINA OFFICE DE LLC
E
005 - 060 -054
765 BAYWOOD DRIVE
MARINA OFFICE DE LLC
F
005 - 060 -082
755 BAYWOOD DRIVE
MARINA OFFICE DE LLC
G
005- 060 -084
745 BAYWOOD DRIVE
PETALUMA MARINA INVESTORS LLC
H
005 - 060 -089
0 MARINA AVENUE
PETALUMA MARINA INVESTORS LLC
1
005 - 060 -079
799 BAYWOOD DRIVE
MARINA OFFICE PARK ASSOC.
J
005- 060 -065
- - - - --
CITY OF PETALUMA
K
005 - 060 -059
781 BAYWOOD DRIVE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT "B"
LAND USE DISTRICT MAP
LEGEND
MARINA PCD BOUNDARY
PUBLIC MARINA AND OPEN SPACE
MARINA SUPPORT DISTRICT
® PARKING COMBINING DISTRICT
-- PARCELS
z
0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
December 22, 2015
Planning Commission
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT 7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.A
Marina Planned Commercial District (PCD) Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit, and Site Plan and Architectural Review
Marina Apartments Project
File# PLSR -14 -0021
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt:
a) A resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A); and
b) A resolution recommending the City Council approve an amended Marina Planned
Commercial District (Attachment B).
Additionally, it is recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Architectural Review.
BACKGROUND
Location and Context
The Petaluma Marina is an approximate 30.59 -acre area at the southern edge of Petaluma's
urbanized area where it transitions into more open and sparsely developed land. The marina is
generally bound by the US 101, Petaluma River, Pacific Northwest Railroad, Lakeville Highway,
and Alman Marsh.
Alman Marsh is 80 acres of pasture /marsh that sits between Shollenberger Park on the south and
the Petaluma Marina on the north. It also abuts the Petaluma River. Alman Marsh is a mix of
brackish tidal wetlands, fed daily by the river, and degraded pasture uplands containing seasonal
freshwater wetlands. Alman Marsh also provides habitat for several threatened and endangered
species.
The project proposes to locate a new apartment building on a triangular parcel at the Petaluma
Marina, adjacent to Lakeville Highway /State Route 116 and the US 101 northbound on-
Page 1
-I —(
ramp /southbound off -ramp. This site, shown at Figure 1, is the last remaining area of
undeveloped land in the marina.
Figure 1— Project Location and Surrounding Vicinity.
General Plan Sub Area
The project site is located in the Lakeville Highway Subarea of the 2025 General Plan. The
Lakeville Highway subarea is bounded by Lakeville Highway, the Petaluma River and estuary,
Frates Road, Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and US 101. The subarea's main
thoroughfare, Lakeville Highway, is a gateway to Petaluma both from its US 101 interchange, its
approach from the county areas on the southeast edge of town, and from communities to the east
and south via Highways 116 and 37.
A large portion of the subarea consists of marshlands, public trails, and open space along the
river, and business and light industrial parks at the southern terminus of McDowell Boulevard
South. The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, located on the former Mascorini Ranch,
includes the old farm house, trails, and open space. Unincorporated rural lands lie east of
Lakeville Highway, which effectively frame the southeast corner of the City. This subarea also
contains the Petaluma Marina and the city's largest hotel.
Page 2
-1-2—
The Lakeville Subarea also contains a residential neighborhood, which enjoys proximity to
Shollenberger Park, a large dredge disposal site and wetlands area with trails. With more
residential development anticipated in this area, the General Plan envisions creating a cohesive
neighborhood with close access to stores and services, as well as connections to the residential
areas north of Lakeville Highway. Additionally, the General Plan anticipates infill and
redevelopment opportunities to increase employment densities in the Lakeville and Oakmead
Northbay Business Parks.
O r5 z O r
Project
.r t vw
t ;South East Subarea .
y<10� Washington�Core P
✓ r z
�9
,h�
12.r 3r
1. Central Petaluma Spec�f c`` "nPlan �' �+ f 1
a rEl�l
r • " :, "'
( s
_ Lakeville Highway Subarea r
Figure 2 — General Plan SubAreas.
Petaluma Marina
History
The 198 -berth Petaluma Marina was constructed in 1987 with money loaned by the State of
California. Just over half of the Marina's berths are usually rented out. As built, the marina
accommodates small transferable vessels under 35 feet in length. From the San Pablo Bay, the
distance to Petaluma is 14 miles upriver. A trip to the bay can typically exceed two hours.
Planned Commercial District
The Marina PCD was established by the City Council on February 1, 1988 via Resolution No.
88 -25. This approval established succinct development regulations to be applied to office, retail,
commercial, restaurant uses, with a combined maximum floor area of 250,000 square feet and
range of 805 to 878 off - street parking spaces. Since original approval, the Marina PCD has been
amended, by City Council and the Planning Director, a total of six times ((inl991, 1994, 1995,
Page 3
M
1998, 1999 and 2004). A complete summary of these actions, as well as all other related to the
establishment of the Marina PCD, is included at Attachment C.
The current Marina PCD General Development Plan, adopted via City COouncil Resolution No.
91 -365 N.C.S. and included at Attachment D, is prospective and includes a purpose statement,
proposed /allowed uses, maximum building heights, site plan, and building elevation. The
General Development Plan's site plan is at Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 — Existing Marina PCD — General Development Plan (Site Plan)
As mentioned, the project site is the last remaining undeveloped land in the Marina PCD. Under
the current regulations, this triangular parcel is envisioned to include up to 10,000 square feet of
commercial /restaurant or 30,000 square feet of office uses within a building between two and
three stories in height. Residential uses are not permitted.
Existing Easements
The Petaluma Marina is subject to many easements for access, parking and public utilities.
Figure 4 shows the locations of easements abutting the project site. The public access easements
may be adjusted but are required to ensure access to State Lands consisting of the open waters of
the marina and adjoining boat launch. The utility and access easement spanning the northern
Page 4
-1-4
project site boundary may not be relocated since it pertains to a 36 -inch diameter sanitary sewer
force main located approximately ten (10) feet below - grade.
Figure 4 — Easements Adjacent to Project Site.
Surrounding Buildings and Land Uses
The proposed apartment building site consists of a triangular area of exposed dirt surrounded by
asphalt parking lots. While Lakeville Highway defines the northern boundary of the project site,
the following describes other nearby features:
• West: an approximate 20 -foot wide level pathway including an alley of ornamental trees
extends approximately 1,700 feet to the mouth of the marina. To the immediate west of
this pathway is an outfall channel that conveys stormwater flows from residential
subdivisions to the north as well as from the US 101. The outfall channel supports a small
amount of coastal brackish marsh.
• South: a shared parking lot, office building, harbor master office, and office building are
immediately south of the project site. Additional office buildings and Petaluma's largest
hotel abuts the open waters of the marina. A city -owned parcel at the southeast corner of
Page 5
M
the marina provides parking, information kiosks, and access to the Alman Marsh. This
trail head leads to the Petaluma Marsh trail network.
East: a bank (situated within the Marina PCD) is located at the southwest corner of
Lakeville Highway / Baywood Drive. Land uses located further east include public
storage, a small shopping center with retail, restaurant and indoor recreation, light
industrial, and office uses.
Access to Petaluma Marina
From Lakeville Highway, access to the apartment site (and entire marina) is possible at the
following three locations:
1. Lakeville Highway/Marina Avenue: This signalized intersection provides access for
westbound and eastbound vehicles. Bus stops for Petaluma Transit Routes 24 and 40 are
located on both sides of this intersection. A continuous sidewalk is provided along the
south side of Lakeville Highway (in this location) but not along Marina Avenue.
2. Lakeville Highwa/Baywood Drive: This signalized intersection also provides access for
westbound and eastbound vehicles. Bus stops for Petaluma Transit Routes 24 and 40 are
also located on both sides of this intersection. A continuous sidewalk continues along the
south side of Lakeville Highway (in this location) and wraps around Baywood Drive at
each property fronting the intersection.
Lakeville HighwU/DrivewaX: A right -in, ingress only driveway is located at the
northwest corner of the marina. The sidewalk along the south side of Lakeville Highway
continues until beneath the US 101 where a signalized intersection provides a crosswalk
to a sidewalk along the north side.
An existing paved Class I pedestrian/bicycle trail exists to the immediate north of the project site
(between the parking lot and Lakeville Highway). That trail begins at the Lakeville
Highway/Drive access point described above and terminates at Baywood Drive. This trail is
discussed further under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan below.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the project at their
November 4, 2015 meeting. The PBAC was generally supportive of the project and commented
that: (a) access (including signage) should be improved between Lakeville Highway at the
Alman Marsh trailhead; and (b) Petaluma Transit Route 24 does not currently pass by the project
on Lakeville Highway. The latter point responded to the project's proposal to install a bus stop
adjacent to the apartment building (on the south side of Lakeville Highway). However, Public
Works has since clarified the long term plan to modify Route 24 such that it would utilize the
proposed bus shelter.
Concerning improved pedestrian and bicycle access between Lakeville Highway and the Alman
Marsh, the PBAC suggested the use of pole- mounted signage and in -road signage. Presently,
Page 6
there is no signage at Lakeville Highway or within the marina property alerting the public to the
presence of the Alman Marsh trail head. Staff concurs with the PBAC comments but, as
explained in the analysis below, has evolved it to implement new Class I bicycle facility.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a requested legislative action to amend the Marina PCD
development standards in order to accommodate a new residential apartment building. If the
requested amendments are approved, a subsequent Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and
Architectural Review request would be acted upon. A description of each component follows
below.
Marina PCD Amendments
The applicant is proposing an amended Marina PCD in a manner that enables construction of the
proposed apartment building and which reflects the current built condition of the Petaluma
Marina. As approved, the Marina PCD is written prospectively prior to creation of the marina
and construction of existing buildings. The existing, approved Marina PCD General
Development Plan is included at Attachment D and the proposed Marina PCD is at Attachment
E.
The proposed PCD seeks to result in the following: (a) a contemporary set of regulations
reflecting the existing environmental setting (i.e., Petaluma Marina now exists); (b) consolidation
of the original approval and all subsequent amendments into a single document; (c) consistency
with the regulatory language and format of the current Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and (d)
establishment of land use districts, associated development standards and review processes (i.e.,
Site Plan and Architectural Review, Conditional Use Permit). All of these changes embody prior
City Council actions (e.g., land uses, development standards), except as noted below.
Land Use Districts — Two land use districts are proposed — Public Marina and Open
Space District and Marina Support District. The purpose in creating these districts is to
ensure lands designated Public Marina and Open Space District exclude urban
development and, instead, "provide for uses consistent with public trust ownership such
as water- related commerce and recreation, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and open
space. Uses and development in this district require a site on, or adjacent to, the Petaluma
River to function at all or materially facilitate public access to open space and trails."
One combining district — Parking Combining District - is also proposed. This district was
created to apply to the shared parking lot with the following stated purpose, "To provide
an adequate number of unreserved and reserved off - street parking spaces, both privately
and publicly owned, to facilitate access to all land uses within the PCD, including the
Petaluma Marina." An ancillary purpose of the district is to ensure it is utilized for
parking spaces as opposed to additional, new buildings.
• Residential Use — Consistent with the applicant's request, the Marina PCD inserts
"Dwelling, Multiple" as an allowed use pending issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
Page 7
-I--I
(CUP). ACUP requirement is recommended in order to ensure residential uses do not
proliferate to the detriment of commercial uses dependent upon and supportive of the
marina.
Development IntensitX — For the proposed apartment site, the amended Marina PCD
removes the prior 10,000 to 30,000 square foot and two to three story building limitations
and instead enacts a single maximum building height limitation of five (5) stories and
sixty -eight (68) feet.
• Public Access Parking — As proposed, the Marina PCD creates new reserved parking
spaces for public access. Nearby the boat launch, twenty (20) double - length spaces would
be marked as reserved for boaters. That reservation is made in light of the newly codified
shared parking program below.
• Shared Parking — The current Marina PCD excludes off - street parking space standards
per use and, instead, assumes a shared parking scenario. The proposed Marina PCD
retains the shared parking approach but: (a) sets a minimum number of shared parking
spaces to be available at all times (i.e., 762); (b) reserves eighty (80) parking spaces for
the new apartment building; and (c) reserves twenty (20) spaces for boaters.
Site Plan
The proposed project locates a new L- shaped building, five- stories in height, upon an existing
unpaved area at the northeast corner of the Petaluma Marina. (See Figure 5 below for site plan.)
Surface parking spaces surrounding the new building are already paved and striped. The project
includes a proposal to construct carports for eighty (80) spaces to the immediate north and south
of the new building. An unenclosed courtyard for residents is located at the north building
elevation. The project would connect the existing Class I trail immediately north of the new
building to an existing sidewalk on the west side of Baywood Drive.
Architecture
The proposed building includes design elements reflective of existing buildings at the Petaluma
Marina. These include building material (i.e., lap siding), steeply pitched hipped and gable roofs,
standing metal seem roof material, regular fenestration patterns, and white color. The proposed
buildings height is five stories and 65 -feet measured to the mid -point of tallest roof element.
Building- mounted arbors accent building corners. Sheets A1.02 through A1.05 and A5.00 at
Attachment F illustrate each building elevation. A rendering is included below at Figure 6.
Access
Pedestrian access to the building would be from a common lobby at the far - eastern portion of the
building. Two additional points of emergency egress are provided at the north and south
elevation. Access to each dwelling unit would be through an internal corridor. Elevator access is
provided to floor two through five. Outside the building, sidewalks would line the perimeter with
new crosswalks provided to the west and east of the building. Vehicular access to the project
would occur through the existing means described above.
Page 8
Figure 5 — Proposed Site Plan.
Shared Parking
As mentioned above, the current Marina PCD excludes off - street parking space standards per use
and, instead, assumes a shared parking scenario. The proposed Marina PCD retains the shared
parking approach but: (a) sets a minimum number of shared parking spaces to be available at all
times (i.e., 762); (b) reserves eighty (80) parking spaces for the new apartment building; and (c)
reserves twenty (20) spaces for boaters. In support of the applicant's request to reserve eighty
(80) spaces for apartment residents, a shared parking analysis prepared by W -Trans was provided
(see Attachment G). That analysis supports the applicant's request, as follows:
Parking demand for the entire Petaluma Marina site, including the proposed apartment
project, would be highest on weekdays at 2:00 PM with a total projected usage of 802
spaces. This translates to a peak usage of 93 percent and would leave approximately 59
shared parking spaces unoccupied.
The peak parking demand on weekend would be substantially lower, with a total usage of
461 spaces at noon, translating to a peak parking usage of 54 percent.
Page 9
• The parking demand generated by the apartments would be lowest when overall site -wide
demand is highest (and vice versa). These opposing parking demand patterns result in
shared parking efficiencies.
• With the use of shared parking and recommended site plan modifications, the parking
demand generated by the proposed project can be accommodated within the available
parking supply.
• As proposed by the applicants, the CC &Rs for the Marina PCD will need to be updated
to reflect the parking recommendations contained in this analysis.
Staff concurs with this analysis including the conclusion that at least twenty (20) vehicular /trailer
parking spaces should be provided to accommodate boat ramp and associated marina uses. That
recommendation is included in the proposed Marina PCD Amendment.
Figure 6 — Proposed South Elevation (Facing Lakeville Street).
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan includes plant materials consisting of trees, shrubs, grasses,
groundcovers and vines. Landscaping is proposed along the building perimeter, within the
proposed courtyard, and at landscape planters in the parking lot. Evergreen and deciduous trees
are proposed. A trellis with vines and grass plantings would line the carport abutting Lakeville
Highway.
Page 10
DISCUSSION
General Plan
Land Use Map
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use. As shown in Figure 7
below, the Mixed Use designation also applies to properties south of Lakeville Street/Highway,
on both sides of US 101. The Mixed Use designation requires a robust combination of uses,
including retail, residential, service commercial, and /or offices. Development is oriented toward
the pedestrian, with parking provided, to the extent possible, in larger common areas or garages.
Maximum FAR including both residential and non - residential uses is 2.5, and maximum
residential density is 30 dwelling units /acre.
Petaluma General Plan 2025
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS'
Rural Residential (0.1 -0.6 hWao)
Very Low Density Residential (0.0 -25 Wee)
WN Density Resklential (2.".0 Wool
s. Diverse Low Density Residential (6,1 -12.0 Wool
Medium Density Residential (8.1 -18.0 hWac)
High Density Residential (18.1 -30.0 hulas)
Mobile Homes (8.018.0 hWac)
® Nelghborhood Commercial
- Community Conurrxrcial
Mixed Use
Business Park
PublicJS @ml- Public
Edueadon
r—ffl§gf industrial
Agriculture Support Industrial (CPSP)
- River Dependent industrial (CPSP)
Agrikulture
City Park
Proposed City Park
Open Space
Regional Park
„:. Urban Separator
Urban Separator Path
River Plan Corridor
Figure 7 — General Plan Designations.
Policies
General Plan policies below apply to the proposed project both by nature of the project's location
within the Lakeville Highway Subarea. Policies at General Plan Chapter 3 (Historic
Preservation), Chapter 7 (Community Facilities, Services and Education) and Chapter 9
(Economic Health & Sustainability) are not applicable to the project.
Chapterl : Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment
Policy 1 -P -1 Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the
community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Page 11
M
Policy 1 -P -2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher
density and intensity than surrounding uses.
Policy 1 -P -11 Allow land use intensification at strategic locations along the arterial corridors
leading to Downtown and Central Petaluma, including aging commercial and
industrial sites.
Policy 1 -P -27 Encourage innovative site and building design to address parking solutions
such as shared, structured, and /or underground facilities.
Chapter 2: Community Design, Character, and Green Building
Policy 2 -P -5 Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial corridors.
Policy 2 -P -11 Encourage and support the rehabilitation and development of buildings and
structures reflective of the history of Petaluma's rich agricultural and river
oriented industrial past and present.
Goal 2-G-5 (Lakeville Highway) Enhance the connectivity across and between all land
uses along the Lakeville Highway to minimize the barrier it creates by
presence, design and vehicular speed.
Policy 2 -P -27 Enable opportunities for a variety of synergistic and compatible uses adjacent
to the Petaluma Marina.
Policy 2 -P -30 Encourage new development between the Marina and Lakeville Highway to
be compatible and synergistic with the Marina complex.
Policy 2 -P -31 Enhance ecological diversity, education, and enhancements along the
Petaluma River and Estuary.
Chapter 4: The Natural Environment
Policy 4 -P -9 Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots or garages to
provide electrical vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4 -P -19 Encourage use and development of renewable or nontraditional sources of
energy.
Chapter 5: Mobility
Policy 5 -P -4 New development and /or major expansion or change of use may require
construction of off -site mobility improvements to complete appropriate links
in the network necessary for connecting the proposed development with
existing neighborhoods and land uses.
Policy 5 -P -10 Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle
circulation that ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal
Page 12
mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor
vehicles due to traffic from any development project.
Policy 5 -P -15 Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,
and expand and improve the bikeway system wherever the opportunity arises.
Policy 5 -P -20 Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not interfere
with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
Policy 5 -P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods and
require a well- connected pedestrian network linking new and existing
developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5 -P -23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new development.
Policy 5 -P -25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct off - street
bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I standards shall be
applied unless otherwise specified.
Policy 5 -P -27 Locate connections to Class I facilities from parallel routes along the parcel
line of adjoining properties to provide separation from parking lots and
buildings; design connections as Class I facilities.
Policy 5 -P -30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide access to the
trail.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring
development to provide necessary support facilities throughout the city.
Chapter 6: Recreation, Music, & the Arts
Policy 6 -P -18 Development that occurs adjacent to designated trails and pathway corridors
shall be required to install and maintain the publicly owned and accessible
trail, in perpetuity.
Chapter 8: Water Resources
Policy 8 -P -38 All development activities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance
with Phase 2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit requirements.
Policy 8 -P -39 Consider, to the extent practicable, requiring sustainable site design practices
as outlined in the `Sustainable Site Planning' text box contained herein.
Chapter 10: Health & Safety
Policy 10 -P -3 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of
existing noise problems, and by minimizing the increase of noise levels in the
Page 13
-1-c
future.
Chapter 11: Housing
Policy 1.1 Utilize sites within the UGB to accommodate anticipated long -term residential
growth.
Policy 1.2 Encourage the development of housing on underutilized land that is
appropriately zoned.
Policy 2.1 Encourage a mix of housing design types.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, approved May 2008, is a component of the Petaluma General
Plan. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes goals, policies and programs to guide the
implementation of a pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly community by means of complete streets,
infrastructure improvement, and transportation planning. A number of existing and planned
bicycle and pedestrian trails exist in the proposed project's immediate vicinity. Figure 8 below
identifies the General Plan's Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
+ Existing Bike Rack Location
o Proposed Bike Rack Location
— Class I - Off Street - Existing
...... Class I. Off Street - Proposed
Class II - On Street, Striped - Existing
...... Class II - On Street, Striped - Proposed
Class III - On Street, Signed - Existing
...... Class III - On Street, Signed - Proposed
- R- Recreational Trail, Existing
Recreational Trail - Proposed
COMMON DESTINATIONS
School
Retaii/Employment
Park
Open Space
BOUNDARIES
r
City Limits
y
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
61 l Rivers and Creeks
IM
Figure 8 — Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities in Project Vicinity.
The planned Class I bicycle facility along the northern boundary of the Petaluma Marina consists
of a former railroad right -of -way now owned by the City of Petaluma. That same planned facility
continues as former railroad right -of -way, east of Marina Avenue, on a route past Rocky
Page 14
Memorial Dog Park and terminating at Technology Lane. There is presently no funded capital
improvement project for this planned facility.
Between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue, the former railroad right -of -way is level, highly
disturbed (e.g., trash, ruderal vegetation), and abuts the rear wall of a personal storage business
(see Figure 9 below). East of Marina Avenue, the area transitions into more varied terrain along
the eastern boundary of the Alman Marsh where natural wetland habitat becomes prevalent and
urban stormwater drainage discharges (see Figure 10 below).
Figure 9 — Planned Class I Bicycle Facility at Petaluma Marina (Looking West).
Figure 10 — Planned Class I Bicycle Facility East of Marina Avenue (Looking North).
Page 15
`i"( �
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies a proposed Recreational Trail at the eastern boundary
between the Petaluma Marina and Alman Marsh. The northern terminus of this trail is shown at
Figure 10 above and illustrates the proximity of existing asphalt parking spaces and an open
water channel.
Implementing Zoning Ordinance
As mentioned above, the project site is zoned Marina PCD. Zoning Map designations for the
project site and nearby parcels are shown at Figure 11 below. Designations south of the project
site are Open Space -Park (OSP); those to the north and east are Commercial 1 (Cl), Commercial
2 (C2), and Mixed Use 113 (MU1B). The hatched overlay at Figure 11 depicts 100 -year
floodplain boundaries.
PUD (Planned Unit District)
R1 (Residential 1)
R2 (Residential 2)
j R3 (Residential 3)
R4 (Residential 4)
R5 (Residential 5)
CS (Civic Space)
T-4 (Urban General)
T3 (Urban Center)
T-5 (Urban Core)
i D-1 (HAS. Distdcq
D4 (Railroad District)
D3 (R.W. District)
DA (Throughfare District)
Cl NM (Commercial 1)
C2 (Commercial 2)
CF (Civic Facility)
- (Floodway)
I (industrial)
MH (Mobile Home)
MUtA (Mixed Use 1A)
- MUIB (Mixed Use 1B)
L:@ MU 10 (Mixed Use 1C)
- MU2 (Mixed Use 2)
OSP (Open Spa —Park)
PCD (Planned Community Dew
f)4P
_J[ Project ,tz
r. t t AKEV 1 Y '
C'' u
Figure 11— Zoning for Project Site and Surrounding Vicinity.
STAFF ANALYSIS
PCD Amendment
The proposed PCD Amendment and scope of the Planning Commission's review is subject to the
provisions of IZO Chapter 19.030 (Findings). The proposed PCD Amendment may be approved
by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. In recommending 'the
approval, or modification, of said PCD, the Commission must find that said PCD, or
modification thereof, clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical
environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning
districts, and in addition to such general findings, the Planning Commission and City Council
shall make the following specific findings (staff analysis in italics):
Page 16
1. That any P.U.D., or modification of a P.C.D., is proposed on property which has a suitable
relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to
carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project demonstrates that affected thoroughfares
are adequate to carry traffic generated by the project. For existing, baseline and future
conditions including the proposed project, study intersections would either operate at LOS D
or better or, for those estimated to operate at LOS E, the project's incremental contribution
of vehicular trips is below the General Plan EIR's threshold to be considered a significant
effect. The proposed project is subject to the mandatory payment of traffic impacts mitigation
fees which, at eighty (80) multiple family dwellings), is estimated to be $902,720. Payment of
that fee is substantially more than would be required under the current Marina PCD and
would be applied towards planned transportation improvement projects. For these reasons,
the project does have a suitable relationship to thoroughfares and they are adequate to carry
the additional traffic generated by the project.
2. That the plan, or modification thereof, for the proposed development presents a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if
necessary to insure compatibility.
The project concerns an existing building site identified by the existing Marina PCD. The
project would modem the planned buildingfor this location by making it taller (i.e., from 2 to
3 stories up to 5 stories) and of a residential use. Existing parking and major landscaping
features of the Marina PCD have already been installed and would be unaltered by the
project.
The proposed location of residential uses is sufficiently removed from existing commercial
uses to prevent incompatibility. Most existing commercial uses, including the Sheraton hotel,
are primarily accessible from and interact with the east building elevation and abutting
parking lot. The closest commercial building facing the proposed apartments is located
approximately 250 feet to the south and includes ground -level offices, recreational
equipment rental, and a coffee shop.
Concerning public use of the Petaluma Marina, twenty (20) parking spaces would be
adjacent to the proposed apartment building and signed for exclusive use by boaters. This
ensures the public's continued use of the marina (and Petaluma River) and an appropriate
relationship between uses. Additionally, the submitted shared parking study demonstrates the
reservation of parking eighty (80) parking spaces for apartment residents will not discourage
public use of the marina nor employee and customer access to existing commercial uses.
3. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan or General Development Plan.
The project concerns a site within an existing asphalt parking lot and, therefore, would not
be located on natural habitat areas. The project is located nearby an open water channel
Page 17
-� kl
that leads to the Petaluma River but would not alter any of the ornamental and natural
vegetation present there.
The project would result in the development of a new structure that would be highly visible
from public vantage points but would not obstruct scenic vistas identified by the General
Plan 2025 EIR. The project is not located near any General Plan EIR identified vistas and
would not be visible from the Washington Street overpass, McNear Peninsula or Rocky
Memorial Dog Park nor would the project block viewsheds of the hillsides, ridgelines or
other important vistas such as open space.
The project's location is intended for a building rather than public open space. Existing
public open space at and around the Petaluma marina would be unaltered by the project.
Submitted architectural plans indicate the project can accommodate adequate private (i.e.,
balconies) and shared open space (i. e., courtyard).
For all the reasons above, the project would protect the natural and scenic qualities of its
site, and adequate available public and private spaces are designated, where existing, and
feasible, where applicable.
4. That the development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in
keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma,
with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City.
The project would result in more robust combination of mixed uses, as contemplated by the
General Plan's Land Use Map Mixed Use designation, and occur at a location within
Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The project is below the maximum floor -area-
ratio permitted by the General Plan and, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU
1, will also comply with the permitted maximum residential density.
General Plan Policy 2 -P -27 directs that, "Enable opportunities for a variety of synergistic
and compatible uses adjacent to the Petaluma Marina, " and Policy 2 -P -30, states,
"Encourage new development between the Marina and Lakeville Highway to be compatible
and synergistic with the Marina complex" The project would result in a greater variety of
uses at the Petaluma Marina and, at this particular location and configuration of circulation
and parking features, would not result in an incompatibility. The project's residential use
may result in a complementary relationship by providing increased patronage of existing
commercial uses.
However, concerning the topic of circulation, the project falls short of sufficiently advancing
several policies pertaining to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. For the General Plan's
Lakeville Highway Subarea, Goal 2 -G -5 states, "Enhance the connectivity across and
between all land uses along the Lakeville Highway to minimize the barrier it creates by
presence, design and vehicular speed " The planned Class I bicycle facility abutting the
northern boundary of the Petaluma Marina presents an obvious opportunity to enhance
connectivity and, as Policy 5 -P -4 directs, "New development and /or major expansion or
Page 18
change of use may require construction of off-site mobility improvements to complete
appropriate links in the network necessary for connecting the proposed development with
existing neighborhoods and land uses. "
Many other additional General Plan policies apply in this instance and state, as follows:
Policy 5-P -15 Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, and expand and improve the bikeway system
wherever the opportunity arises.
Policy 5-P -20 Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not
interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
Policy 5-P -22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing
neighborhoods and require a well- connected pedestrian network
linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses.
Policy 5-P -25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct off -
street bicycle and pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I standards
shall be applied unless otherwise _specified.
Policy 5 -P -27 Locate connections to Class I facilities from parallel routes along the
parcel line of adjoining properties to provide separation from parking
lots and buildings; design connections as Class I facilities.
Policy 5 -P -30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide
access to the trail.
Policy 5 -P -31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring
development to provide necessary support facilities throughout the
city.
Given the legislative aspect of the project and resulting substantial change and increase in
land use intensity, staff recommends the project should include: (a) the installation of a Class
I bicycle facility between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue; and (b) dedication of a public
access easement across the abutting parcel to the south (i.e., Assessor Parcel Number 005-
060 -066). With the inclusion of those planned facilities, the proposed project will be in the
best interests of the City and in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the General
Plan.
Actions Post - Marina PCD Amendment Approval
Should the Unit Development Plan Amendment request ultimately be approved by City Council,
the design details (i.e., site and building) of the project would be subject to Site Plan and
Architectural Review (SPAR) and Conditional Use Permit review by the Planning Commission.
Page 19
-7 -1c(
Site Plan and Architectural Review
The Commission is invited to provide preliminary feedback on the project's design details
including how they relate to the following findings required to grant SPAR approval.
1. The project proposes appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of
the overall design.
2. The architectural style should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible
with the overall character of the neighborhood.
3. The siting of the structure on the property is compatible with the siting of other structures
in the immediate neighborhood.
4. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor
advertising structures.
5. The bulls, height, and color of the proposed structures are consistent with the bulk, height,
and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
6. Landscaping, to approved City standards, shall be required on the site and shall be in
keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved
wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning
Commission.
7. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off - street automobiles
and bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote
safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved City standards. Any plans
pertaining to pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC
for review and approval or recommendation.
The Commission is also invited to provide preliminary feedback on the project's use aspects
including how they relate to the following findings required to grant Conditional Use Permit
approval.
1. The siting of the building or use, and in particular:
a. The adequacy of the site to accommodate the proposed use or building and all
related activities.
b. The location and possible screening of all outdoor activities.
c. The relation of the proposed building or use to any adjoining building with
particular attention to protection of outlook, light, air, and peace and quiet.
d. The location and character of any display of goods and services and the size,
nature, and lighting of any signs.
Page 20 -7-2--o
e. The intensity of activity
2. Traffic circulation and parking, and in particular:
a. a. The type of street serving the proposed use in relation to the amount of traffic
expected to be generated.
b. The adequacy, convenience, and safety of provisions for vehicular access and
parking, including the location of driveway entrance and exits.
c. The amount, timing, and nature of any associated truck traffic.
3. The compatibility of the proposed building or use with its environment, and in
particular:
a. a. The number of customers or users and the suitability of the resulting activity
level to the surrounding uses and especially to any neighboring uses of unusual
public importance such as schools, libraries, playgrounds, churches, and hospitals.
b. b. Hours of operation.
c. c. Adequacy of provisions for the control of any off -site effects such as noise,
dust, odors, light, or glare, etc.
d. d. Adequacy of provisions for protection of the public against any special hazards
arising from the intended use.
e. e. The proportion of total space utilized.
4. The expected duration of the proposed building, whether temporary or permanent,
and the setting of time limits when appropriate.
5. The degree to which the location of the particular use in the particular location can be
considered a matter of public convenience and necessity.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier on November 19, 2015, and
mailed to all property owners and occupants within 1,500 feet of the subject property. That
notice was provided thirty (30) days in advance of the public hearing since it also include the
public notice pertaining to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No comments on the project have been
received to date.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared by staff to address the project's
Page 21
potential effects on the environment (Attachment E). The Initial Study does not identify any
significant environmental effects. For all potentially significant effects, mitigation measures
reducing their severity to a less than significant level have been incorporated into the project and
agreed to by the applicant. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared
rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Initial Study and MND were circulated
for a thirty (30) public review period between November 19, 2015 and December 19, 2015. The
MND is included at Attachment H.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Resolution for CEQA Adoption
Attachment B:
Resolution for Recommending PCD Amendment Approval
Attachment C:
Marina PCD History
Attachment D:
Existing Marina PCD General Development Plan
Attachment E:
Proposed Marina PCD
Attachment F:
Apartment Building Plans
Attachment G:
Shared Parking Study
Attachment H:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 22 °�
http://potaluma.granic-us.com/Min-utosViewer.php?view—id-3 I &clip_.,,
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
,rJ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
k `= COMMISSION AND
- HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE
City Hall Council Chambers
11 EnglishStreet
Petaluma, CA 94952
MINUTES
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER (07:00 PM)
Chair Lin
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT.BIII Wolpert, Jocelyn Yeh Lin, Richard Marzo, Council Member
Teresa Barrett, and Kit Schlich.
ABSENT. Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti- Petnic, anvd Jennifer Pierre.
EXCUSED. Terry Kosewic.
Chair Lin
Eric Danly, City Attorney
HCPC Committee member Kosewic has recused himself from the
meeting due to proximity of property owned and the project site.
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Danly
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Committee will hear public comments only on matters over which it has
jurisdiction. There will -be no Committee /Commission discussion or action.
The Chair will allot no more than three minutes to any individual. If more than
three persons wish to speak, their time will be allotted so that the total
amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes.
1 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
http:// petaluma. granicus. com /MinutesViewer.plip ?view_id =31 &clip_...
Chair Lin
4. COMMITTEE COMMENT
A. Council Liaison - Teresa Barrett
Council member Barrett
Council member Barrett reported on the December 7th City Council
meeting. The Council extended the use of recycled water to
agricultural users outside of the City and voted to strengthen the
water conservation regulations to more closely align with the State
standards. They also voted to change traffic development impact
fees.
B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee - Jocelyn Lin
No report was made.
C. Tree Advisory Committee - Gina Benedetti - Petnic
No report was made.
D. Other Committee Comment
5. STAFF COMMENT
A. Planning Manager's Report
Ms. Hines reported that a new master sign program for Deer Creek
Village will be on the agenda for the first meeting in January.
Chair Lin
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A. None.
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday,
December 08, 2015 .
Chair Lin
The 12/8115 meeting minutes were approved without changes.
8. HCPC NEW BUSINESS
2 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
http : / /potaluma.granicus. con /MinutesViewer.php ?view_id =31 &clip_.,.
A. Burdell Building - Historic Site Plan and Architectural Review to
construct a new three -story multi - family building including fifteen units
and modifications to the site plan and existing Burdell Building (local
historic landmark) at 405 East D Street. Also includes a Conditional
Use Permit to allow multi - family dwelling units in the MU1A Zone.
Project Location: 405 East D Street File Number: PLSR -14 -0031
Staff: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner Adjourn HCPC meeting Call to order
Planning Commission meeting
Burdell Staff Report `=b,
Attachment A - Burdell Ordinance t
Attachment B - Burdell Plans ' t
Chair Lin
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Chair Lin
David Martin, owner of Burdell building
Sandy Reed, ZAC Landscape Architects
Church Hildreth, ADR Architect
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Ms. Reed
Mr. Hildreth
Ms. Reed
Mr. Hildreth
Chair Lin
Amanda Giacomini, family home on Wilson Street requested
changes to the proposal. She was concerned about the loss of
view created by the Burdell building and obstruction of
sunlight. She feels there would be a loss of privacy and noise due
to the building height. She stated that the current designs feel
unattractive and would like to see a design more suitable for
historical neighborhood.
Nicholas Giacomini, family home on Wilson Street. He believes that
the Burdell building is beautiful and would hate to see a proposed -
project that will create more traffic, noise and chaos on D Street.
Marina Beebe, Petaluma resident, stated that after looking at the
back view of condos, she believes the project is a fusion between a
motel and a prison.
Kathy Hartzell, friend of the Giacomini family, and interested in
historic preservation. She believes that this project is an
opportunity to show pride and respect of the neighbors and
believes it could provide many social benefits for the community.
She would like to see the developer guide the project to protect the
`j —Xl�
3 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
values of neighborhood.
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Ms, Hines
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Reed
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Hildreth
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Hildreth
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Council member Barrett
Mr. Hildreth
Council member Barrett
Ms. Reed
Council member Barrett
Ms, Reed
Mr. Hildreth
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert,
Mr, Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
http:// petaluma, granicus, com /1\4inutesViewer.php ?view_id -31
—A
4 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
littp://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view—id=3 I &clip_...
Commissioner Marzo
Ms. Hines
Mr. Colin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
HCPC Committee member Schlich
Mr. Colin
HCPC Committee member Schlich
Mr. Colin
HCPC Committee member Schlich
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Commissioner Marzo
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
HCPC Committee member Schlich
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Motion to Continue to a date uncertain the Historic Site Plan and
Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for the Burdell project
located at 405 East D Street with provided feedback, made by Jocelyn
Yeh Lin, seconded by Council Member Teresa Barrett.
Vote: Motion carried 4 - 0.
- XI
5 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
http:// petaluma .granicus,com /MinutesViewer.php ?view id =31 &clip_...
Yes: Bill Wolpert, Jocelyn Yeh Lin, Richard Marzo, and Council
Member Teresa Barrett.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, and Jennifer Pierre.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION NEW BUSINESS
A. Marina Drive Apartments - Amendment of the existing Petaluma Marina
Planned Community District, Site Plan and Architectural Review to
construct an 80 -unit apartment building, and Conditional Use Permit to
allow multi - family dwelling units in the Marina PCD. Project Location: 0
Marina Drive at the Petaluma Marina File Number: PLMA -15 -0004
Staff: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Marina. Staff Report { ==
Attachment A - CEQA Resolution
Attachment B - PCD Amendment
Attachment C - Marina PCD History
Attachment D - Existing Marina PCD
Attachment E - Proposed Marina PCD cab
Attachment F - Marina Apts Plans =�
Attachment G - Shared Parking Study `4�
Attachment H - Marina IS MND z�zb
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Mr, Colin
Council member Barrett
Mr, Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Council member Barrett
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Council member Barrett
6 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
http://petatuma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view—id=3 I &clip_...
Mr. Colin
Ms. Hines
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Curt Bates,-City Engineer
Chair Lin
Mr. Bates
Chair Lin
Mr. Bates
Mr. Colin
Mr. Bates
Chair Lin
Mr. Bates
Chair Lin
Mr. Bates
Chair Lin
Mr. Bates
Ms. Hines
Mr. Bates
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Council member Barrett
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Frank Marinello, Basin Street Properties
Paul Andronico, Basin Street Properties
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Jon Ennis, BDE Architecture
Council member Barrett
Mr. Ennis
Council member Barrett
Mr. Ennis
Steven Lafranchi, SJLA, Inc.
Council member Barrett
Mr. Lafranchi
Council member Barrett
Mr. Lafranchi
Council member Barrett
7 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Mr. Bates
'Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Mr. Danly
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Danly
Mr. Colin
Mr. Danly
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Mr. Danly
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Council member Barrett
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Ms. Hines
Mr. Ennis
Commissioner Wolpert
http://petaluma.granicus.com/MnutesViewer.php?view—id=3 I &clip_...
1,�O
8 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
http://potaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view—id=3 I &clip_...
Mr. Ennis
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Ennis
Commissioner Wolpert
Council member Barrett
Mr. Ennis
Council member Barrett
Mr. Ennis
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Mr. Colin
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Wolpert
Mr. Colin
Ms. Hines
Commissioner Marzo
Mr. Colin
Commissioner Marzo
Chair Lin
Mr. Danly
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Commissioner Marzo
Chair Lin
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Motion to Approve Recommendation to City Council to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Marina Drive Apartments located at 0
Marina Drive at the Petaluma Marina made by Richard Marzo, seconded
by Bill Wolpert,
Vote: Motion carried 3 - 1.
Yes: Bill Wolpert, Jocelyn Yeh Lin, and Richard Marzo.
No: Council Member Teresa Barrett.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti- Petnic, and Jennifer Pierre.
Motion to Approve recommending the City Council amend the existing
general development plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned Commercial
District to enable construction an 80 -unit apartment building located at
the Petaluma Marina. made by Jocelyn Yeh Lin, seconded by Richard
Marzo.
9 of 10 3/21/2016 3;37 PM
http://petaluma.granicus.com/N4inutesViewer.php?view—id=3 I &clip ...
Vote: The motion failed 2 - 2.
Yes: Jocelyn Yeh Lin, and Richard Marzo.
No: Bill Wolpert, and Council Member Teresa Barrett.
Absent: Diana Gomez, Gina Benedetti - Petnic, and Jennifer Pierre.
Council member Barrett
Chair Lin
Council member Barrett
Commissioner Wolpert
Chair Lin
Ms. Hines
Chair Lin
10. ADJOURN
(10:57 :37) Next Meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday,
January 12, 2016.
10 of 10 3/21/2016 3:37 PM
GENE RAL,APPLICATION FORM
lsa$
ATTACHMENT 8
This form, together with corres1ionding
application forms for specific permits,
will become the permit document.
There is no fee for this form:
Type of Application
For City Use Only
❑ Conditional Use Permit: Minor / Major
Permit No: 2 LAP 'G�— QCD (A'
❑ Fence
❑ Home Occupation Permit
Project Name: ty l (W n O A" Pen l
❑ Preliminary Review by Staff
Date Permit filed:
❑ SPAR: Minor / Major
El Tentative Map: <_4 / >iS lots
Date Permit issued;
Zoning Amendment: Minor Revision
Received by; it\ i3
Other: _p-,t,�
` \' t° `
Approved by (if applicable):
Property Information
Land Use Information (ask if unsure)
Address/Location: � M (7 V I V]
Existing Use of Property:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
General Plan Designation:
Property Size:
Zoning Designation:
Historic Designation:
Contact Information
Owner: b l-)In td ��1 SAgent;
Firm (opt.): Firm (opt):
Phone: Phone:
Email:
Address:
Email:
Address:
Authorization of Agent, Declaration of Accuracy, and Agreement for Inspection
(not required for Home Occupation Permit applications)
71 , am the ❑ owner / ❑ agent of the property for which the
development or change is proposed. The above information and attached documents are true and accurate to
the best of my Imowledge. Z have read and agree with all of the above.
Signature of Property Owner or Agent
Date
I, the owner, hereby ❑ do / ❑ do not authorize the agent to act on my behalf for this project, be notified of all
application proceedings, and agree to allow employees or authorized agents of the City of Petaluma to enter
upon the subject property, as necessary, to inspect the premises and process this application.
Signature of Property Owner
Page 1 of 1 General Application Form
City of Petaluma Planning Division
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Hours: 8 am —12 pm and 1 pm --- 5 pm,
Mondays through Thursdays. Closed Fridays,
Date
Last updated: December 12, 2012
T: (707) 778 -4470
For faster responses, please e -mail us at:
petalumaplanning @ci.petaluma. ca.us
http:// cityofpetaluma .net/cdd/plantdng.html
44 *6**
BASINSTREET
PROPERTIES
tel 707 795 - 4477
fax 707 795 - 6283
December 29, 2015
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Marina Apartments, City File No. PLSR -14 -0021
Dear Mr. Colin:
At its regularly scheduled hearing on December 22nd, the Planning Commission voted 3 -1 in favor
of a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of a mitigated negative declaration
regarding the above - referenced application to amend the General Development Plan for the Petaluma
Marina Planned Commercial District (the "Marina PCD ").
Shortly thereafter during the same hearing, the Planning Commission deadlocked 2 -2 on a vote to
recommend approval by the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Marina PCD.
The applicant hereby appeals such decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 24.070
of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant contends that the Planning Commission erred in failing to recommend approval by the
City Council of the proposed amendment to the Marina PCD.
The applicant seeks approval by the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Marina PCD
without the conditions regarding construction of an off-site bike path and dedication of an off -site
public access easement on property owned by others. Such conditions are set forth in Section 1 and
Section 4 of the draft Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending the City Council
Amend the Approved General Development Plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned Commercial
District to Enable Construction of a New Eighty (80) Unit Apartment Building Five (5) Stories in
Height at an Existing Parking Lot Abutting Lakeville Highway =All for Property located at the
Petaluma Marina, which resolution was considered by the Planning Commission on December 22nd.
' ce
4� A�cAo v-, k co
Paul Andronico
General Counsel
1383 N. McDowell Blvd., Suite 150
Petaluma, CA 94954
W W W.BASIN- STREET.COM
ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION NO, 2015.25
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE MARINA APARTMENTS PROJECT LOCATED AT THE PETALUMA MARINA
APN: 005 - 060 -089; 005- 060 -052, -054, -059, -070, 072, -082, -084, and -085
FILE NO: PLZT -15 -0001, PLSR -15 -0011
WHEREAS, Steven Lafranchi of Steven J, Lafranchi & Associates submitted an application to modify the
General Development Plan for the Petaluma Marina Planned Commercial District ( "Marina PCD "), on behalf of
property owner Petaluma Marina Office Investors, LLC, to list multiple - family dwelling as a permitted use and
increase the maximum building height to five (5) stories, all to enable construction of a proposed eighty (80)
unit apartment building and other associated site improvements located at the northwest corner of Petaluma
Marina at APN 050 - 060 -089 and 005 -060 -072 ( "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the submitted application includes a Site Plan and Architectural Review request and,
pursuant to the modified Marina PCD General Development Plan, would also include a Conditional Use Permit
request - all of which would be acted upon by the Planning Commission at a separate, subsequent public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City on May 19,
2008; and,
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial Study,
including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the City relied on the Program
EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified on April 7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) by with 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
§ §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, on or before November 19, 2015, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a 30 -day public comment period commencing November
19, 2015 and ending December 19, 2015 and a Notice of. Public Hearing to be held on December 22, 2015
before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, was published and mailed to all residents and property
owners within 1,500 feet of the Project as well as all persons having requested special notice of said
proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on December 22, 2015, at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project, the MND, the supporting Initial Study, the
staff report dated December 22, 2015 analyzing the MND and the Project, 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 hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study applies the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act - Air Quality
Guidelines, May 2012, including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. As lead agency
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2015 -25 9 — ( Page 1
under CEQA, the City of Petaluma has the discretion to rely upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and
thresholds of significance since they include the best available scientific data and most conservative thresholds
available for comparison of the Project's emissions. Comparison of the Project's emissions against these
thresholds provides a conservative assessment as the basis for a determination of significance; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in the Initial Study, including evaluation using the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines and thresholds of significance, the Project does not make a considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impact found to be significant and unavoidable
in the General Plan 2025 EIR, because of the Project's emissions are below significance thresholds identified;
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
Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of
the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the proposed project is the
City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952, Attention: Kevin
Colin; and
WHEREAS, while the Initial Study for the Project identified potentially significant impacts, all significant
impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level and therefore the Project would not result in any significant
impacts to the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS
FOLLOWS:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Based on the its review of the entire record herein, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The Project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation because the project
includes multiple family dwellings, is below the maximum floor area ratio of 2.5, and, with
implementation if Mitigation Measure LU -1, is below the maximum residential density of 30.0 housing
units per acre.
2. The Project is, for the reasons discussed in the December 22, 2015 Planning Commission staff report,
consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 1 -P -1 (Development Within UGB); Policy 1-
P-2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB); Policy 1 -P -11 (Land Use Intensification); Policy 1 -P -27 (Parking
Solutions); Policy 2 -P -5 (Arterial Corridors); Policy 2 -P -11 (River Oriented Development); Goal 2 -G -5
(Lakeville Highway Connectivity); Policy 2 -P -27 (Petaluma Marina - Land Uses); Policy 2 -P -30
(Petaluma Marina - Compatibility).
With the Project conditioned to include: (a) the installation of a Class I bicycle facility between
Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue at APN 005 - 060 -065; and (b) dedication of a public access
easement across the abutting parcel to the south (Le., Assessor Parcel Number 005 - 060 -066); the
Commission finds it to be consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 5 -P -15 (Expand
and Improve Bikeway System); Policy 5 -P -20 (New Development); Policy 5 -P -22 (Pedestrian
Connectivity); Policy 5 -P -25 (Multi -Use Trails); Policy 5 -P -27 (Class I Facilities); Policy 5 -P -30 (New
Development); and Policy 5 -P -31 (Bicycling and Walking).
3. Pursuant to the analysis in the Initial Study, the Project does not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic and /or noise impacts identified in
the General Plan 2025 EIR because although the Project would contribute vehicle trips to
intersections identified in the General Plan EIR as operating at an unacceptable LOS at build -out,
the affected intersections have either already been determined to acceptably operate at an LOS E
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2015 -25 -� Page 2
or LOS F due to overriding considerations and conflicts with other General Plan policies or the
Project's contribution to those intersections are below the threshold established by the General Plan
EIR (i.e., cause the LOS to deteriorate to the next lowest level).
4. With regard to noise, the Project is considered to result in an effect that is less than cumulatively
considerable because the project excludes new stationary noise sources and its incremental
contribution through vehicular trips is insufficient to result in a perceptible change in noise level.
C, Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the MND, the Initial Study, all supporting,
referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received, the Planning Commission 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,
D. 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
Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The
custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the
proposed project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11 English St.
Petaluma, CA 94952.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.
Implementation of the mitigation measures included therein mitigates or avoids significant
environmental effects.
ADOPTED this 22nd day of December, 2015, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye
No
Absent
AEstain
Councilmember Barrett
X
Vice Chair Benedetti - Petnic
X
Gomez
X
Chair Lin
X
Marzo
X
Pierre
X
Wolpert
X
J u lyn Li , Chap
ATTEST / i - APPROVED TO FORM:
He er Hines, Co fission Secretary Eric W. Danly, Ci; y Attorney
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25 q-3 Page 3
Exhibit A
City of Petaluma, California
Community Development Department
\ Planning Division
\X s a 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS
File Number: File No. PLZT -15 -0001. PLSR -15 -0011
Address /Location: 0 Marina Avenue, Petaluma, CA
(APN: 005 - 060 -089; 005 -060 -052, -054, -059, -070, 072, -082, -084, and -085)
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. CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with
project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
The purpose of this MMRP is 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 following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction 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,
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, 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25 q _ i Page 4
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 Cheeldist
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project
approval, the timefiame to which the measure applies, the person/agency /permit responsible for implementing
the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure.
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2015 -25 �� Page 5
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
COMPLETION OF
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITY
DATE
COMPLETED
BIOLOGICAL
BIO -l: Should tree removal or construction activities commence between
Conduct construction in
Applicant
February 1 and August 31, a pre - construction nesting survey shall be
conformance with measures
CA Dept. Fish &
performed in suitable habitats for avian species within the Study Area to
herein.
detemune if nests are present If present, an appropriate buffer shall be
Wildlife
established by a qualified biologist to ensure activities do not result in
Notify Planning Division
Planning
nest abandonment; screens may be employed to reduce any no-
and CA Department of Fish
Division
disturbance buffers under the guidance of the biologist. The biologist
& Wildlife in the event of
shall monitor activities to ensure the buffer is sufficient to prevent any
nest discovery.
impacts to these species. Work may continue in areas outside of the buffer
zones and resume within the buffer zone once the biologist has confumed
young have left the nest or the nest has been naturally predated.
BIO -2: The applicant shall install temporary orange exclusion fencing between
Conduct construction in
Applicant
the coastal brackish marsh habitat and the project site for the duration of
conformance with measures
planning
site preparation and construction activities in order to prevent inadvertent
herein.
disturbance during project related activities. Following completion of
Division
construction activities, the exclusionary fencing shall be removed.
GEOLOGYAND SOILS
}.',
;� r
=
GEO -l: As determined by the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official, all
Incorporate into project
Applicant
recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigations dated May
design and construction
public Works
5, 2015 and August 12, 2015 prepared for the subject property by Miller
documents.
and Utilities
Pacific Engineering Group, including but not limited to, site preparation
and grading, excavation, seismic design, and foundations system design
are herein incorporated by reference and shall be adhered to in order to
ensure that appropriate construction measures are incorporated into the
design of the project Nothing in this mitigation measure shall preclude
the City Engineer and/or Chief Building Official from requiring additional
information to determine compliance with applicable standards. 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25
9— G
Page 6
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
COMPLETION OF
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITY
DATE
COMPLETED
'GREENHOUSE GAS .EMISSIONS
GHG -1: In accordance with Section A4.106.8.2 of the 2013 California Green
Submittal of construction
Applicant
Building Standards Code, the project shall provide at least 3% of the
documents demonstrating
total parking spaces as capable of supporting future electric vehicle
compliance with Green
Planning
supply equipment. Of the spaces and equipment requirements of the
Building Standards Code.
Division
California Green Building Standards Code and as required by City of
Petaluma General Plan Policy 4 -P -9, the project shall be constructed to
include electrical vehicle charging stations at a ratio of least I% of the
total parking spaces.
LAND USE
LU -1: Achieve a density of not more than 30 -units per acre pursuant to the
Submittal of documentation
Applicant
General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed -Use through any of the
demonstrating compliance
following means: 1) a lot line adjustment to APN 005- 060 -072 where at
with the density provision in
Planning
least 0.51 acres are added to the subject project site, thereby increasing
conformance with the
Division
the total site acreage to 2.66 acres; 2) a reduction of density from 80
measure herein.
units to 64 units, which is the maximum density allowed on a 2.16 acre
parcel; 3) a density bonus granted for the provision of including
affordable dwelling units onsite; or 4) other acceptable provision.
NOISE
NOI -1: All apartment units shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation
Submittal of design level
Applicant
systems in order to achieve interior temperature controls without the
acoustical analysis including
Building
need to open windows. Additionally, sound rated windows and doors
specifications to achieve the
shall be required and design level acoustical analysis shall be performed
interior noise standard.
Division
showing that interior noise levels of 45 -dBA or below are achieved.
NOI -2: Construction activities shall comply with the following measures and all
Conduct construction in
Applicant
shall be noted on construction documents:
conformance with measures
herein.
Public Works &
1. Construction Hours/Scheduling: The following are required to limit
Utilities
construction activities to the portion of the day when the number of
Periodic inspections to
Department
persons in the adjacent sensitive receptors are lowest:
occur during construction.
a. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including
servicing of construction equipment shall only be permitted during
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-25
Pagel
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
COMPLETION OF
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITY
DATE
COMPLETED
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 construction 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. Generators: No generators shall be utilized during nighttime hours
(I.e., sunrise to sunset) to power equipment (e.g., security surveillance)
when normal construction activities have ceased for the day. All such
equipment should be powered through temporary electrical service
lines.
8. 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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25
q,%
Page 8
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURE
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
COMPLETION OF
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITY
DATE
COMPLETED
TRANSPORTATION
TRAF -1: In order to maintain sufficient site distance, all landscaping,
Incorporate into project
Applicant
signs, and monuments located in the vicinity of ingress /egress points
design and construction
shall be maintained such that tree canopies are trimmed to at least seven
documents.
Public Works &
feet above the ground and other landscaping shall be limited to low-
Utilities
lying vegetation no greater than three feet in height. Any signage,
Department
inclusive of monument signage along Marina Apartments project
frontage, should further be placed such that it does not obstruct or
inhibit site distance.
TRAF -2: The applicant shall construct an approximately 80 foot
Incorporate into project
Applicant
sidewalk to close the existing gap between the terminus of the existing
design and construction
Class I facility and existing sidewalk along Baywood Drive.
documents.
Parks &
Recreation
Department
TRAF -3: The applicant shall install a pedestrian crosswalk along the
Incorporate into project
Applicant
Class I Off Street Path where it intersects with the right -only driveway
design and construction
at the northwest portion of the project site.
documents.
Public Works &
Utilities
Department
TRAF -4: he applicant shall construct and/or contribute funds toward
Construction specifications
Applicant
bus stop enhancements at the existing stops at Lakeville
submittal or verification that
Highway/Baywood Drive at a rate commensurate with the installation
fair contributions have been
public Works &
of one or more transit shelters.
made prior to building
Utilities
permit issuance.
Department/I'ran
sit Division
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -25
R -9
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 10
REVISED
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS
Prepared By:
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
�h 9
'85$
March 7, 2016
1,0-(
This page intentionally left blank
10—
CITY OF PETALUMA
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS
REVISED CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY
Project Title:
Marina Drive Apartments
Lead Agency:
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Contact Person:
Kevin Colin, Senior Planner
(707) 778 -4314
Project Location:
0 Marina Avenue; 745,755,765,775,781 Baywood Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954
APN: 005 - 060 -089; 005 - 060 -052, , -054, -059, -065, -066, -070, -
072, -082, -084, -085
Project Sponsor:
Steven Lafranchi & Associates, INC.
140 Second Street, Suite 312
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 762 -3122
Property Owners:
Petaluma Marina Office Investors, LLC
119 C Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707 - 795 -4477
General Plan Designation:
Mixed Use
Zoning:
Petaluma Marina and Office Complex Planned Commercial
District (Marina PCD)
Description of project:
The project includes the following requested approvals from the
City of Petaluma: (1) Petaluma Marina PCD Amendment to list
multiple - family dwellings as a permitted use and increase the
maximum building height to five stories; (2) Site Plan and
Architectural Review (SPAR) to construct an 80 -unit 90 -unit
apartment building upon an existing vacant area surrounded by
asphalt parking lots; and (3) a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
the PCD amendment allowing multi - family dwelling units. As a
condition of the PCD Amendment, the project includes a Class I
bike path at APN 005 - 060 -076 from Baywood Drive to Marina
Avenue.
Surrounding land uses and
The project is located at the Petaluma Marina on the south side
setting; briefly describe the
of Lakeville Highway (SR 116) and to the east of US 101 and the
project's surroundings:
Petaluma River. The marina includes a hotel, boat launch, boat
berths, commercial retail and services uses, and associated
parking lots. The US 101 separates the project from western
areas of Petaluma. A mixture of commercial, industrial,
residential, and public recreation land uses are located to the
east of the project, along Lakeville Highway.
Other public agencies whose
None.
approval is required:
1
November 19, 2015 Page 3 of 81
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE #
1.
OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................. ..............................5
TABLE 3: BAAQMD GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING RESULTS .................................................. .............................37
1.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................... ..............................6
FIGURE 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN ............................................................................................. .............................11
1.2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... ..............................9
TABLE 6: EXISTING HIGHWAY SEGMENT PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES .............................................. .............................64
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................... .............................13
FIGURE 8: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ................................................................................. .............................43
3.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................... .............................14
TABLE 9: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................... .............................68
3.1.
AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................. .............................14
FIGURE 11: LOS STUDY INTERSECTIONS FOR PROJECT ............................................................ .............................63
3.2.
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................... .............................18
TABLE 12: FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE .................... .............................70
3.3.
AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. .............................19
3.4.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... .............................25
3.5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... .............................29
3.6.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................. .............................31
3.7.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................. .............................36
3.8.
HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................... .............................39
3.9.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................... .............................42
3.10.
LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................... .............................49
3.11.
MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. .............................51
3.12.
NOISE ......................................................................................................................... .............................52
3.13.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: ................................................................................. .............................
57
3.14.
PUBLIC SERVICES: ................................................................................................................................
58
3.15.
RECREATION ............................................................................................................. .............................60
3.16.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION... ...........................................................................................
61
3.17.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................ .............................74
3.18.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15065) ......... .............................79
4.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: ..................................................................................................................
81
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION IN PETALUMA ............................................................................. ..............................7
FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF PROJECT SITE ................................................................... ..............................8
TABLE 2: BAAQMD OPERATIONAL POLLUTANT SCREENING RESULTS ....................................... .............................22
FIGURE 3: EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO PROJECT ......................................................................... ..............................9
TABLE 3: BAAQMD GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING RESULTS .................................................. .............................37
FIGURE 4: BUILDING ELEVATION (VIEWED FROM LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY) ...................................... .............................10
TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION PHASE NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................... .............................55
FIGURE 5: PROPOSED SITE PLAN ............................................................................................. .............................11
TABLE 5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE .......................................... .............................64
FIGURE 6: VIEW SHED (FROM SOUTHBOUND LAKEVILLE) ........................................................... .............................15
TABLE 6: EXISTING HIGHWAY SEGMENT PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES .............................................. .............................64
FIGURE 7: VIEW SHED (FROM US 101) .................................................................................... .............................15
TABLE 7: BASELINE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................... .............................66
FIGURE 8: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ................................................................................. .............................43
TABLE 8: FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ........................................... .............................67
FIGURE 9: SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO MAPS ............................................................................ .............................47
TABLE 9: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................... .............................68
FIGURE 10: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ......................................................................... .............................53
TABLE 10: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT HIGHWAY SEGMENT PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES ............................68
FIGURE 11: LOS STUDY INTERSECTIONS FOR PROJECT ............................................................ .............................63
TABLE 11: BASELINE AND BASELINE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................ .............................69
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: BAAQMD CONSTRUCTION POLLUTANT SCREENING RESULTS .................................... .............................21
TABLE 2: BAAQMD OPERATIONAL POLLUTANT SCREENING RESULTS ....................................... .............................22
TABLE 3: BAAQMD GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING RESULTS .................................................. .............................37
TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION PHASE NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................... .............................55
TABLE 5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE .......................................... .............................64
TABLE 6: EXISTING HIGHWAY SEGMENT PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES .............................................. .............................64
TABLE 7: BASELINE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ......................................... .............................66
TABLE 8: FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ........................................... .............................67
TABLE 9: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................... .............................68
TABLE 10: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT HIGHWAY SEGMENT PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES ............................68
TABLE 11: BASELINE AND BASELINE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................ .............................69
TABLE 12: FUTURE AND FUTURE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE .................... .............................70
Page 4 of 81
C.0 -4
November 19, 2015
1. REVISED INITIAL STUDY
Project Description Revision: Subsequent to the release of the original Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS /MND) for a 30- public review period on November 19, 2015 and after the Planning
Commission's action recommending approval of the IS /MND on December 22, 2015, the project sponsor
informed the lead agency of an intent to increase the number of residential apartments from eighty (80) to
ninety 90) units. The increase in apartments units would be made by increasing the number of one - bedroom
units, while decreasing the number of two- bedroom units. No changes to the building footprint, height or
massing would result from this change. This revised IS /MND also includes the installation of a Class I bike
path within the Marina Planned Community District (Marina PCD) upon APN 005 - 060 -065.
CEQA Guidelines 415073.5 (Recirculation of Negative Declarations Prior to Adoption): This revised
IS /MND does not require recirculation because none of the situations at CEQA Guidelines §15073.5 are
present. The revised IS /MND does not constitute a "substantial revision" because it does not identify any new,
avoidable significant effects, no new potentially significant effects, nor any new or modified mitigation
measures. Additionally, new information added herein merely clarifies the reasons why the project, as
presented in the revised IS /MND, would not result in any new, significant effects..
2. 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.
C (9 -C�
November 19, 2015 Page 5 of 81
• 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: / /cityofpetaluma.net/cdd /plan - general- plan.html.
2.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Setting
Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the US 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 snakes southward to 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 2025 without subsequent action. The
General Plan and EIR evaluated potential impacts associated with existing and proposed development within
the UGB. The project site is located within the UGB and has never been developed or utilized for urban land
use activity. The project's location within the City of Petaluma and surrounding environs is shown at Figure 1
(Project Location in Petaluma) below.
10 -6
Page 6 of 81 November 19, 2015
•.
Figure 1: Project Location in Petaluma
Neiahborhood Settin
The project site is located at 0 Marina Drive in eastern Petaluma and within the Petaluma General Plan's
Lakeville Planning Subarea. The Planning Subarea is characterized by planned urban development in
proximity to Lakeville Highway, as well as areas consisting of marshlands, public trails, and open space along
the Petaluma River.
The portion of the subarea in the immediate vicinity of the project site supports the existing Petaluma Marina
and Petaluma's largest hotel (Sheraton). The subarea contains a limited amount of residential development.
The long -term vision for the subarea includes the creation of a cohesive neighborhood with close access to
stores and services as well as connectivity to residential areas north of Lakeville Highway.
Project Site
The project site is located within the Petaluma Marina Planned Community Development (PCD), an
approximate 30.59 -acre area within Petaluma's incorporated limits and at the outer edge of Petaluma's
urbanized area where it transitions into more open and sparsely developed land. The marina is situated south
of Lakeville Highway and approximately 500 feet east of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is the last
remaining area of undeveloped land in the Marina PCD.
The project site is bounded by Lakeville Highway to the North, a 35 foot wide Sonoma County outfall channel
to the west, beyond which lies the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) corridor. The Sheraton Hotel,
Marina, and Petaluma River lie to the south, and a parking lot and commercial development are located east
of the project site (see Figure 2 below).
November 19, 2015
(b1
Page 7 of 81
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site
The project site was partially improved with pavement and utility connections in 2002 and is otherwise
covered in urban /ruderal habitat. The site is generally flat and features a gentle slope. As mentioned, the site
is adjacent to a thirty -five (35) foot wide tidal outfall channel that connects to the Petaluma River. At the head
of the outfall channel is a flap gate that controls drainage from a freeway ditch. A fringe of coastal
salt/brackish marsh habitat that is approximately four to six feet wide lines both banks of the outfall channel.
The upper banks are lined by landscaped grass and ornamental trees. There are a number of native and non-
native (ornamental) trees in landscape planters within the parking lots surrounding the project site.
Existing Public Access and Utility Easements
A number of easements exist within the vicinity of the project site. Two easement areas concern public
access and utilities, as shown on Figure 3 below. At the northern easement shown in Figure 3, a 36 -inch
diameter regional sanitary sewer pipe, private water services, and a storm drain system are located
underneath the existing parking lot and drive aisle. The western easement shown in Figure 3 provides the
public rights of access to the open water of the Petaluma Marina.
IDA
Page 8 of 81 November 19, 2015
1 y f Utilit� ccess Easement
c
L LA
v ,t Proposed >'\ ` -� j
v
Apartment Building'
. , � ` mix ✓' i� gym' . y
t
\�vA V ` V �� • �� �/� )
Acces E a3ement
Figure 3: Easements Adjacent to Project
Bike Path Property
The proiect analvzed herein includes the construction of a Class I bike path across APN 005- 060 -065. This
property is located within the Marina PCD and is approximately 1.04 acres in area. The property is a former
railroad right- of -waV and exhibits characteristics of that former use by its rectangular shape (40 feet wide by
674 feet lonq) and generally disturbed nature. At present, the property is flat and covered with ruderal
vegetation. A row of ornamental trees and shrubs line the property's southern and western boundary. An
approximate two -foot wide linear drainage feature occurs along the property's northern boundary with an
abutting personal storage facility.
2.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the following requested approvals from the City of Petaluma: (1) Petaluma Marina PCD
Amendment to list multiple - family dwellings as a permitted use and increase the maximum building height to
five stories; and (2) Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) to construct an 80 unit 90 -unit apartment
building upon an existing vacant area surrounded by asphalt parking lots; (3) and a Condition Use Permit to
allow the multi - family use with the Marina PCD. Each is described in detail below.
The project proposes the development of a five -story building including ei,�„^"t; -(00) ninety (90) residential
apartments with associated landscaping and changes to existing asphalt pavement areas, as described
below. The following actions are requested of the City of Petaluma to authorize this proposal: (1) amendment
to the Marina PCD to enable an increase in building height and permit residential land use; and (2) Site Plan
and Architectural Review (SPAR) approval for the site, building and landscaping design details; and (3)
Conditional Use Permit, to authorize the proposed multi - family residential use within the PCD, pursuant to the
PCD amendment.
PCD Amendment
The project is subject to Planned Community District (PCD) zoning first established by City Council c
(• 0 " t
November 19, 2015 Page 9 of 81
Resolution No. 86 -294. The "Marina PCD" zoning was established to facilitate development of a public marina
adjacent to the Petaluma River along with supporting office, commercial, restaurant and hotel uses. In the
subsequent years, development of the public marina and supporting uses occurred with the exception of the
project site. Presently, the Marina PCD does not authorize residential land uses. Also, the Marina PCD
permits buildings up to four (4) stories and a height of sixty -one (61) feet, and also includes a General
Development Plan depicting a maximum of 10,000 square feet of floor area at the project site.
The project proposes to amend the Petaluma Marina PCD to: (a) permit multiple - family dwellings after
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit; (b) increase the maximum building height to five (5) stories and ninety -
one (91) feet; and (c) remove a floor area maximum for the project site. The project would also restate the
Marina PCD in a manner that both incorporates prior, approved amendments and with formatting and
terminology consistent with the City of Petaluma's current Implementing Zoning Ordinance. Note: the Marina
PCD was established under a previous iteration of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The physical manifestations of the proposed Marina PCD amendment are synonymous with the location and
nature of the residential apartment development proposal described below. Consequently, this Initial Study
conflates the two into a single "project" for all analyses.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed Marina PCD amendment allows for multiple - family dwelling units with approval of a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). The requirement for a CUP provides a process by which proposes uses that are not
permitted by right are reviewed and conditioned to ensure capability with surrounding land uses. As a
multiple - family dwelling development, the subject project requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Building Elevations
The project consists of an L- shaped building five (5) stories in height, as shown at Figure 4 below. Access to
the building would occur from a lobby area at the eastern wing. Access to apartment units within the building
would occur via corridors with two elevators serving each floor. Emergency egress is provided by stairwells
and doorways at each corner of the building.
Figure 4: Building Elevation (Viewed from Lakeville Highway)
Site Plan
Figure 5, below, shows the proposed Site Plan for the Marina Drive Apartments. The project site (APN: 005-
060 -089) is located on Marina Drive and adjacent to Lakeville Highway in East Petaluma. The site is bounded
by Lakeville Highway to the North, a 35 -foot wide outfall channel to the west, the Sheraton Hotel, Marina, and
Petaluma River to the south, and a parking lot and commercial development to the east. Elevations of the
to— (O
Page 10 of 81 November 19, 2015
project site range from approximately 5 -20 feet above sea level with a gentle south -west trending slope.
Figure 5: Proposed Site Plan
A new 80 ung 90 -unit apartment complex with units ranging from 685 to 1,225 square feet will be developed.
The proposed apartment complex will be five stories (65 ft.) in height and generally shaped in an L -shape with
frontage on Lakeville Highway. The proposed design will be deferential to the existing development in the
Marina PCD and will exhibit a seaport/resort architectural style pursuant to the Marina PCD Guidelines. The
design features white shiplap siding, varied wall plans, projecting gable ends, and a combination of pyramidal
and gabled roofs. The complex mimics the pitched metal roof and white horizontal siding characteristic of
nearby buildings. The massing of the building is broken up with the inclusion of balconies and is punctuated
with a series of large multi -paned windows.
The project site is currently accessed via an existing right- turn -in driveway on Lakeville Highway,
approximately 540 feet west of Baywood Drive, and an existing full access driveway on Baywood Drive
approximately 230 feet south of Lakeville Highway. The proposed project would maintain the inbound, right
turn lane off of Lakeville Highway which features a 315 foot long deceleration Lane on Lakeville Highway as
needed for vehicles to slow and come to a full stop prior to turning into the Petaluma Marina.
The project includes landscaping around the building and site perimeter. Proposed landscaping includes
evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, perennials, grasses, and vines. The carports proposed around the
periphery of the site are screened from Lakeville Highway with grasses, a vine trellis, and regularly placed
columnar trees.
�0-0
November 19, 2015 Page 11 of 81
Bike Path
The project analyzed herein includes the construction of a Class I bike path across APN 005 - 060 -065
between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue. A Class I bike path is an off - street pathway that may be shared
with pedestrians. The path's width would be fourteen (14) feet consisting of ten (10) feet of paved surface
joined by two (2) foot shoulders on both sides. The location of the pathway would be adjacent to the southern
property line to avoid the linear drainage feature along the northern property line. Construction of the bike
path would also involve intersection improvements (e.g., curb ramps, stop or yield signs) at Baywood Drive
and Marina Drive. No new vehicle traffic control devices (e.g., stop sign, traffic signal) would be installed. The
construction of intersection improvements at Baywood Drive would necessitate the removal of existing
ornamental trees. Construction of the bike path would also involve the use of temporary protective fencing
placed approximately ten (10) feet from the northern property line in order to exclude construction activity
from linear drainage feature and its immediate vicinity.
Io-12
Page 12 of 81 November 19, 2015
3. 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.
X
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Aesthetics
7. GHG Emissions X
13.
Population / Housing
2. Ag / Forest
8. Hazards
14.
Public Services
3. Air Quality
9. Hydrology
15.
Recreation
4. Biological Resources
X 10. Land Use X
16.
Transportation / Traffic X
5. Cultural Resources
11. Mineral Resources
17.
Utilities
6. Geology / Soils
X 12. Noise X
18.
Mandatory Findings
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
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Kevin Colin, Senior Planner Date
Applicant Signature:
November 19, 2015
Date
Page 13 of 81
4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following discussion addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment.
4.1. AESTHETICS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact p
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
❑
❑
❑
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
❑
❑
®
❑
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
❑
❑
®
❑
in the area?
Sources: 2025 GP And EIR; Marina Apartments Architectural Plans 2015 -05.07
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 is comprised of 2.16 acres of vacant, partially improved, land surrounded by existing
commercial development in the Marina PCD. The site is located in the City's Urban Growth Boundary and
within the Lakeville Planning Subarea. The Lakeville Planning Subarea is largely defined by marshlands,
public trails and open space along river with business and light industrial parks concentrated near the
southern terminus of McDowell Boulevard South. The Planning Subarea also supports the Petaluma Marina,
the City's largest hotel and residential development. Aesthetic and visual resources present in the project
area include: limited views of open space /waterway and intermittent views of the Sonoma Mountains to the
east.
Figure 6 and 7, below, shows that the proposed project is readily visible from US Hwy 101 and Lakeville
Highway/ SR 116, which are considered by the Petaluma General Plan as "Gateways" where development
should ensure a strong point of entry into the City and a sense of transition or entry into Petaluma.
The project proposes a building with a seaport/resort architectural design concept that is deferential to the
existing character of the Petaluma Marina. The project includes a five story (65' -0 ") L- shaped apartment
building. The proposed building is similar to the nearby Sheraton Hotel in that it features varied wall plans,
projecting gable ends, and a combination of pyramidal and gabled roofs. The building also mimics the pitched
metal roof and white horizontal siding characteristic of other existing buildings at the Petaluma Marina. The
massing of the proposed building is broken up with the inclusion of balconies and is punctuated with a series
of large windows.
(0_(�
Page 14 of 81 November 19, 2015
Figure 6: View Shed (from southbound Lakeville)
Figure 7: View Shed (from US 101)
Proposed landscaping includes vegetation that is reflective of the surrounding natural environment and will
also serve as screening and a scaling element to protect views and soften the building's presence. A variety
of wispy grasses, flowering perennials and screening evergreen shrubs will be introduced that mimic the
surrounding landscape. Further, the project's carports, proposed along the Lakeville Highway frontage, would
be screened by evergreen plants, trees, and vines.
Impact Analvsis:
3.1 (a) (Scenic Vista) Less Than Significant Impact: At Figure 3.11 -1, the General Plan 2025 EIR identifies
the following scenic vistas: (a) hills to the west and south of the City; (b) vistas of Sonoma Mountain; and (c)
land along the Petaluma River. The General Plan 2025 EIR utilizes the following three public viewpoints to
determine potential adverse effects upon the aforementioned vistas: (a) Washington Street overpass; (b)
McNear Peninsula; and (c) Rocky Memorial Dog Park. The project is not located near any identified vistas
and would not be visible from the Washington Street overpass, McNear Peninsula or Rocky Memorial Dog
Park nor would the project block viewsheds of the hillsides, ridgelines or other important vistas such as open
space. Therefore, the project would have no impact due to the obstruction of the General Plan's designated
scenic vistas.
(0-(s
November 19, 2015 Page 15 of 81
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.1 (b) (Scenic Resources) No Impact: The project site is flat and excludes any feature (e.g., trees, rock
outcropping, historic buildings) that may be considered a scenic resource. The nearby US 101 and State
Route 116 (Lakeville Highway) are not designated scenic highways within the City of Petaluma. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on scenic resources, including those within a designated State Scenic
Highway.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.1 (c) (Visual Character and Quality) Less than Significant Impact: Impact 3.11 -3 of the General Plan
EIR concludes that infill development (such as the project) may potentially degrade the existing visual quality
of the city through incompatibilities with existing development in scale and /or character. The General Plan EIR
elaborates on this potential environmental effect, as follows:
"The aesthetic resources of the city - the creeks, river, hillsides, and ridgelines - could potentially be
impacted by new development unless it is thoughtfully designed. Preservation of significant natural
features during construction of new development would help retain the character of existing areas. New
development proposed on vacant sites within the city's UGB could also alter the surrounding rural visual
character through increased densities and intensities."
As shown in Figure 2 above, the project is surrounded by urban development (commercial and residential
land uses) and major roadways (e.g., U.S. 101, Lakeville Highway). The project site is separated from the
Petaluma River and its companion open space areas by the boat marina and abutting commercial buildings
(Sheraton Hotel and associated retail).
The project is located within the city's UGB at a site designated by the General Plan as Mixed Use. The
Zoning Map designates the project site as Planned Commercial Development (PCD). The project's scale, as
proposed, is similar to that existing at the Petaluma Marina. Properties to the north, beyond Lakeville
Highway, are developed at a lower scale of one (1) and two (2) stories in height. Those properties could
redevelop with taller buildings in accordance with their respective Zoning Map designations (e.g., Mixed Use
1 B, Commercial 2, Commercial 1).
The project's design, scale, massing and spatial organization are generally similar to that at the Petaluma
Marina. The proposed apartment building design complements the established character of the existing
buildings at the Petaluma Marina. The proposed architecture does not depart significantly in style, form or
design that it would degrade the existing visual environment. The proposed bike path would not result in any
above - ground features that may adversely affect visual character or quality.
In addition, the project would have no effect on the city's rural visual character since it is not located on, near,
nor is it visible from the rural and open spaces properties at the City's periphery.
As mentioned under the project "setting ", the site is visible from US Hwy 101 and Lakeville Hwy/ SR 116,
which are called out by the General Plan as a "Gateways" into the City. Gateway areas are considered to be
readily visible and should provide for a strong point of entry. The project applicant provided visual simulations
to aid in understanding impacts of the project on the visual environment. Visual simulations were provided for
the site as viewed from northbound US 101, northbound Lakeville Hwy/ SR 116 and southbound Lakeville
Hwy SR/116. The proposed apartment building is most visible as viewed from northbound US Hwy 101 and
southbound Lakeville /SR 116. The massing and scale of the proposed building is prominent, however, the
architectural style similar to that of the adjacent hotel provides for a sense of visual continuity and
reinforcement of the established character of the Marina PCD.
With regard to the project's scale, mandatory compliance with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance's
requirement to obtain Site Plan & Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would further ensure
compatibility with the established character. As proposed, the design is consistent with the guiding regulation
and is complimentary to the existing neighborhood. Therefore the project's potential to impact the established
h -(6
Page 16 of 81 November 19, 2015
visual character and quality of the area would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.1 (d) (Light and Glare) Less Than Significant: The project site is bounded with existing commercial and
office development, all of which currently feature site and street lighting. Exterior lights installed in conjunction
with the proposed residential apartment complex will marginally increase artificial light in the vicinity. The
proposed bike path excludes the use of lighting.
The following conditions of approval apply to the project:
• Any lights provided to illuminate a parking facility shall be arranged so as to reflect the light away from
adjacent properties and streets (downward lighting). Lighting standards shall not exceed twenty (20)
feet in height and should be consistent with the architectural design of on -site buildings in terms of
style, color and materials.
All lighting shall be glare -free, hooded, and downcast in order to prevent glare into bicyclists' and
pedestrians' eyes.
The project is also required to conform to Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §21.040.D, which provides
standards to prevent indirect and direct glare impacts including, for example by specifying the maximum
illumination, and light location, height, and relationship to structures.
The project has the potential to result in new lighting associated with street lamps and exterior residential
lighting that could affect nighttime view in the project area. Mandatory compliance with the city's conditions of
approval and adherence to IZO §21.040.D would ensure the project's potential light and glare impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
W-0
November 19, 2015 Page 17 of 81
4.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑
a Williamson Act contract?
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less than No
Significant
with
Significant Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
❑
Incorporated
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
❑
❑
❑
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
❑
❑
use?
forest land to non - forest use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑
a Williamson Act contract?
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
❑
❑
❑
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d)
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
❑
❑
❑
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: City of Petaluma General Plan Land Use and UGB; and Petaluma General Plan DEIR.
Setting:
Agricultural lands within the City's UGB are limited to "Farmland of Local Importance ", "grazing land ", and
"other land." There are no identified forestlands within the UGB. Agricultural resources are prevalent outside
of City limits, within the County of Sonoma. An impetus to the establishment of the UGB was to preserve
natural resources, agricultural lands, and other open spaces. None of the agricultural or forestland
designations are present on or near the project site and the project site's existing General Plan and Zoning
designations anticipate urban development.
Impact Analysis:
3.2 (a -e) (Farmland Conversion, Williamson Act, Forestland /Timberland Conflict) No Impact: There are
no forest lands, important farmlands, agricultural resources or agricultural preserves located within the project
site and surrounding properties. The project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. The 2008 Sonoma County Important Farmland map shows the project
site as "Urban and Built -Up Land." The project site is not under Williamson Act contract. There are no
forestlands, timberlands or such zoning on the subject site or vicinity. The proposed project would have no
impacts to agricultural resources or forest uses, and would not result in the conversion of such lands since
none exist on -site or in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have no impact to agricultural and
forestry resources.
Mitigation Measures: None required
[a -lib
Page 18 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established
Less Than
by the applicable air quality management or air
Potentially
Significant
Less than
pollution control district may u to make
p y be relied on p
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Significant No Impact
Impact
the following determinations. Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
❑
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
❑
❑
® ❑
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Sources: 2025 GP and EIR; 2010 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines; Marina Apartment Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, April 13, 2015
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). 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 Bay Area Air Basin, including the project site, is designated as non - attainment for both the one -hour and
eight -hour state ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Bay Area is
also in non- attainment for the PM10 and PM2.5 state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean
(AAM) of less than 20 lag /m3 for PM10 and less than 12 lag /m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Bay Area Basin is
designated as non - attainment for the national 24 -hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard and will be
required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM2.5. All other national ambient air quality
standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.
Air quality within the Bay Area Air Basin is a combination of 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.
This Initial Study applies the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act — Air Quality Guidelines, May
2012, including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. In March 2012, the Alameda
County Superior Court ordered BAAQMD to set aside use of the significance thresholds within the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines until they complete an assessment of the environmental effects of the thresholds in
accordance with CEQA. The Court found that the thresholds, themselves, constitute a "project" for which
environmental review is required. Lead agencies may continue to rely on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "for
assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air
to -Iq
November 19, 2015 Page 19 of 81
pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures." The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include the best
available scientific data and most conservative thresholds available. Comparison of the project's emissions
against the BAAQMD thresholds provides a conservative assessment as the basis for a determination of
significance. In the absence of other applicable thresholds, the City of Petaluma, as lead agency, has chosen
to utilize the June 2010 BAAQMD thresholds and May 2011 Guidelines as a means to conservatively assess
the project's potential environmental effects.
Petaluma General Plan
The City's General Plan set forth policies and programs to maintain and enhance air quality. The following are
applicable to the proposed project:
Policy 4 -P -6: Improve air quality through required planting of trees along streets and within park and
urban separators, and retaining tree and plant resources along the river and creek corridors.
Policy 4-P-1 5D: Reduce emissions from residential and commercial uses by requiring the following:
• Use of high efficiency heating and other appliances, such as cooking equipment,
refrigerators, and furnaces, and low NOx water heaters in new and existing residential
units;
• Compliance with or exceed requirements of CCR Title 24 for new residential and
commercial buildings;
• Incorporation of passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar
energy use for both residential and commercial uses, i.e., building orientation in a south
to southeast direction, encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures,
landscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than
pavement to reduce heat reflection;
• Encourage the use of battery - powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not
impact local air quality for nonresidential maintenance activities; and
• Provide natural gas hookups to fireplaces or require residential use of EPA - certified wood
stoves, pellet stoves, or fireplace inserts.
Policy 4 -P -16: To reduce combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor
of future individual projects shall encourage the inclusion in construction contracts of the
following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective:
• Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per
manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction;
• Minimize idling time of construction related equipment, including heavy -duty equipment,
motor vehicles, and portable equipment;
• Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid
petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline);
• Use add -on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters;
• Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off -
road heavy -duty diesel engines;
• Phase construction of the project; and
• Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment.
Impact Analysis:
3.3 (a) (Air Quality Plan) 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). Control strategies apply to the topics of land use, energy and climate, and
stationary, transportation, mobile sources.
Iod2-o
Page 20 of 81 November 19, 2015
Examples of programmatic measures that implement the control strategies include the use of clean and
efficient vehicles, Green Fleets, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access, energy efficiency, and others.
The Bay Area 2010 CAP was based on land use and growth projections consistent with those used in the
Petaluma General Plan. The project's land use and development intensity is consistent with that assumed by
the General Plan for the project site. There are no other control measures of the 2010 CAP that apply to the
project. Therefore, the project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air
Plan and no impact will result.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.3 (b -c) (Air Quality Standard, Criteria Pollutant) Less Than Significant Impact:
Construction Emissions
Generally, emissions generated during construction periods at urbanized properties like those in the project
area are minimal since their relatively small size limits the use of heavy construction equipment and requires
minimal site preparation work. Nonetheless, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines contain screening criteria at
Table 3 -1 which provide a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially
significant air quality impacts related to emissions during construction. If all of the screening criteria are met
by a proposed project, quantification of the project's air pollutant emissions is not necessary to make a
determination since it is reasonably expected that the project's impact will be below the threshold of
significance.
The project includes eighty (80) ninety (90) for -rent dwelling units. Table 1 below compares the project to the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines screening levels for air pollutants from construction activities.
TABLE 1 BAAQMD CONSTRUCTION POLLUTANT SCREENING RESULTS
Land Use Type Project BAAQMD Screen Level Above Screening Level?
Apartment, Mid -Rise 89 90 units 240 units No
Source: Table 3 -1, pg 3 -2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010.
Given the results of Table 1 above, it can be conservatively determined the project would result in a less than
significant impact since it includes a number of units well below the screening level. Additionally, construction
of the bike path would be concurrent with the apartment building and include minimal use of heavy equipment
as well. This determination is verified by project- specific quantification of construction emissions in the
technical reports prepared for the project., ? However, it should be noted the City of Petaluma will impose the
following BAAQMD best management practices as a condition of approval:
The applicant shall incorporate the Best Management Practices for construction into the construction and
improvement plans 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.
' Marina Apartment Project, Petaluma, CA — Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Illingworth &
Rodkin, April 13, 2015.
2 Marina Apartment Project, Petaluma, CA — Air Quality and GHG Issues, Illingworth & Rodkin, January 27, 2016.
to - -�L-(
November 19, 2015 Page 21 of 81
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. Building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Construction equipment staging shall occur as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors.
9. The Developer shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the
dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City prior to issuance
of grading permits. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of designated 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.
The City's Public Works Inspector will perform visual inspections during grading to assure that these BMPs
are executed.
Operational Emissions
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also contain screening criteria at Table 3 -1 for whether a proposed project
could result in potentially significant air quality impacts during operation (i.e., post- construction). The
operational screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any
form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. In addition, the screening criteria do not account for
project design features, attributes, or local development requirements that could also result in lower
emissions. For projects that are infill and /or proximate to transit service and local services (i.e., the proposed
project), emissions would be less than the greenfield type project that the screening criteria are based on.
As with the construction screening results discussed above, if all of the screening criteria are met by a
proposed project, quantification of the project's air pollutant emissions is not necessary to make a
determination that the impact will be below the thresholds of significance. Table 2 below includes the
screening level results for the project's long -term operational emissions.
Land Use Type Project BAAQMD Screen Level Above Screening Level?
Apartment, Low -Rise 80 90 units 451 units No
Source: Table 3 -1, pg 3 -2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010.
Given the screening results of Table 2 above, it can be conservatively determined the project would result in
a less than significant impact due to operational emissions. Additionally, operation of the Class I bike path
would have a beneficial impact on air emissions since it would enable and encourage non - vehicular modes of
transportation. This determination is verified by project- specific quantification of operational emissions in the
[o -22
Page 22 of 81 November 19, 2015
technical report prepared for the project .3
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.3 (d) (Sensitive Receptors) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project has the potential
to bring sensitive receptors (e.g., children, elderly persons) to an area with existing and future sources of toxic
air contaminants consisting, generally, of fine particulate matter from mobile sources (i.e., vehicles) and
stationary source emissions. Examples of sensitive receptors include places where people live, play or
convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and recreation facilities.
Health Risk Screening — Construction
Project - related construction activities will result in short term air quality emissions that have the potential to
affect nearby sensitive receptors. Heavy equipment used during construction activities would emit diesel
particulate matter (DPM), which is recognized by the State of California as containing carcinogenic
compounds. The risks associated with exposure to substances with carcinogenic effects are typically
evaluated based on a lifetime of exposure. This is defined by the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association as 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years for residences and 40
years for children. The nearest off -site sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) to the project site are located over
600 feet to the north, across Lakeville Highway.
Assuming a construction duration of one (1) year, the project's technical report identifies that construction
emissions of DPM and all criteria pollutants generated by construction related activities (i.e., ROG, NOx, CO,
SOx, PM 10, PM2.5) will fall below the significance threshold. This determination is verified by project- specific
quantification of operational emissions in the technical report prepared for the project. The U.S. EPA ISCST3
dispersion model was used to predict DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the project construction area. The ISCST3 dispersion model is a BAAQMD- recommended model for
use in modeling analysis of these land use types of emission activities for CEQA projects. Therefore, the
project's potential health risk impacts, to nearby sensitive receptors, generated by construction activities
would result in a less than significant impact.
Health Risk Screeninq - Operational
At operation, the project will not generate stationary source emissions that could affect sensitive receptors.
However, the project's new residents have the potential to be exposed to toxic air contaminants released by
vehicles traveling on nearby roads as well as from stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD. The BAAQMD
provides CEQA community risk and hazards screening tools for lead agencies to use when considering
whether there should be further, more detailed environmental review of a project. Lead agencies may use the
screening tools to assess a project's potential risk and hazard impacts, compare the results to the lead
agency's applicable thresholds of significance, and determine whether additional analysis is necessary.
The BAAQMD Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Process Flowchart directs that lead agencies should
identify three (3) emission sources (i.e., highway, major roadway, stationary) within 1,000 feet of a project's
boundary and compare each source individually against the screening criteria for each source. After the
screening criteria for each source is evaluated, the BAAQMD Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Process
Flowchart directs that the values from all sources are to be added up and compared against a cumulative
screening value (addressed below under Criterion 6 (Cumulative Health Risks)). The analysis below follows
the BAAQMD- recommended methodology.
State Highways/Traffic Emissions
U.S 101 is located 400 feet west of the project site and Lakeville Highway (State Route 116) is located
approximately 125 feet north of the project site. The project's air quality study indicates Lakeville Highway
conveys 37,000 annual average daily trips.4 Of those average daily trips, 6.7% are made by trucks, of which
3 Marina Apartment Project, Petaluma, CA — Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Illingworth &
Rodkin, April 13, 2015.
4 California Department of Transportation, 2014. 2013 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System.
a
November 19, 2015 Page 23 of 81
3.7% are heavy duty trucks and 3.2% are medium duty trucks. The project's air quality study identifies a
maximum increased cancer risk of 6.3 in one million. This maximum was calculated at a receptor location
representative of the residential units closest to Lakeville Highway and therefore represents the worst case
scenario; cancer risks at all other site location would be lower than the maximum of 6.3 in one million. The
BAAQMD uses a maximum cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. As such, the project is well below the
established threshold and impacts are considered to be less than significant for this source.
Permitted Stationary Sources
The nearest stationary source emitter is located 600 feet from the project site and, when adjusted for
distance, the project's air quality study determines that risk levels are below significance thresholds and,
therefore, impacts from this source would be less than significant.
SMART Rail Line
The SMART line is more than 200 feet from the proposed project. At present, the rail line experiences
infrequent freight activity, but it is anticipated that freight activity will become increasingly regular, along with
commuter services. For the purposes of the project's air quality study, maximum risk levels were predicted
assuming a position 30 feet from the rail line. The predicted levels where further increased by a factor of 1.7
in order to account for age sensitivity factors for infants and children at the proposed apartment complex. The
air quality study's analysis determined that cancer risk, annual PM2.5, concentrations and non - cancer hazards
at 30 feet from tracks is below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and, therefore, impacts from this source
would be less than significant.
Cumulative
The combined community risk levels were computed by the project's air quality study by adding the maximum
TAC impacts together. The computation indicated a combined cancer risk of 17.7 per million, combined PM2.5
of 0.15pg /m3 and the non - cancer HI would be less than 0.03. As such, it is determined that community risk
impacts fall below the thresholds for combined and single source levels and that impacts would be less than
significant for all sources combined.
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.3 (e) (Odors) 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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
t _ALA
Page 24 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact
Would the project: Significant Significant Significant
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑
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 in local or ❑ ® ❑ ❑
regional plans, policies, 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 Clean Water ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native .
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ® ❑
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 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
conservation plan?
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR Figure 3.8 -1: Habitat Areas and Special Status Species; and Open Space Lands
Map of the Petaluma General Plan: Figure 6 -1, Marina Village Apartments Biological Resources Review prepared by
WRA Environmental Consultants, March 23, 2015.
Setting:
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
(MBTA) 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
contains species that are identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) due to rarity and
threats, and are considered sensitive resources.
10 _-
November 19, 2015 Page 25 of 81
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.
A project specific biological resources report was prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants in March
2015. The biological resources report identifies a study area approximately 5.64 acres in area and which is
comprised of an unpaved building footprint, surrounding parking lot, ornamental trees, and the upper limits of
an approximately 1,700 linear foot outfall channel located west of the parking lot. The area features a minimal
amount of vegetation consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, and ruderal grasses on its periphery. The study
area supports a small amount of coastal brackish marsh and waters associated with the channel outfall, which
is considered a Section 404 Jurisdictional Feature. Other than the small fringe of brackish marsh and waters
of the outfall and Petaluma River which are not proposed for development under the project, the balance of
the project site has low biological resource value due to fragmentation and surrounding urban development.
Impact Analysis:
3.4 (a -b) (Special Status Species, Riparian Habitat) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The
project's biological resource report identifies the potential presence of twenty -five special status wildlife
species and thirty -one special status plant species within five miles of the study area. The reports finds that
the potential for these species to be found at the project site is either very low or with no potential due to the
disturbed nature of the site, surrounding urban environment, and limited size of the brackish marsh.
Plant Species
Preparation of the project's biological resource report included a field survey within the study area and
concluded that no special status plant species have a moderate or high potential for occurrence. Rather, all
special status plant species had a low or unlikely potential to occur. The study area features three distinct
types of vegetated area: ornamental community, coastal brackish marsh, and waters. None of the three
communities identified in the study area are expected to support special status plant species. The ornamental
community does not support special status plant species as it has been previously disturbed through
landscaping and management. The coastal brackish marsh community is limited to a small fringe along the
outfall channel that supports tules and bulrush. Due to the limited size and channelization of this feature it is
not considered suitable habitat capable of potentially supporting special status plant species. The urban
character of the site vicinity and fragmentation inhibits the site's ability to support special status plant species
and it is determined that the presence of such species is highly unlikely. Because no rare plant species or
special status plant species are expected to be present within the project's study area, impacts to sensitive
plant communities would be less than significant.
Wildlife Species
The majority of wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the study area were determined to have either
low or no potential to be present based on existing conditions, with the exception of listed fish species
including chinook salmon and central coast steelhead, as discussed below.
The project's biological resources report indicates that, of the 25 wildlife species identified within a five mile
radius of the project site, three (salt harvest marsh, San Francisco common yellowthroat, and Samuel's song
sparrow) have been documented on or directly adjacent to the study area. However, the three recorded
species require well established coastal brackish marsh that is conducive to foraging, nesting, and protection
from predators. The fringe of brackish marsh within the study area is too small and lacks sufficient complexity
to support any of these three wildlife species. Accordingly, due to the limited availability of suitable habitat it is
unlikely that any special status wildlife species are present and impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
Fish Species
10 a_�
Page 26 of 81 November 19, 2015
The Petaluma River is considered critical habitat for Steelhead - Central California ESU (Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus), a federal threatened species. The Petaluma River also has the potential to support Chinook
Central Valley Fall /Late Fall -Run ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Species of Concern and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special
Concern in the study area.
Central California Coast Steelhead migrate up the Petaluma River in the fall and winter to spawn in the winter
and spring. Though the study area does not provide suitable gravel substrate for spawning, adults of this ESU
likely migrate through in search of spawning habitat, and juveniles may find suitable protective cover and
foraging habitat in the study area. The Petaluma River is considered Critical Habitat for this ESU by NMFS
(2007), and CNDDB records indicate that this ESU has been observed in the Petaluma River system within
five miles of the Study Area (CDFW 2015). Therefore, the outfall channel in the Study Area represents
migration and potentially rearing habitat for this species.
Other fish species unlikely to be present in the study area include long -fin smelt and green sturgeon. The
presence of Long -fin smelt has been recorded in the Petaluma River. However, the high water temperatures
of the upper Petaluma River during the summer (last recorded as 73.2 degrees upstream of the study area)
would be intolerable and, therefore, it is highly unlikely that such species would be present and potentially
impacted by the project.
Some tidal areas of the Petaluma River serve as critical habitat for green sturgeon. However, green sturgeon
has never been observed upstream of the mouth of the Petaluma River at San Pablo Bay, although juveniles
may forage in such areas. A biological opinion published by NOAA in 2009 for Caltrans bridge construction
work reinforced past findings by stating that green sturgeon were unlikely to be present in the reach between
HWY 101 bridge crossing and Washington Street bridge upstream of the study area. As such, impacts related
to green sturgeon are expected to be less than significant.
The project's biological resources report identifies a potentially significant impact related to stormwater runoff
into the nearby outfall channel, which provides potential migration and rearing habitat for Central California
Coast Steelhead and Chinook Central Valley. This potentially significant effect would be reduced below
threshold of significance through mandatory compliance with construction and post- construction stormwater
treatment measures under the City of Petaluma's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES),
as explained in the hydrology /water quality section. Therefore, the project would have less than significant
impacts to fish species potentially present within the nearby outfall channel.
Avian Species
No special status avian species are expected to be present within the study area. The two species
determined as potentially present near the study area include Great Egret (Ardea Alba) and California
Ridgeway Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus). While several great egret rookeries have been documented in
proximity to the study area, the two nearest are no longer extant and it is unlikely that any of the displaced
Great Egrets will relocate within the near future based on the on -going Caltrans Hwy 101 overpass work.
A single occurrence of Ridgeway Rail has been documented (in 2014) at the bank of the Petaluma River
opposite the outfall channel approximately 1,500 feet from the study area. The distance of 1,500 feet is more
than double the recommended setback to avoid noise and visual impacts to the species.
It is possible that ornamental trees on the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory
songbirds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Tree removal as well as noise disturbances
resulting from construction activities during the migratory bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31) may
result in nest abandonment, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation
Measure BIO -1 is required to reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO -1. Should tree removal or construction activities commence between February 1 and August 31, a pre -
construction nesting survey shall be performed in suitable habitats for avian species within the Study
t0-�,7
November 19, 2015 Page 27 of 81
Area to determine if nests are present. If present, an appropriate buffer shall be established by a
qualified biologist to ensure activities do not result in nest abandonment; screens may be employed to
reduce any no- disturbance buffers under the guidance of the biologist. The biologist shall monitor
activities to ensure the buffer is sufficient to prevent any impacts to these species. Work may continue
in areas outside of the buffer zones and resume within the buffer zone once the biologist has
confirmed young have left the nest or the nest has been naturally predated.
3.4 (c) (Wetlands) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The project's biological resources report
found that the majority of the project site is urban /ornamental community. Though not included within the
report, the location of the proposed Class I bike path also consists of an urban /ornamental community
including a linear drainage feature. The ornamental vegetation onsite includes native trees, including coast
redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and deer grass (muhlenbergia rigens). The report also identified two
sensitive plant communities: coastal brackish marsh and other waters.
Coastal brackish marsh is found at the interior edges of coastal bays and estuaries and is often adjacent to
salt marsh. The Petaluma River flows adjacent to the study area and to the south. This feature is considered
"other waters" regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project will not directly impact either
resource and it is expected that compliance with mandatory standards for stormwater management and
treatment ensure any potential adverse indirect impacts do not result. Additionally, as proposed, the project
would avoid the linear drainage feature along the northern boundary of APN 005 - 060 -065. However, as an
added safety measure to ensure that no construction activities accidentally spill over into the coastal brackish
marsh habitat or in proximity to the linear drainage feature at APN 005 - 060 -065, Mitigation Measure BIO -2
shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure:
BIO -2. The applicant shall install temporary orange exclusion fencing between the coastal brackish marsh
habitat and the project site for the duration of site preparation and construction activities in order to
prevent inadvertent disturbance during project related activities. Following completion of construction
activities, the exclusionary fencing shall be removed.
3.4 (d) (Wildlife /Fish Movement & Nursery) Less Than Significant Impact: There is no evidence of
migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites on or near the project site. The project's biological resources
report concluded that existing development on three sides of the site make it relatively inaccessible to many
species, and eliminates the possibility of the site functioning as a movement corridor. Potential adverse
impacts to sensitive fish species are addressed above. Development of the proposed 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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.4 (e) (Tree Preservation) No Impact: Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Chapter 17
addresses tree preservation requirements with development projects. IZO §17.040 defines which tree species
and sizes are subject to review. When "protected trees" are potentially affected by the development project,
an arborist report is required. Prior to the removal of any protected tree, a Tree Removal Permit must first be
obtained under IZO §17.060 and mitigated in accordance with IZO §17.065.The project does not propose
removal of any protected trees. Therefore, the project would have no impact under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.4 (f) (Habitat Conservation Plan) No Impact: There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other, regional or state habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma. No impact
would result under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Page 28 of 81
I 0 -��
November 19, 2015
4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ® ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ® ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; 2025 GP EIR; 2015 CEQA Guidelines
15064.5; Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, May 5,2015.
Setting:
Petaluma's historic and cultural resources contribute to the city's unique 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 today.
Such resources include buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, and objects. Within the UGB there exist 14
Native American resources and 19 historic sites, 3 historic districts, one of which is of national significance,
and upwards of 300 properties that are potentially eligible for listing on a local, state of national register of
historic places. The history of Petaluma is present in the contemporary landscape and the unique character
that arises from the side by side existence of new and old. Petaluma's historical resources are preserved and
encouraged through policies and programs that serve to maintain the historic character.
The project site is considered urban infill on a previously disturbed site. The project is not located within any
designated historic districts, nor is it known to contain any potentially historic resources. Until at least 1950,
the site was vacant and appears to have been graded in anticipation of development. The site was
subsequently graded and partially improved with a parking lot extending around the periphery of the proposed
building pad in 2002 and 2008, respectively5. There is no indication that during previous site development
prehistoric, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains were discovered and there were no
identified above ground historic or cultural resources.
Impact Analysis:
3.5 (a) (Historical Resource) No Impact: The project site is not located within a designated historic district
nor does it contain a designated historic resource. The project site is undeveloped and excludes any
structures, buildings or other features that would qualify as a historic or potentially historic resource. The
adjacent Petaluma Marina and associated structures were constructed less than 50 years ago. Therefore, the
project would have no impact under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
5 Historic Aerial Photographs. Courtesy of Quantam Spatial Inc. of Novato
(0 t"I
November 19, 2015 Page 29 of 81
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
ro t:
Would the 1 ec
p
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Impact
Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑
❑
❑
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
❑
❑
®
❑
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ® ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ® ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025 Chapter 3: Historic Preservation; 2025 GP EIR; 2015 CEQA Guidelines
15064.5; Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, May 5,2015.
Setting:
Petaluma's historic and cultural resources contribute to the city's unique 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 today.
Such resources include buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, and objects. Within the UGB there exist 14
Native American resources and 19 historic sites, 3 historic districts, one of which is of national significance,
and upwards of 300 properties that are potentially eligible for listing on a local, state of national register of
historic places. The history of Petaluma is present in the contemporary landscape and the unique character
that arises from the side by side existence of new and old. Petaluma's historical resources are preserved and
encouraged through policies and programs that serve to maintain the historic character.
The project site is considered urban infill on a previously disturbed site. The project is not located within any
designated historic districts, nor is it known to contain any potentially historic resources. Until at least 1950,
the site was vacant and appears to have been graded in anticipation of development. The site was
subsequently graded and partially improved with a parking lot extending around the periphery of the proposed
building pad in 2002 and 2008, respectively5. There is no indication that during previous site development
prehistoric, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains were discovered and there were no
identified above ground historic or cultural resources.
Impact Analysis:
3.5 (a) (Historical Resource) No Impact: The project site is not located within a designated historic district
nor does it contain a designated historic resource. The project site is undeveloped and excludes any
structures, buildings or other features that would qualify as a historic or potentially historic resource. The
adjacent Petaluma Marina and associated structures were constructed less than 50 years ago. Therefore, the
project would have no impact under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
5 Historic Aerial Photographs. Courtesy of Quantam Spatial Inc. of Novato
(0 t"I
November 19, 2015 Page 29 of 81
3.5 (b) (Archaeological Resources) Less Than Significant Impact: 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. 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).
The project 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. As such,
a condition of approval will be imposed on the project that requires construction activity to halt in the event of
accidental discovery during grading activities. Should any features be identified during construction, the
condition requires compliance with CEQA §21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Given the project's
location and application of a condition addressing accidental discovery, the project is not expected to result in
a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant
under this criterion.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.5 (c) (Unique Paleontological Resource) Less than Significant Impact: 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.
Accordingly, a condition of approval will be imposed on the project that requires construction activity to halt in
the event of accidental discovery during grading activities in accordance with CEQA §21083.2 and CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5. Given the project's location and application of a condition addressing accidental
discovery, the project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse change to unique paleontological or
geologic resources and impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.5 (d) (Human Remains) 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 shall be duly complied
with including the immediate cessation of ground disturbing activities near or in any area potentially overlying
adjacent human remains. These requirements are imposed by the city through a condition of approval noting
the statutory requirements of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and the California Native American
Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA). Accordingly, impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
IO`
Page 30 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact p
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
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 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 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 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 substantial
❑
®
❑
❑
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
❑
❑
❑
water?
Sources: Petaluma General Plan 2025: Chapter 10.1 Natural Hazards, Petaluma
General Plan DEIR Figures 3.7 -2
(Local Geology), 3.7 -4 (Ground Shaking Intensity), 3.7 -5 (Geological Hazards); Geotechnical Investigation for Basin
Street Properties: Marina Apartments, Petaluma, CA, prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering
Group,
May 5, 2015; and
Addendum to Geotechnical Report, prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, August
12, 2015.
Setting:
The City of Petaluma lies within a seismically active region classified by the California Building Code (CBC)
as Seismic Zone 4 where the most stringent CBC standards apply. Geologic hazards within the City of
Petaluma are largely related to seismic ground shaking and associated effects such as liquefaction, ground
failure, and seismically induced landslides. Principal faults in the vicinity of Petaluma are capable of
generating large earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking.
The Rodgers Creek Fault is located less than 5 miles to the northeast of the City. Although branches of the
Rodgers Creek closest to the City are not historically active (within the last 200 years), they do show evidence
of activity during the last 11,000 years, which is a relatively short time in terms of geologic activity.
Expansive soils and soil erosion are also of general concern within the City of Petaluma. Expansive soil
materials occur in the substrate of the clays and clayey loams in the City and represent a potential geologic
I 0 -31
November 19, 2015 Page 31 of 81
hazard. Without proper geotechnical considerations, buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by
expansive soils due to the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings. These effects create
safety concerns and risk of financial loss. To reduce the risks associated with expansive soils, the City's
Building Code, Chapter 18, requires that each construction site, intended for human occupancy, that is
suspected of containing expansive soils be investigated and the soils be treated to eliminate the hazard.
In light of the conditions found in Petaluma, a site - specific geotechnical engineering study was prepared by
Miller Pacific Engineering Group on May 5, 2015. The purpose of the investigation was to identify any
geotechnical constraints to consider when constructing a five story wood frame structure to house eighty
dwelling units. Subsurface exploration was performed at the site on March 23 and March 27, 2015 and
included six cone penetration tests (CPTs) and two borings. The subsurface tests generally confirmed the
regional mapped geology. Subsurface conditions were found to consist of fill material over soft bay mud
deposits, underlain by alluvial soils and bedrock. Groundwater was encountered at depths between ten (10)
and eleven (11) feet below surface and should be expected at onsite excavations deeper than five (5) feet
below grade. The primary geotechnical concerns identified in the report include strong seismic ground
shaking, liquefaction, lurching and ground cracking, expansive soil and settlement.
Supplemental information from the project's geotechnical engineer was subsequently provided on August 12,
2015 and included review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and potential impacts of the
foundation loading on the existing sanitary sewer force main proximate to the proposed apartment building
structure. The findings of the Geotechnical Investigations are described below, also see the Hydrology and
Water Quality discussion.
Geolocly and Soils Impact Discussion:
3.6 (a.i.) (Faults) No Impact: The project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
and no known active faults directly traverse the site. Therefore, there is no risk of fault - related ground rupture
during earthquakes within the limits of the site due to a known Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault zone.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.6 (a.ii) (Ground- Shaking) Less Than Significant Impact: As is the case throughout the City's UGB,
development has the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong
seismic ground shaking. The project site is located within Zone IX- Violent of the Mercalli Intensity Shaking
Severity Level. In the event of a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, the project area and the City of Petaluma could
experience severe ground shaking that could damage buildings, structures, infrastructure and result in the risk
of loss of life or property.
Conformance with Title 24 (California Building Code Standards) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Ace as
required by the 2013 California Building Code of regulations will assure that potential impacts from seismic
shaking are less than significant. Mandatory compliance with standards set forth in the Building Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (the California Building Code 3.7 -20 Chapter 3: Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures [CBC]) and the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 (the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act) will ensure that potential impacts from seismic shaking are less than significant.
Based on the geotechnical engineering study prepared for the project, the CBC parameters for a Site Class D
apply, and will translate to specifications for foundation types, appropriate structural systems, and ground
stabilization strategies. The geotechnical engineering study advances preliminary recommendations for
compliance with Site Class D requirements.
With utilization of Site Class D specifications and mandatory compliance with all other related building code
standards as well as conformance with the recommendations set forth in a subsequent, mandatory project
specific geotechnical report for construction purposes, the project would not expose a substantial number of
people or structures to adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from strong seismic
ground shaking. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact resulting from strong seismic
ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure: None Required.
Page 32 of 81 November 19, 2015
3.6 (a.iii) (Ground Failure) Less Than Significant with Mitigation: 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
General Plan 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 geotechnical report prepared for the project states the site exhibits a "moderate liquefaction potential."
Subsurface conditions at the project site are dominated by high plasticity clayey soils (fill and bay mud
deposits) which are not susceptible to liquefaction. However, it is not unusual for bay mud deposits to contain
discontinuous layers of sand or granular materials that may be susceptible to liquefaction. The uppermost
portions of alluvial soils also exhibit a similar phenomenon and may contain a continuous sand layer that is
potentially susceptible to liquefaction.
Based on the subsurface exploration, lab testing, and engineering analyses, the liquefaction potential for the
project site is determined to be moderate to high whereby total post - liquefaction settlements of less than three
inches can be expected and differential settlements over areas less than 50 feet are expected to be one inch
or less. The presence of a "cap" of non - liquefiable clayey soils identified atop potentially more liquefiable
substrate minimizes the likelihood that the project would be subject to significant liquefaction settlement.
In order to ensure that the project is able to adequately withstand liquefaction settlement, the project shall
comply with Mitigation Measure GEO -1, which requires that the project adhere to foundation design
recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, potential impacts relating to ground failure will be reduced to
less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO -1. As determined by the City Engineer and /or Chief Building Official, all recommendations outlined in the
Geotechnical Investigations dated May 5, 2015 and August 12, 2015 prepared for the subject property
by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, including but not limited to, site preparation and grading,
excavation, seismic design, and foundations system design are herein incorporated by reference and
shall be adhered to in order to ensure that appropriate construction measures are incorporated into
the design of the project. Nothing in this mitigation measure shall preclude the City Engineer and /or
Chief Building Official from requiring additional information to determine compliance with applicable
standards. 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.
3.6 (a.iv) (Landslide) Less than Significant Impact: 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 project site is relatively flat and the proposed building pad
will exhibit a setback of approximately 90 to 100 feet from the channel west of the project site. Based on the
negligible slope of the site and the fact that the project will be located a sufficient distance from any sloped
terrain, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.6 (b) (Erosion) Less than Significant Impact: Development of the project site will require site preparation
and grading activities that may result in soil erosion. As the project site and surrounding area has already
been graded, paved and previously disturbed, the project has no potential to result in topsoil loss.
Water and wind serve as the primary catalyst of soil erosion, with steeper slopes intensifying the effects.
November 19, 2015 Page 33 of 81
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. It is expected that site
development will necessitate excavation to a depth of approximately 36 inches.
All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction activities associated with the project are subject
to the City of Petaluma's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. Similarly, these activities are also covered
by the mandatory requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit which is implemented through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance with
these mandatory requirements would prevent substantial soil erosion. Therefore, the project will result in a
less than significant impact under this topic.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.6 (c) (Unstable Geologic Unit) Less than Significant with Mitigation: Lateral spreading, lurching and
associated ground cracking can occur during strong ground shaking. Lurching and ground cracking generally
occurs along the tops of slopes where stiff soils are underlain by soft deposits or along steep channel banks
whereas lateral spreading generally occurs where liquefiable deposits flow towards a "free face ", such as
channel banks, during an earthquake. Conditions susceptible to lurching and ground cracking exist along the
western margin of project site, where slopes are adjacent to the existing outfall drainage channel. As such,
the western portion of the project area may be susceptible to lurching and ground cracking because
stiff /dense fill soils are underlain by soft bay mud deposits and /or liquefiable sand layers.
Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, the risk of lurching, ground cracking and
lateral spreading is moderate. The investigation states further that, in order to reduce potential impacts from
lurching, the project should feature a deep foundation and be placed a minimum of 25 feet back from the top
of the drainage channel. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 above will ensure that the project
complies with recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report including those related to foundation
design and appropriate setback. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 impacts related to
unstable geologic units will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure GEO -1 above.
3.6 (d) (Expansive Soils) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project's geotechnical
investigation indicates that the onsite clay soils exhibit a moderate to high potential for expansion. Moderately
expansive soils can undergo substantial volume changes (shrink and swell) as the soil moisture content
changes. Changes in soil moisture content can result from seasonal variations in precipitation, perched
groundwater, landscape practices, broken or leaking irrigation, utility lines or poor site drainage. The resultant
soil volume change can incite differential movements (settlement or heave) of building foundations, slabs -on-
grade, or flatwork supported on these soils.
Adherence to those feasible recommendations, including any others derived through mandatory compliance
with the Conformance with Title 24 (California Building Code Standards) through documentation including, but
not limited to, construction drawings and companion geotechnical report for construction purposes, would
ensure the project results in a less than significant impact from expansive soils.
In order to reduce potential impacts due to the presence of expansive soils, Mitigation Measure GEO -1, set
forth above shall be implemented. Specifically, construction techniques shall adhere to the recommendations
set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation including that site preparation remove highly expansive soils within
the upper three feet (beneath the proposed building footprint), the construction of specialized foundation
systems and moisture cutoff barriers for the foundation systems, and focused attention to site drainage such
as raising the building pad slightly and downsloping adjoining landscaped areas. Further, it is recommended
that foundations be designed to account for at least some expansive soil movement. Adherence to those
recommendations outlined in the project's geotechnical investigation and in accordance with Mitigation
Measure GEO -1 above will ensure that potential impacts from expansive soils are reduced to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure GEO -1 above.
10 - ?) 1A
Page 34 of 81 November 19, 2015
3.6 (e) (Septic Tanks) 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 project. Therefore, there will be no impact resulting from the
adequacy of soils to support septic tanks or other wastewater disposal system.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
D -?,5
November 19, 2015 Page 35 of 81
4.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant with Significant No Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ® ❑ ❑
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Sources: BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 2010 and 2012; Marina Apartments Air
Quality and GHG Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, April 13,2015; Marina Apartment Project,
Petaluma - Air Quality and GHG Issues prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, January 27 2016.
Setting:
Greenhouse gases (GHG) 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, nitrous oxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons,
hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions account for about
85 percent of the GHG emissions.
To address GHG's 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 also taken steps to address GHG emissions within its city limits. The City adopted
Resolutions 2002 -117 and 2005 -118, which call 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. Additionally, the General Plan calls for the City to work with
regional and other agencies to implement 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 2013, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code, which contains the mandatory
California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). All new development within the City of Petaluma must
comply with these standards, which generally achieve energy efficiency approximately 15% beyond Title 24.
As such, new development is expected to be more energy efficient, use less resources and emit fewer GHGs.
Impact Analysis:
3.7 (a) (Significant GHG Emissions) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the project 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. As stated under the air quality topic above, best management practices will be imposed on the
project as a standard condition of approval. Accordingly, GHG emissions generated from the project's
construction activities are considered to be less significant.
I O -, ;�
Page 36 of 81 November 19, 2015
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. However, 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) or service population of 4.6 MT /service population /year is used
to evaluate the proposed project.
Before conducting a detailed estimation of whether a project would have a potential for exceeding the GHG
emission thresholds, the BAAQMD recommend applying screening criteria based on development type. The
screening criteria were derived using default assumptions as well as modeling for indirect emissions (e.g.,
electric generation, solid waste, and water use). Projects below the screening criteria are considered to emit
GHG emissions below the threshold of significance.
Land Use Type Project BAAQMD Screen Level Above Screening Level?
Apartment, Mid -Rise 80 90 units 78 units Yes
Source: Table 3 -1, pg 3 -2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010.
As the project unit count exceeds the BAAQMD screening level, a project specific GHG analyses wa ?
analyses were conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin.
The project's GHG emissions were estimated separately for the sources of operational emissions: (1)
emissions associated with energy use and area sources, including electricity and natural gas, and area
sources such as hearths and landscaping equipment; (2) emissions from vehicle use; (3) emissions
associated with obtaining and consuming potable water; and (4) emissions associated with solid waste
generation. The project's Class I bike path is not addressed in the emission analysis below since it would
result in a beneficial impact by enabling and encouraging non - vehicle usage.
Energy Use and Area Sources
Emissions associated with energy use would arise from the combustion of fossil fuels to provide energy for
the project. The energy use is associated with building electricity and natural gas usage. The electricity
energy use is expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh) per size metric for each land use subtype. Natural gas use is
expressed in kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per size metric for each land use subtype.
At project build -out, the largest source of stationary GHG emissions would be electricity use. Projects that
increase electricity consumption also result in an indirect increase in GHG emissions. The electricity use
associated with the project was estimated using the 2012 rate reported in the California Climate Registry for
PG &E, which is 445 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced. The annual GHG emissions from
energy use are estimated to be 101 metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide (MT of CO2e) per years
Approximately 4 MT of CO2e per year would result from other area sources (primarily natural gas hearths).
Vehicle Use
Mobile- source GHG emissions were based on the projected trip generation rate provided by W -Trans and
used default CaIEEMod settings for all other inputs. Based on the default CalEEMod model for projects within
Sonoma County, the total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was estimated at 1,188,833 miles. Model
defaults take into account federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and Pavley I fuel
efficiency standards. Emissions of vehicle GHGs were estimated to be 488 MT CO2e per year.
6 Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that
would have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years)
November 19, 2015
1 c -37
Page 37 of 81
Water Usage
Water demand is considered an indirect source of GHG emissions because of the energy required for the
conveyance and treatment of water. CaIEEMod includes default GHG emission generation per gallon based
on average values for northern California. The estimate of GHG emissions from water consumption for the
project is 14 MT of CO2e per year.
Solid Waste Generation
Solid waste generated by the project would also contribute to GHG emissions. Treatment and disposal of
solid waste produces methane, which is a greenhouse gas. The GHG emissions from solid waste generated
by the project were estimated using CaIEEMod. The project would generate 17 MT of CO2e from solid waste
per year.
Summary GHG Emissions
Operation of the proposed project will generate GHGs directly through energy consumption and indirectly
through facilitating traffic generation. Assuming a build out date of 2017 and accounting for project generated
traffic, energy usage, solid waste generation, and water consumption, the analysis found that approximately
624 702 MT CO2e /year would be emitted. As such, the project would not exceed the bright line significance
threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e /year. Further, it was found that the per capita emissions would not exceed 2.9
MT of CO2e /year /capita which is below the threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e /year /capita. As such, GHG emissions
generated by the project during operation will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.7 (b) (GHG Plan Conflict) Less Than Significant with Mitigation: The City of Petaluma has adopted
GHG emission reduction policies and programs as part of the General Plan 2025. These policies and
programs address energy efficiency, transportation, conservation and provide for educational programs. Most
of these policies and programs do not relate directly to development projects. However, General Plan Policy
4 -P -9 does apply to the project and states, "Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots be
equipped to provide electric vehicle charging facilities." In order to ensure compliance with this General Plan
policy and ensure a less than significant impact for this criterion, Mitigation Measure GHG -1,
requiring the installation of electric charging facilities within onsite parking stalls, shall be implemented.
Additionally, the project will comply with Title 24 Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards), Cal Green
Modified Tier 1 Standards, which will help to minimize GHG emissions. No other element of the proposed
project is expected to conflict or otherwise inhibit an adopted plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, potential impacts will be reduced to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
GHG -1: In accordance with Section A4.106.8.2 of the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, the
project shall provide at least 3% of the total parking spaces as capable of supporting future electric
vehicle supply equipment. Of the spaces and equipment requirements of the California Green
Building Standards Code and as required by City of Petaluma General Plan Policy 4 -P -9, the project
shall be constructed to include electrical vehicle charging stations at a ratio of least 1% of the total
parking spaces.
Page 38 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.8. HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
Less Than
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Would the project:
Significant
with
Significant No Impact
project area?
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
Incorporated
with an adopted emergency response plan or
❑
❑
❑
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
❑
❑
® ❑
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
❑
❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
❑
❑
® ❑
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
-waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or
❑
❑
❑
proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
❑
❑
❑
result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport of
public use airport, would the project result in a
❑
❑
❑
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
❑
❑
❑
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
❑
❑
❑
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
❑
❑
❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR.
Setting:
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and waste management is implemented by a number of governmental agencies that
have established regulations regarding the proper transportation, handling, management, use, storage, and
November 19, 2015 Page 39 of 81
disposal of hazardous materials for specific operations and activities. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning
Law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a hazardous waste and substances sites
list (e.g., Cortese List).
Existing hazardous materials and /or waste within Petaluma include underground storage tanks,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and pesticides. There are approximately sixty (60) open Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites dispersed throughout the city. There are no identified "brownfield"
properties in the city. Reuse and intensified use of former industrial and commercial areas, particularly in
Central Petaluma, has the potential to expose one or more hazardous materials during demolition and /or
excavation. Remediation of these hazards is necessary before rehabilitation or construction can begin.
Hazardous waste management in Petaluma is administered by the Sonoma County Waste Management
Agency (SCWMA) through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). As required by
State law, the General Plan includes the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household
Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), Non - Disposal Facility Element (NDFE), as well as the Siting Element.
State law requires that communities form a Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) to manage the
acquisition, maintenance, and control of hazardous waste by industrial and commercial business. In
Petaluma, the Fire Marshall's Office administers the CUPA programs.
Existing Conditions
There are no hazardous waste disposal sites in the city. The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency
(SCWMA), through the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, conducts hazardous waste
management programs. A new Households Toxics Facility recently opened at the Central Landfill (500
Mecham Road, Petaluma), where households and businesses within Sonoma County can drop off hazardous
materials. In addition, community toxics collections are conducted in a different city each week by the
SCWMA. These services are available to households and businesses that qualify as small quantity
generators (i.e., generate a maximum of 100 kilograms (27 gallons or 220 pounds) or less of hazardous
waste per month). Residential pick -up service is available by appointment.
Review of available records, databases (EnviroStor and GeoTracker) and reports indicate that the project site
is located within approximately 1,000 feet of two closed LUST cases located at Big 4 Rents (1731 Lakeville
Hwy), and Baywood Shell Station (910 Baywood), and one open case, located at Metron Supergas (910
Baywood). The Metron Supergas Station is an open LUST Case and undergoing verification monitoring. An
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for a nearby project (Altura Apartments) located at the
corner of Baywood Drive and Perry Lane, by Youngdall Consulting Group in the spring of 2014. The ESA
concluded that because petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e. gasoline) generated by a leaky underground storage
tank (UST) are the only contaminant of issue at the Metron Supergas LUST Site and all identified
contaminants fell below the RWQCB Tier 1 ESL, the open case at Metron Supergas is expected to qualify for
RWQCB Low threat closure? in the foreseeable future. There is limited expectation that the subject site at 0
Marina Drive would be exposed to any contaminants or RECs by virtue of its proximity to the open LUST
Case at 910 Baywood. There is no indication that the project site contains potentially hazardous materials.
Impact Analysis:
3.8 (a -b) (Routine Transport, Upset and Accident Involving Release) Less Than Significant Impact: 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. Although there may be potentially hazardous materials onsite during construction, the
applicant will comply with all existing federal, state and local safety regulations governing the transportation,
use, handling, storage and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Once construction is complete there
will not be onsite use or generation of hazardous materials other than common household hazardous waste.
Prior to the commencement of site preparation and construction activities, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented in accordance with the
7 http: / /www.waterboards.ca.gov /water issues /programs /ust/lt_cls_pIcy.shtmI
10 -'qo
Page 40 of 81 November 19, 2015
NPDES Permit requirements. BMP includes measures to prevent spills and require onsite materials for
cleanup. Project conditions of approval specify that the applicant shall comply with all federal and state
regulations as overseen by the City of Petaluma's CUPA. 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 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 levels.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.8 (c) (Emit of Handle Within' /4 Mile of School) No Impact. The project site is located within one half mile
of Miwok Elementary School. As a residential land use, the project would not emit or handle hazardous
materials capable of impacting the school. Therefore, no impacts related to the emission or handling of
hazardous, or acutely hazardous materials, within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school are
expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.8 (d) (Government Code §65962.5 Site) No Impact. The project site is not listed as a Cortese site. There
is no indication of spills, leaks, or contaminated soils on 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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.8 (e -f) (Public and Private Airport Land Use Plan) 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 1.7 miles northeast of the project site. The project site
is not subject to any safety restrictions from an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, no
impacts associated with airport- related hazards are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.8 (g) (Impair Emergency Response Plan) 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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.8 (h) (Wildland Fire) No Impact: The project site, located in the Lakeville Planning Subarea within the UGB
and is bounded by existing commercial development. There are no wildlands located within, or adjacent to,
the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
1D -' �
November 19, 2015 Page 41 of 81
4.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
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
production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would
result in flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with Significant impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; and Preliminary Stormwater Mitigation Report, prepared by Steve Lafranchi &
Associates, August 2015; Our Coast Our Future; and Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance
Rate Map.
Io- 4z
Page 42 of 81 November 19, 2015
Setting:
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 Marina Apartment site is located adjacent to a 1,700 linear foot outfall channel west of the Parking Lot.
The outfall channel is tidally influenced and connects directly to the Petaluma River via the Petaluma Marina.
At the head of the outfall channel is a flap gate that controls drainage collected from the US 101 and
residential subdivisions to the north. As previously mentioned, the adjacent outfall channel is considered a
jurisdiction drainage feature pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Locally, this is
implemented through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit.
Requirements apply to the project's construction activities (e.g. grading, grubbing, and other site disturbance).
Construction activities on more than one acre (i.e. the project site) 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. The NPDES
General Permit requirements also address post- construction conditions resulting from development including,
but not limited to, through Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. Under LID requirements, new
development, including the project, is required to mimic pre - developed conditions, protect water quality, and
retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite.
Review of Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (Figure 8, below, panel
number 06097C1001G) identified that a portion of the project site is subject to inundation pursuant to flood
Zone AE, where base flood elevations have been determined. Based on review of the site plans the parking
lot area is within Zone AE, however the footprint of the proposed building is not located within Zone AE, rather
it is identified as Zone X (outside of the 500 -year floodplain).
Figure 8: Flood Insurance Rate Map
November 19, 2015
Io -43,
Page 43 of 81
Impact Analvsis:
3.9 (a, e, f) (Water Quality Standards, Stormwater Drainage System Capacity, Otherwise Degrade
Water Quality) Less Than Significant Impact: The mandatory requirements of the NPDES General Permit
apply to the project's construction and post- construction stormwater discharges. Prior to construction, the
project applicant is required to file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
Order No. 99- 08 -DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff
Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). Mandatory requirements cover construction activities
including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities
involving removal and replacement of impervious surfaces (e.g., asphalt). Compliance is initiated through
submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and carried out
through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP contains a site map, existing and
proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both
before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must also identify Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to protect storm water runoff.
The NPDES General Permit also includes performance standards for post- construction that are consistent
with State Water Board Resolution No. 2005 -0006, "Resolution Adopting the Concept of Sustainability as a
Core Value for State Water Board Programs and Directing Its Incorporation," and 2008 -0030, "Requiring
Sustainable Water Resources Management." In short, standards require all construction sites to match pre -
project hydrology to help ensure that the physical and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems are
sustained. This "runoff reduction" approach is analogous in principle to Low Impact Development (LID) and
serves to protect related watersheds and water bodies from both hydrologic -based and pollution impacts
associated with post- construction conditions.
The preliminary stormwater mitigation report prepared for the project addresses post- construction treatment
through the introduction of trees, removal of impervious paving, and bio- retention. Proposed stormdrains will
capture runoff and convey flows to existing infrastructure located onsite and in the vicinity. With
implementation of water quality control and wastewater discharge standards, including as they may be refined
under the mandatory provisions of the NPDES General Plan, along with the SWPPP, the subject project will
have less than significant impact relative to water quality standards.
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 ensure that there
are no other impacts to water quality due to the subject project.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.9 (b) (Groundwater Supply and Recharge) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Petaluma has
historically used surface water, groundwater, and recycled water supplies to meet customer demands.
The near -term supply strategy of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) relies on surface water
from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and recycled water from the City's Ellis Creek water
recycling facility. Groundwater is identified as a backup water supply source through the year 2035.
The City of Petaluma does not rely on groundwater as a significant portion of supply due to specific yield and
water quality limitations. Since 2000, groundwater has only been used for peak water demand needs or to
minimize short -term supply cost impacts to customer rates. For example, in 2010, only six (6) of the existing
twelve (12) active wells were used for production. Many of the groundwater wells are inactive due to low
yields, poor water quality, or deteriorating well conditions. The active wells range in production from
approximately 100 gallons per minute (GPM) to 1,063 GPM.
From 2004 to 2006, the City of Petaluma reduced its groundwater use to zero. However, groundwater use
was increased in 2007 and 2008 due to a temporary surface water supply shortage due to SCWA financial
operational constraints. The 2010 UWMP states the City of Petaluma intends to only use groundwater in the
future as emergency backup supply, peaking needs, or other short -term scenarios. While not yet determined,
this Initial Study assumes that current drought conditions may warrant the use of groundwater to supplement
existing supplies.
Ld -L�ul
Page 44 of 81 November 19, 2015
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 depleted due to the proposed development. Therefore, potential impacts to groundwater
will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.9 (c -d). (Drainage Pattern or Runoff) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not alter the
course of a stream or river. Currently, runoff sheet flows to the outfall channel and drainage inlets within the
existing parking area.
The introduction of new impervious surfaces onsite would not 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. The proposed storm drain system will accommodate new surface flows
resulting from impermeable surfaces onsite and is conditioned to be adequately sized to detain runoff from
the 100 -year flooding event. Site grading for the apartment complex will direct storm water flows to private
and public storm drain infrastructure. Stormwater runoff will be treated on -site and conveyed to public storm
drains east of the site and to the outfall channel located west of the project site, respectively.
Onsite drainage, consisting of appropriately sized pipes, is proposed to provide stormwater protection during
storm events. The general direction and pattern of drainage proposed will match pre - development conditions.
Existing storm drain facilities currently onsite and proposed as part of the project would effectively capture
and evacuate the 10 -year event from the site. New storm drain systems onsite will not contribute runoff water
that exceeds the capacity of the existing storm drain system. Therefore, impacts to the storm drain system
would be less than significant.
Additionally, a series of bio- retention areas in accordance with LID /BASMAA standards will be located along
the periphery of the new building footprint. These features will provide for the filtration and removal of
discharges from new impervious surfaces introduced by the project. The bio- retention areas are designed to
increase percolation and to remove sediment from surface flows thereby preventing erosion and siltation.
Therefore, the project will not result in a drainage pattern that causes substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site; nor will it result in flooding on- or off -site. Thus, impact to drainage and runoff would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.9 (g -i). (Flood Hazard) Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel #06097C1001G (see Figure 7 above), effective October
2, 2015, a portion of the project site is located within the 100 -year flood plain. The 100 -year floodplain,
identified as Zone AE extends into the parking lot adjacent to the outfall channel. Zone AE is subject to
inundation by the 1- percent - annual- chance flood event.
A portion of the site is also identified within Zone X, which is characterized as moderate to low flood risk areas
(also known as non - special flood hazard areas). These are areas with flood elevations that have a 0.2 percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The balance of the site is an area of minimal flood
hazard.
Due to site's elevations, the footprint of the proposed building is positioned more than 2.4 feet above the 100 -
year flood plain at it's lowest point and extends to more than 3 feet at others. As such, flooding due to the
100 -year flood event would result in less than significant impacts. The project will not place housing or
structures in a flood hazard area and, as a result, will not expose people or structures to risks related to
flooding. Therefore, no structures developed as part of the subject project would impede or redirect flows within
a 100 -year flood hazard area and any impacts would be less than significant.
to -q5
November 19, 2015 Page 45 of 81
Sea Level Rise
Due to the site's proximity to the Petaluma River and that the River is tidally influenced the site was
considered relative to sea level rise. Although the project site is located adjacent to the Petaluma River, the
finished grade is such that all proposed residential building would be well outside of the 100 -year floodplain
plus consideration of sea level rise. The project is set back from the outfall channel and the Marina, which
could exceed capacity under future sea level rise scenarios.
Sea level rise is not uniform and is largely dependent on factors such as atmospheric and oceanic circulation,
tectonics, and gravitational/ deformational effects generated by land mass changes. Sea level rise will most
directly affect areas that are on the coast. However, as a tidally influenced river, the Petaluma River will also
be affected. An extreme high tide event coupled with a storm event would result in the most elevated river
levels.
While the magnitude of sea level rise ranges widely, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) have developed Sea Level Rise projections based on 16 inches of sea level rise by mid
century (year 2050) and 55 inches of sea level rise at the end of the century (year 2100). BCDC generally
suggests that the anticipated sea level rise projections largely correspond with today's 100 -year flood zone.
Meaning that under reasonably foreseeable expectation of sea level rise, the 100 -year flood zone would be
subject to flooding not just during a 100 -year flood event, but also during high tide.
A 2010 report prepared by the National Research Council (Sea -Level Rise for the Coasts of California,
Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present and Future) estimates sea level rise south of Cape Mendocino as
approximately 24 inches by 2050 and 65.7 inches by 2100.
In an effort to provide information on the project site's susceptibility to sea level rise, Figure 8, below, has
been prepared showing the localized inundation potential assuming up to 5.7 feet (68.4 inches) of sea level
rise. Based on the projected rates of sea level rise provided by BCDC and recent National Research Council
estimates, this amount of sea level rise is not expected to occur until beyond year 2100 and is considered
speculative as future sea level rise conditions can not be presumed with a high level of confidence.
In considering sea level rise it is important to understand that FEMA's Flood Rate Insurance Map (FIRM),
which provides the current 100 -year floodplain elevations, is based on the 1988 North American Vertical
Datum (NAVD). The base flood elevation set forth on the FIRM is 9.0 feet NAVD (1988). However, the
finished site elevations are based on NGVD8 1929, which are 2.7 feet lower than NAVD 1988. Accordingly, in
order to relate the 1929 datum to the 1988 datum, a 2.7 -foot vertical datum shift must be applied. For
example, the lowest site elevation is approximately 9.7 feet, which would translate to approximately 12.4 feet
NAVD 1988. The vertical datum shift does not change the depth of the flooding hazards nor does it change
the area of 100 year flood zone. Using the 1988 datum, the finished site elevations will range from a low of
12.4 feet in the eastern portion of the site to a high of 13.6 feet at the western portion of the site. Based on the
elevation difference between the lowest finished site grade (12.4 feet) and the base flood elevation (10 feet),
a minimum of up to 2.4 feet of sea level rise could be accommodated without flooding occurring onsite.
To provide a visual representation on the project site's susceptibility to sea level rise relative to surrounding
areas, the following series of figures have been prepared that show the inundation potential from sea level
rise of 2.5 feet, 4.1 feet and 5.7 feet. In each of these scenarios, the project site remains sufficiently elevated
to avoid the direct adverse effects of sea level rise. The seal level rise scenario maps were developed from
the Our Coast Our Future website.9
8 Regulatory floodplains are defined by the elevation of the base flood in relation to the elevation of the ground. NGVD 29
stands for National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. It is a system that was used by surveyors and engineers for most of
the 20th century, but has been replaced by the more - accurate North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
9 Our Coast Our Future. "Interactive Map Tool." Online at: http: // data.prbo.org/ apps /ocof /index.php ?page= flood -map.
ID_w�
Page 46 of 81 November 19, 2015
Figure 9: Sea Level Rise Scenario Maps
C®._�1
November 19, 2015 Page 47 of 81
Figure 8 shows that the Project site is sufficiently elevated and would remain outside of the inundation area
under the various sea level rise scenarios. However, certain areas in proximity to the project site, including
the outfall channel, lands adjacent to the marina, and the nearby open space area (Alman Marsh Trail) east of
the site are subject to inundation. Under 5.7 feet of sea level rise, the project site remains sufficiently elevated
to avoid inundation of habitable structures. It should be noted that projections of sea level rise beyond 55
inches (4.58 feet) is speculative at this time and cannot be anticipated with a high level of certainty.
It should also be understood that due to the tidal nature of the Petaluma River inundation events would be
associated with high tides and floodwaters would recede during lower tides. Thus, inundation would be
periodic and temporary. Furthermore, given the time horizon there is adequate time for planning and
adaptation to occur to protect against the future effects of sea level rise.
Based on the review of the project, including its design and site elevations, the Marina Apartments Project
Site is sufficiently protected from inundation associated with rising sea levels for the foreseeable future. This
conclusion is based upon the existing 100 -year floodplain, the site's finished elevations, and projections of
future sea level rise. As shown on Figure 8, the project site remains sufficiently elevated to avoid substantial
inundation from 5.7 feet of sea level rise. Therefore, sea level rise would have a less than significant impact
on project flooding.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.9 Q). (Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow) No Impact: The project area is not subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami or mudflow. The Petaluma River would not cause inundation due to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
Therefore, there will be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
i O_L{�
Page 48 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Less Than
Less than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
Would the project:
with
Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
El
El
❑
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, specific ❑ ® ❑ ❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
natural community conservation plan?
Sources: 2025 General Plan Land Use and EIR; Figure 3.1 -2 Planning Subareas Plan; and the Petaluma Marina and
Office Complex Planned Community Development.
Setting:
The project is located within the UGB, City limits, and the General Plan's Lakeville Highway Planning
Subarea which consists of mix of a residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The General Plan
designates the project site as Mixed -Use which allows for an FAR of 2.5 and a maximum density of 30
dwelling units per net acre. The project site is zoned Planned Community Development (PCD) and is subject
to the Petaluma Marina and Office Complex PCD. As part of the project the PCD is proposed to be amended
to specifically allow for a residential land use designation at density consistent with what is currently allowed
under the General Plan Mixed -Use designation.
Impact Analysis:
3.10 (a) (Divide An Established Community) No Impact: The project proposes the development of a
currently underutilized lot that is surrounded by existing commercial /public development similar in scale and
density to the proposed apartment complex. 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 zoning amendment to allow for
residential development would not depart substantially from the surrounding established uses and will provide
continuity within the existing neighborhoods.
The Project site is located within the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (1996).The Plan requires
a pedestrian and bicycle path parallel to the Lakeville along the northern property boundary, and a pedestrian
and bicycle path along the western extents of the project site parallel to the outfall channel. The requisite
access paths were both previously constructed; a path along the northerly property line was constructed in
2002 along with parking lot improvements, whereas the off -site, westerly path, has long existed as a gravel
path along the outfall channel and was further improved in 2002. The project will retain the established paths
and maintain connectivity between the uses. Therefore, the project will have no impacts due to physically
dividing an established community.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
(O -4�
November 19, 2015 Page 49 of 81
3.10 (b) (Land Use Plan, Policy, Regulation Conflict) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The
project site is located within the Marina PCD which exhibits a General Plan Land Use Designation of Mixed
Use. The Marina PCD currently does not assume residential development and would be amended to permit
multi - family dwelling with a conditional use permit. The project would also result in the construction of a Class
I bike path within the Marina PCD at APN 005 - 060 -065.
An overall mix of commercial, office, public land uses, and residential (provided by the project) would be
consistent with the General Plan designation of Mixed -Use. As proposed the project achieves the intent of the
PCD by providing a robust mix of uses, adhering to design guidelines, and contributing to the viability of the
Marina Complex. The project's Class I bike path would implement a planned segment delineated at General
Plan Figure 5 -2 (Proposed and Existing Bicycle Facilities) and in doing so ensure consistency with General
Plan Policies 5 -P -15 5 -P -22 5 -P -25 5 -P -27 and 5 -P -31
The project would serve as infill within the Marina PCD and achieve GP 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. Further, the site is conducive to residential development based on its proximity to Hwy 101 which
encourages efficient travel. It is also within walking distance to public transit and provides access to public
recreational infrastructure including docks, public trails, and parks. The project will also strengthen the visual
and aesthetic character of a major arterial corridor (Hwy 101) through infilling on an undeveloped parcel,
thereby complying with General Plan Policy 2 -P -5. Last, the project will introduce new development between
the Marina and Lakeville Highway, which will be compatible with the existing uses and expand the current
variety of uses within the PCD thereby achieving General Plan Policy 2 -P -30.
As proposed, the project will introduce 90 90 dwelling units onto a 2.16 acre parcel. At the allowed density of
30 units to the acre, the project site could accommodate 64 units. As the project proposes an 80 -un +t 90 -unit
development, there would be a potentially significant impact due to a conflict with the allowed density. In order
to mitigate this potential impact and ensure consistency with the General Plan allowed density, Mitigation
Measure LU -1 shall be implemented.
Mitigation measure LU -1 provides a means by which to achieve the allowed density of 30 units to the acres.
This could be accomplished through any of the following means: 1) a lot line adjustment to APN 005 - 060 -089
where at least 0.51 acres are added to the subject project site, thereby increasing the total site acreage to
2.66 acres; 2) a reduction of density from 80 URits 90 units to 64 units, which is the maximum density allowed
on a 2.16 acre parcel; or 3) a density bonus granted for the provision of including affordable dwelling units
onsite.
With implementation of LU -1 the project would conform with the General Plan land use density for mixed -use
land of 30 units to the acre. Thus, the project would not conflict with regulations and policies set forth in the
Petaluma General Plan 2025, Marina PCD (as amended), or any other applicable regulation. Implementation
of mitigation measures listed throughout this document as well as LU -1 ensures consistency with applicable
land use policies, zoning requirements, and ordinances. Therefore, the project would result in less than
significant impacts due to conflicts with the City's general plan and zoning regulations.
Mitigation Measures:
LU -1: Achieve a density of not more than 30 -units per acre pursuant to the General Plan Land Use
designation of Mixed -Use through any of the following means: 1) a lot line adjustment to APN 005-
060 -072 where at least 0.51 acres are added to the subject project site, thereby increasing the total
site acreage to 2.66 acres; 2) a reduction of density from 80 units 90 units to 64 units, which is the
maximum density allowed on a 2.16 acre parcel; 3) a density bonus granted for the provision of
including affordable dwelling units onsite; or 4) other acceptable provision.
3.10 (c) (Habitat Conservation Plan) 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.
Page 50 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR.
Mineral Resources Impact Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Less than No
Significant
with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
3.11 (a -b). (Mineral Resources or Plan) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the UGB.
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.
November 19, 2015
to -5(
Page 51 of 81
4.12. NOISE
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant with Significant
Would the project result in: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general ❑ ® ❑ ❑
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ® ❑ ❑
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 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 levels?
Sources: 2025 General Plan; GP EIR; and Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, April 8,
2015.
Setting:
Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) include vehicular traffic along roadways and
Highway 101, 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 commuter rail service will contribute to noise levels within the UGB. For the
project site, vehicular traffic on nearby roadways (e.g., US 101, Lakeville Highway /SR 116, Baywood Drive) is
considered to be a potentially significant noise source.
Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) §21.040(A)(3)(a) limits noise generating construction activities 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, both the General Plan and IZO provides guidelines and standards for acceptable
levels. IZO §21.040(4)(A) 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. Allowable levels are adjusted to account
for existing ambient noise levels though the maximum allowed noise level may not exceed 75 dBA after
adjustments are made.
The General Plan applies an exterior noise level standard of 65 dB CNEL at outdoor activity areas of new
residential land uses exposed to transportation noise sources (i.e., traffic). The intent of this standard is to
provide an acceptable exterior noise environment for outdoor activities. For multi - family residential uses, such
as the proposed project, these limits are normally applied at the common outdoor activity areas. The common
�O -5�_
Page 52 of 81 November 19, 2015
outdoor activity area of this project would be the courtyard area at project frontage. The General Plan applies
an interior noise level standard of 45 dB CNEL or less within dwellings. The intent of this interior noise limit is
to provide a suitable environment for indoor communication and sleep.
Existing Noise Conditions
The existing noise environment at the Marina Apartments Project site is largely influenced by vehicular traffic
noise generated by vehicles traveling along Lakeville Highway (to the north of the project site) and U.S. 101
(to the west of the project site). In order to quantify the existing noise environment and project future noise
levels, a noise monitoring survey was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin between March 24, 2015 and March
26, 2015. The noise monitoring survey included two long term noise measurements and two short term
measurements. The measurement locations are illustrated on Figure 10 below. The purpose of the
continuous noise level survey was to determine existing traffic noise exposure on the project site in terms of
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
The long term noise measurements were taken at the northwest (LT -1) and southwest (LT -2) corners of the
project site and indicated day -night average noise levels of 70 dBA Ldp and 66 dBA, Ldp, respectively. In
addition, two short term measurements were taken at the northern portion of the site to quantify noise levels
influenced by Lakeville Highway. The short term measurements indicated a ten minute average noise level
between 57 dBA Leq and 69 dBA Leq as measured 190 feet from the centerline of Lakeville Highway and
between 57 dBA leq and 71 dBA Leq as measured 160 feet from the centerline of Lakeville Highway.
Figure 10: Noise Measurement Locations
Impact Analysis:
3.12 (a) (Noise Standards) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation:
Exterior Noise Levels
The noise environment at the project site is primarily influenced by vehicular noise generated along Lakeville
Highway and U.S. Hwy 101. In the future increased traffic along Lakeville Highway and Highway 101 could
10-S'12
November 19, 2015 Page 53 of 81
result in elevated noise levels up to 2 dBA. The noise assessment found that noise levels at first through fifth
story apartment units located adjacent to Lakeville Hwy and U.S. 101 would exceed the City of Petaluma's
"normally acceptable" noise and land use compatibility goal of 65 dBA Ldp. The outdoor courtyard, however,
will be shielded from US 101 noise and partially shielded from Lakeville Highway noise from intervening
terrain such that the noise levels in the exterior courtyard would meet the City's normally acceptable exterior
noise level limit of 65 dBA Ldp.
Interior Noise Levels
It is expected that unshielded facades of the proposed apartment building facing Lakeville Highway may be
exposed to noise levels of 72 dBA at the first floor and 73 dBA at upper floors. Typical construction
techniques generally achieve a noise reduction of 15 dBA with windows partially open and can achieve an
exterior to interior reduction of up to 25 dBA with windows closed. Since portions of the fagade would be
exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA, there is a potential that indoor noise level will not achieve the
standard of 45 dBA, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.
In order to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels, the project shall implement mitigation measure NOI -1,
which requires the incorporation of forced air mechanical ventilation systems in residential units, allowing for
windows to be closed to control for noise intrusion from Lakeville Highway and Hwy 101. Based on
preliminary calculations a standard insulated stud wall with wood exterior and sheetrock interior (STC 39) is
expected to be satisfactory. However, interior noise levels vary depending on the construction materials,
technique and final building envelope. In order to ensure that the City's noise standards are achieved,
Mitigation Measure NOI -1 also requires design level analysis demonstrating interior level of 45 -dBA or less.
Minimum STC rating of 28 and STC 30 -32 are recommended in the preliminary noise report on a unit by unit
basis. The minimum STC sound rated windows and doors as recommended would be effective in reducing
noise levels below established standard. With implementation of mitigation measure NOI -1 below, interior
noise levels can be reduced to below 45 dBA. Therefore, impacts due to exposure to excessive noise level
would be mitigated and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
NOI -1. All apartment units shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation systems in order to achieve interior
temperature controls without the need to open windows. Additionally, sound rated windows and doors
shall be required and design level acoustical analysis shall be performed showing that interior noise
levels of 45 -dBA or below are achieved.
3.12 (b) ( Groundbourne Vibration and Noise) Less Than Significant Impact: As a residential apartment
complex, the project will not introduce a substantial new source of groundbourne vibration or noise. Noise
levels are expected to be compatible with the surrounding established uses. Given the proposed use and the
existing ambient noise environment, the introduction of 30 90 new apartment units would have less than
significant impacts due to groundbourne vibration and noise.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
3.12 (c) (Ambient Noise Levels) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed long -term use of the
apartment complex is residential. This land use would not generate noise levels that would substantially
increase the ambient noise environment in the project vicinity. As an 80 uni 90 unit apartment complex, the
project would not generate enough traffic to create a perceptible change in traffic noise in the vicinity of the
project site. No substantial long -term increase in ambient noise level is expected as a result of project
implementation. The noise levels associated with the occupation of the proposed apartments are not
expected to be out of character with typical residential uses and would be similar to that of the existing uses in
the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact as it would not result in a
permanent substantial increase to the ambient noise environment.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
3.12 (d) (Temporary or Periodic Noise Increase) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The
10 - 54
Page 54 of 81 November 19, 2015
noise report prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin did not specifically evaluate construction noise levels as there
are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential
land uses located approximately 700 feet from the site.
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 apartment complex would result in temporary noise disturbances, including groundborne
vibration during site grading and development activities. Primary noise sources associated with construction
include the operation of heavy -duty construction equipment, material delivery, and haul trips. Construction
related noise impacts are typically only occasionally intrusive and cease once construction is complete.
Noise generated during construction would vary depending on the construction phase and the type and
amount of equipment used at the construction site. Based on the recommendations set forth in the
geotechnical report, it is expected that construction activities will include pile driving for deep foundations. Pile
driving is expected to occur over a two -week period and may result in occasionally intrusive noise level.
Construction activities that would generate noise include site grading, excavation, hauling of cut material,
foundation work, and to a lesser extent framing, and exterior and interior finishing. The highest noise levels
would be generated during pile driving and grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during
building construction and finishing. The following table presents typical ranges of the energy - equivalent sound
noise levels (Leq) at 50 feet, for domestic housing production.
Table 4: 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, 1973.
Typical Ranges of Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet from Construction.
Table 4 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.
When demolition, ground clearing, excavation, paving, pile driving and foundation work are occurring, noise
levels may be occasionally intrusive. Although not expected to impact sensitive receptors due their location,
more than 700 feet from the site, the nearby commercial and hotel uses will be exposed to elevated noise
levels during construction that may occasionally be intrusive. In an effort to minimize noise generated by
construction activities, the project shall implement NOI -2 below which requires compliance with the City of
Petaluma Noise Ordinance including limits on the hours of construction, provisions to properly muffle and
maintain construction equipment, limit vehicle idling time, and shield /screen equipment to reduce noise
attenuation, amongst others. Adherence to NOI -2 below will ensure that potential noise impacts due to
temporary construction noise and /or groundborne vibration are reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure:
NOI -2. Construction activities shall comply with the following measures and all shall be noted on construction
documents:
1. Construction Hours /Scheduling: The following are required to limit construction activities to the
portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent sensitive receptors are lowest:
a. Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction
I D-55'
November 19, 2015 Page 55 of 81
equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, 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 Marina and Hotel. Acoustically
shield such equipment when it must be located near other occupied uses.
5. Quiet Equipment Selection: Select quiet construction 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. Generators: No generators shall be utilized during nighttime hours (Le., sunrise to sunset) to
power equipment (e.g., security surveillance) when normal construction activities have ceased for
the day. All such equipment should be powered through temporary electrical service lines.
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.
3.12 (e -f) (Airport Noise) 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.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
0-5b
Page 56 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant with
Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
p
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
❑
❑
®
❑
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
❑
❑
❑
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
❑
❑
❑
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; City of Petaluma 2015 -2023 Housing Element,
Setting:
The 2025 General Plan contemplates 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 W 90 new market rate dwelling units. The project site is not identified on the City of
Petaluma Residential Land Inventory Opportunity Sites, Appendix A to the City of Petaluma 2015 -2023
Housing Element, prepared December 2014. Nonetheless, the introduction of 80 90 new market rate rental
apartments would add to the City's housing stock.
Impact AnalVsis:
3.13 (a) (Substantial Growth) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located within the UGB and
will not directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. The project proposes the construction of 80 90
residential units on an underutilized site. The projected population does not constitute a substantial increase
and remains sufficiently below the General Plan 2025 population projections. The proposed apartment
complex is substantially surrounded by existing development and serves as one of the few remaining
undeveloped parcels within the Marina PCD. As such the project 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 and will not extend services to areas where services were previously
unavailable. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts related to growth inducement.
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.13 (b -c) (Housing or Person Displacement) No Impact: At present the project site is vacant except for a
paved parking lot around the periphery of the site. The Project will not displace any existing housing units or
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project helps to implement the
City's Housing Element by contributing 90 90 at 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.
10-5-7
November 19, 2015 Page 57 of 81
4.14. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant with Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
c) Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
d) Parks?
❑
❑
®
❑
e) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
Sources: 2025 General Plan And EIR.
Setting:
The City of Petaluma charges one -time impact fees on new private development in order to offset the cost of
improving or expanding City facilities to accommodate the demand generated by new development. Impact
fees are used to fund the construction or expansion of needed capital improvements. Petaluma also collects
impact fees for open space, parkland, and other amenities. Development impact fees are necessary in order
to finance required public facilities and service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of
the costs of the required public facilities and service improvements.
Impact Analysis:
3.14 (a -b) (Fire & Police Protection) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located in the
Lakeville Planning Subarea in an existing Mixed -Use area that is well served by public services. The increase
in residents resulting from the proposed Marina Apartment Complex may provide for a slight increase in
demand for police and fire service. However, new demands on fire and police service have been previously
anticipated as part of General Plan build out and are accounted for with the Fire Suppression Facilities impact
fee and Law Enforcement Facilities Fee that are intended to offset the impacts of growing demand for fire and
policing 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 1.5 miles from Fire Station 2, at 1001 N.
McDowell Boulevard at Corona Road. 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.
)o—G$
Page 58 of 81 November 19, 2015
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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.14 (c) (Schools) 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 Old Adobe Elementary School
District and in close proximity to Miwok Valley Elementary School. The General Plan projects that the Old
Adobe Elementary School District will experience a minimal increase in enrollment, but that projected
enrollment would not exceed the existing capacity of the public elementary schools located within the city
limits. Overall, the projected enrollment for public elementary schools would decline and would utilize 93.9
percent of current capacity. Based on current capacities sufficient school facilities are in place to
accommodate any minor increase in enrollment associated with development of the Marina Apartments. The
project is subject to the payment of statutory school impact fees to offset any cumulative impacts on the
school system. Therefore, the proposed Project will have less than significant impacts to schools.
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.14 (d) (Parks) Less Than Significant Impact: The City has adopted a citywide parks standard of 5 acres
of parkland per 1,000 residents. Miwok Park is located approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site,
Rocky Memorial Dog Park is located approximately 0.8 miles east of the project site, and Schollenberger Park
is approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. All the parks provide recreational opportunities to
future residences. The Marina Apartment Complex, proposing the construction of 99 90 units comprised of
one, two and three bedroom dwellings 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 project will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.14 (e) (Other Public Facilities) 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 Mixed -Use
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. Therefore, no impacts
related to other public facilities are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
� 0-5)
November 19, 2015 Page 59 of 81
4.15. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial ❑
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an ❑
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Sources: 2025 General Plan: Fiqure 6 -1 Parks and Open Space; and EIR.
Settinq:
Less Than
Significant Less than
with Significant No Impact
Mitigation Impact
❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑
The City of Petaluma contains approximately 1,400 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.
Impact Analysis:
3.15 (a) (Park Deterioration) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project may result in a minimal
increase in the use of nearby parks which include Miwok Park, Rocky Memorial Dog Park, Schollenberger
Park, and designated open space areas; all of which are located within approximately 1.5 miles of the project
site. The nearby parks have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional use by new residents. Increased
patronage to Rocky Memorial, Miwok, and Schollenberger, open space areas, and /or other parks within the
UGB 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 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.15 (b) (Recreation Facilities) No Impact: The project does not include active recreational facilities and
does not require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities. There is an existing public gravel path
located along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to the outfall channel. There are no improvements proposed
to this public path, which will remain accessible to the public including new residents onsite. 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.
(,0 -bo
Page 60 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant with Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
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
transit and non - motorized travel and relevant ❑ ❑ ® ❑
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
❑
❑
❑
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
❑
❑
❑
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
❑
®
❑
❑
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
®
❑
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
❑
®
❑
❑
safety of such facilities?
Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; GP Figure 5 -1; Traffic Study prepared by W- Trans, May 7, 2015; and revised
July 29, 2015, with subsequent memo, Marina Apartments Traffic Study Additional Baseline Project, provided
November 2, 2015; and Shared Parking Analysis for the Marina Apartments Project prepared by W- Trans, May 6, 2015
and revised July 29, 2015; Traffic and Parking Implications of the Marina Apartments Project with 90 Units prepared by
W- Trans, January 25, 2016.
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 92,000 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 provides the following policies with regard to mobility:
Policy 5 -P -8 The priority of mobility is the movement of people within the community including the
preservation of quality of life and community character.
A. Develop formal transportation impact analysis guidelines that consider multi -modal
t0_� I
November 19, 2015 Page 61 of 81
impacts of new developments.
B. Develop and adopt multi -modal level of service standards that examine all modes and
vary the standards by facility type to imply a preference to selected modes based upon
the context (including street type and location).
C. LOS analysis data shall utilize the peak hour (60 minutes) rather than the peak period (15
minutes) for determining intersection LOS.
Policy 5 -P -10 Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that
ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be
maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project.
A. A lower Level of Service may be deemed acceptable, by the City, in instances where the
City finds that potential vehicular traffic mitigations (such as adding additional lanes or
modifying signal timing) would conflict with the Guiding Principles of the General Plan,
particularly with regard to:
• Guiding Principle #2. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character.
• Guiding Principle #6. Provide a range of attractive and viable transportation
alternatives, such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit.
Guiding Principle #7. Enhance Downtown by preserving its historic character,
increasing accessibility, and ensuring a broad range of business and activities and
increasing residential activities.
The above does not relieve any need to mitigate development related impacts, which may
include multi -modal improvements to reduce identified impacts.
Because the City of Petaluma has not implemented General Plan Policy 5 -P -8, this Initial Study addressed
LOS with respect to passenger vehicles only. When assessing the LOS of passenger vehicles, this Initial
Study applies the following thresholds of significance of the General Plan EIR:
City Roadway and Intersection Impact Criteria
Traffic impacts are identified as significant if the project would cause:
1. Operations (LOS) at a signalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS C or better)
under conditions without the project to an unacceptable level (LOS D, E, or F);
2. For signalized intersections that operate at an LOS D or E under conditions without the project, the LOS
to deteriorate to the next lowest level;
3. For signalized intersections operating at LOS F without the project, any additional vehicle trips to the
intersection;
4. For unsignalized intersections operating acceptably (LOS C or better) under conditions without the
project, the LOS to deteriorate to unacceptable (LOS D, E, or F) conditions AND the traffic volumes at the
intersection would satisfy the Caltrans peak -hour volume warrant criteria for traffic signal installation; or
5. For unsignalized intersections operating at unacceptable levels (LOS D, E, or F) under conditions without
the project, average delay to increase by five or more seconds AND the traffic volumes at the intersection
would satisfy the Caltrans peak -hour volume warrant criteria for traffic signal installation.
.r
Page 62 of 81 November 19, 2015
U.S. 101 Impact Criteria
Significant traffic impacts on freeway segments are identified as when a project causes:
1. The volume on the freeway segment to exceed its capacity (Cause LOS E or better to deteriorate to LOS
F); or
2. An increase in the amount of traffic on a freeway segment already exceeding its capacity by more than
one percent of the freeway segment's design capacity.
Existing Conditions
Passenger Vehicles
The project is located east of U.S. 101 and south of Lakeville Highway, in the northwest corner of the
Petaluma Marina. The Lakeville Highway /SR 116 is a regional roadway owned /maintained by Caltrans. The
Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the project addresses LOS at the following six (6) study intersections:
1. Lakeville Street/East Washington Street
2. Lakeville Street/D Street
3. Lakeville Street/Caulfield
4. Lakeville Highway /US 101 South Ramps
5. Lakeville Highway /US 101 North Ramps
6. Lakeville Highway /Baywood Drive
The location of these study intersection in relation to the project is shown at Figure 11 below. The existing
LOS for each study intersection without the project is shown at Table 5 below.
Figure 11: LOS Study Intersections for Project
tco " (�3
November 19, 2015 Page 63 of 81
ITable
5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION L:EVELS,OF SERVICE
AM Peak
L PM Peak
Study Intersection
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1.
Lakeville SUE Washington St
33.1
C
39.0
D
2.
Lakeville St/D St
42.8
D
35.9
D
3.
Lakeville St/Caulfield St
30.6
C
28.1
C
4.
Lakeville Hwy /US 101 South Ramps
33.3
C
34.8
C
5.
Lakeville Hwy /US 101 North Ramps
10.7
B
33.8
C
6.
Lakeville Hwy / Baywood Dr
16.0
B
19.4
B
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments
by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service.
In addition to the six study intersections, the project's TIS also addressed the following freeway segments of
the US 101: (a) East Washington Boulevard to Lakeville Highway; and (b) Lakeville Highway to Petaluma
Boulevard South. Existing peak period volumes for these segments without the project are shown at Table 6
below.
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015.
Notes: 2013 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System, Traffic Data Branch, Caltrans.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions
and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks,
crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the project.
Pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site include:
Lakeville Highway (SR -116) — Sidewalks existing along the site's frontage to Lakeville Highway. A
sidewalk on one or both sides of Lakeville Highway provides for connectivity towards downtown.
• Class I Trail - There is an existing Class I trail along the site's frontage, south of Lakeville Highway. The
Class I trail extends along the northern portion of the site and terminates at Baywood Drive. There is
currently a gap in the sidewalk between the Class I trail and the sidewalk present along Baywood Drive. A
pedestrian crosswalk is currently lacking where the Class I trail intersects with the westernmost driveway
access off of Lakeville Highway.
10 - (OW
Page 64 of 81 November 19, 2015
Bicycle Facilities
In the project area, existing bicycle facilities are located on Baywood Drive, north of Lakeville Highway. Lakeville
Highway currently lacks bicycle lanes, however, the City Bike and Pedestrian Plan identifies Class II On Street
bike lanes as proposed facilities along this roadway. A Class II On Street bike lane is a striped and signed lane
for one -way bike travel on a street or highway.
A Class II Off Street bike lane indicates a trail that is separate from the street's right -of -way. A Class II Off Street
facility is proposed in conjunction with the SMART corridor through the City of Petaluma. Bicyclists ride in the
roadway and /or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area.
Transit Facilities
Three separate transit agencies provide regular service to the City of Petaluma: Petaluma Transit, Sonoma
County Transit, and Golden Gate Transit.
• Petaluma Transit — provides fixed route bus service in the City of Petaluma. Route 24 provides loop
service to destinations throughout the City with stops near the project site at Lakeville Highway /Marina
Avenue and Baywood Drive /St. Francis Drive. Route 24 operates Monday through Friday with
approximately one hour headways between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
• Sonoma County Transit — provides regional service between Petaluma and surrounding communities.
Route 40, which travels between the City of Petaluma and City of Sonoma, has stops on Lakeville
Highway at Baywood Drive and operates Monday through Friday during morning and evening peak hours
with approximately 30 to 90 minute headways between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM.
• Golden Gate Transit — provides regional service between communities in the North Bay Area and San
Francisco. Route 76 is a commuter bus route operating Monday through Friday that heads toward San
Francisco during the morning peak period and toward Petaluma during the evening commute with
approximately one - half -hour headways and has stops at the Lakewood Highway Park and Ride.
Two bicycles can be carried on most Petaluma Transit, Sonoma County and Golden Gate Transit buses. Bike
rack usage is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on Petaluma Transit buses at
the discretion of the driver. Dial -a -ride, known as paratransit, or door -to -door service, is available for those who
are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Paratransit is designed
to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Petaluma and the greater Petaluma area.
Baseline Conditions
The project's TIS addresses a Baseline Condition to reflect the addition of traffic associated with known
projects that may be constructed and /or become operational in the study area in the next two to three years.
Potential projects included in the Baseline Condition are either approved or have filed a development
application. Project traffic associated with these projects was added to the Existing Conditions scenario in
order to determine Baseline Condition volumes.
As shown in Table 7 below, under the Baseline Condition without the project, it is expected that all of the
study intersections will operate at LOS D or better.
�0 -( "5
November 19, 2015 Page 65 of 81
Study Intersection
AM Peak 1
PM
Peak
Delay J1
LOS
11 Delay 11
LOS
1. Lakeville SUE Washington St
45.0
D
54.1
D
2. Lakeville St/D St
44.2
D
38.6
D
3. Lakeville St/Caulfield Ln
33.5
C
33.3
C
4. Lakeville Hwy /US 101 South Ramps
34.1
C
34.1
C
5. Lakeville Hwy /US 101 North Ramps
13.9
B
38.1
D
6. Lakeville Hwy /Baywood Dr
18.9
B
21.6
C
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated May 7, 2015.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service.
Future Conditions
The project's TIS presents a Future Condition in order to review the correlation between the project and
Petaluma General Plan. The General Plan was developed with a horizon year of 2025. However, due to
changes in economic conditions since the General Plan was completed in 2008, it is expected that build -out
of the General Plan land uses would occur after 2025.
East Washington Street/Lakeville Street was identified in the City's General Plan as operating acceptably
under future conditions. However, recent safety - related changes to the signal phasing have reduced
efficiency, resulting in projected LOS E operation in the future during the p.m. peak period. The addition of
through lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches would bring level of service up to acceptable D.
The intersections of East D Street/Lakeville Street and Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane were studied in the
City's General Plan. It was determined in the General Plan that no feasible improvements would achieve
acceptable operation without adversely affecting multimodal circulation, therefore, unacceptable operation at
these intersections has been deemed significant and unavoidable in the City's General Plan EIR, and no
improvements such as roadway widening are suggested.
As shown in Table 8 below, under the Future Condition without the project, it is expected that all of the study
intersections will operate at LOS D or better with the exception of Lakeville Street/East Washington Street,
Lakeville Street/D Street and Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane. All three of these intersections are expected to
operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
[0-(4
Page 66 of 81 November 19, 2015
Study Intersection
AM Peak
�� PM
Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1. Lakeville SUE Washington St
44.3
D
74.8
E
2. Lakeville St/D St
40.6
D
63.4
E
3. Lakeville St/Caulfield Ln
51.8
D
67.2
E
4. Lakeville Hwy /US 101 South Ramps
31.4
C
34.4
C
5. Lakeville Hwy /US 101 North Ramps
13.7
B
33.8
C
6. Lakeville Hwy /Baywood Dr
20.3
C
21.0
C
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation
Imaact Analvsis:
3.16 (a) (Plan, Policy, Ordinance: Circulation System) Less Than Significant Impact: As mentioned in
the setting section above, the project's TIS evaluates effects on LOS at six (6) study intersections for three
scenarios: Existing Conditions, Baseline Conditions, and Future Conditions. It also addresses the project's
potential effect on two freeway segments at US 101. The following narrative summarizes the outcome of that
LOS analysis.
The project will generate an average of 532 trips per day including 41 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 50
trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Existing Conditions /Existing Plus Project
Study Intersections
As shown at Table 9 below, with the addition of project - related traffic to the Existing Conditions scenario, all
study intersections are expected to operate at an LOS D or better. Therefore, for the Existing Conditions
scenario, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
US 101 Study Segments
The portions of US 101 between East Washington Boulevard and Lakeville Highway and Lakeville Highway and
Petaluma Boulevard South currently carry 92,000 vehicles per day. The Existing plus Project scenario
represents the most conservative scenario of project - related impacts since project trips make up a larger
percentage of the existing overall volumes on the highway compared to future scenarios. Table 10 shows how
many vehicles travel through each study segment during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods under Existing and
Existing plus Project conditions.
As shown at Table 10 below, project - related trips would increase overall directional volumes on either of the two
freeway study segments during the peak hours by no more than 0.2 percent. This is less than the 1.0%
threshold set by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would result in a less- than - significant impact
relative to freeway segments at the US 101.
10 - ��
November 19, 2015 Page 67 of 81
i
TABLE 9: EXISTING "AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR'LEVELS OF SERVICE
i
Existing Conditions
Existing plus Project
Study Intersection
AM Peak PM Peak
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Delay LOS Delay Fosll
1. Lakeville St / East Washington St
33.1
C
39.0
D
33.2
C
39.4
D
2. Lakeville St / D St
42.8
D
35.9
D
42.7
D
35.8
D
3. Lakeville St / Caulfield Ln
30.6
C
28.1
C
30.5
C
28.4
C
4. Lakeville Hwy / US101 South Ramps
33.3
C
34.8
C
33.1
C
34.7
C
35-.9
5. Lakeville Hwy / US101 North Ramps
10.7
B
33.8
C
10.8
B
D
36.0
4-&.-G
6. Lakeville Hwy / Baywood Dr
16.0
B
19.4
B
B
C
18.2
20.7
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015; Traffic and Parking Implications of the
Marina Apartments Protect with 90 Units by W- Trans, dated January 25, 2016.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service
N13 Volume ( S13 Peak
US 101 Segment AM Peak PM Peak IFAM Peak PM Peak
Vol. %Inc Vol. %Inc Vol. %Inc Vol. %Inc
East Washington Blvd - Lakeville Hwy
Existing 3,950 1 14,930 1 14,850 1 13,870
Existing + Project 3,957 0.2% 4,934 0.1% 4,852 0.0% 1 3,876 0.2%
Lakeville Hwy - Petaluma Blvd S
Existing 1 3,550 1 14,420 1 1 4,350 1 1 3,480 1 1
Existing + Project 3,552 1 0.1 % 14,430 10.2% 1 4,360 1 0.2% 1 3,485 1 0.1
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015: Traffic and Parking Implications of the Marina
Apartments Protect with 90 Units by W- Trans, dated January 25, 2016.
[0-6%
Page 68 of 81 November 19, 2015
Baseline Conditions/ Baseline plus Project Conditions
The Baseline Plus project Conditions as presented in the TIS is supplemented with a memo from W -Trans
titled the "Marina Apartments Traffic Study Additional Baseline Project," dated November 2, 2015, which
accounts for trip contributions from an additional project, Cader Corporate Center, that was not reflected in
the TIS.
As shown at Table 11 below, with the addition of project - related traffic to the Baseline Conditions scenario,
the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Therefore, for the Baseline
Conditions scenario, the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Future Conditions/ Future plus Project Conditions
As shown at Table 12 below, with the addition of project - generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes,
all but three of the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably. The intersections that are not
projected to operate acceptably under Future plus Project conditions are the same ones that are projected to
operate unacceptably under Future conditions without the project.
10 - j,
November 19, 2015 Page 69 of 81
Table 12. FUTURE AND FUTURE
PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE' -.
Study Intersection
Future Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Future plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay [LOS] Delay LOS
1. Lakeville St / East Washington St
44.3
D
74.8
E
44.5
D
75.3
E
2. Lakeville St / D St
40.6
D
63.4
E
40.6
D
63.6
E
3. Lakeville St / Caulfield Ln
51.8
D
67.2
E
51.7
D
67.4
E
4. Lakeville Hwy / US101 South Ramps
31.4
C
34.4
C
31.5
C
34.5
C
5. Lakeville Hwy / US101 North Ramps
13.7
B
33.8
C
13.8
B
33.3
C
6. Lakeville Hwy / Baywood Dr
20.3
C
21.0
C
22.0
C
23.2
C
Source: Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments by W- Trans, dated July 29, 2015._; Traffic and Parking Implications of the
Marina Apartments Proiect with 90 Units by W- Trans, dated January 25, 2016.
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation
For the intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Ln and Lakeville Street/D Street, the outcome identified in
the project's TIS is consistent with that anticipated by the General Plan EIR which identified each intersection
operating at LOS E in the PM peak. When considering the LOS at those intersections, the General Plan EIR
also determined that installing additional lanes or expanding capacity at those locations would conflict with
proposed General Plan goals and policies related to improving multi -modal circulation and preserving the
pedestrian environment of Central Petaluma. In response, no mitigation measures were identified and the
General Plan EIR was certified with these LOS results as a significant and unavoidable impact.
The project analyzed in this Initial Study is consistent with the planned residential density of the General Plan
and would contribute vehicle trips to the. roadway network at a volume consistent with that anticipate by the
General Plan EIR, for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Thus, no further mitigation
is necessary or required.
East Washington Street/Lakeville Street was identified in the City's General Plan as operating acceptably
under future conditions (i.e., at LOS D in PM peak). However, recent safety - related changes to the signal
phasing have reduced efficiency, resulting in projected LOS E operation in the future during the PM peak
period. The addition of through lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches would bring level of
service up to acceptable D. However, such a capacity improvement at this location would appear contrary to
the City's General Plan. Regardless, as shown at Table 12, the intersection would operate at an
unacceptable LOS E without the project. Furthermore, under the Baseline plus Project condition, the project
would not cause the intersection to deteriorate to the next lowest level. Therefore, the project would result in a
less than significant impact with regard to LOS at this intersection.
Mitigation Measures: None required
3.16 (b) (Congestion Management Plan) No Impact: Sonoma County opted out of performing Congestion
Management Plans in 1997. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways. No further analysis of this issue is required.
[0 -eto
Page 70 of 81 November 19, 2015
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.16 (c) (Air Traffic Patterns) 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.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.16 (d) (Design Feature Hazard) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The project is currently
accessed via an existing right- turn -in driveway on Lakeville Highway approximately 540 feet west of Baywood
Drive and an existing full access driveway on Baywood Drive approximately 230 feet south of Lakeville
Highway. The driveway from Lakeville Highway is accessed via a 315 foot long deceleration lane and would
be maintained under the proposed project. The 2012 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Table 405.28
indicates that the length of the deceleration lane is in substantial conformance with a 40 -mph design speed,
such as Lakeville Highway. Therefore, the project would not introduce a design hazard at this location as
sufficient distance is provided for deceleration.
At driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting to
cross or enter the street and the driver of a vehicle approaching on that street. Adequate time must be
provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross, turn left, or turn right, without requiring the through traffic to
radically alter their speed. The project's TIS evaluates sight distances at the Baywood Drive project driveway
based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans.
The recommended sight distances for driveways are based on stopping sight distance, which use the
approach travel speed as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Although sight distance
requirements are not technically applicable to urban driveways, the stopping sight distance criterion for private
street intersections was applied for evaluation purposes. Baywood Drive, with a design speed of 25 mph,
requires a minimum stopping sight distance needed of 150 feet. The sight distance from the project driveway
location is adequate for outbound vehicles at approximately 185 feet to the left and 400 feet to the right, which
is sufficient to meet the minimum standard of 150 feet.
Although the distance is adequate, existing or proposed landscaping could obstruct line of site if not properly
maintained. As such, it is recommended that landscaping be trimmed such that tree canopies are at least
seven feet above the ground; other landscaping should be limited to low -lying vegetation no greater than
three feet in height. In addition, signs and monuments planned along Baywood Drive should be placed in a
manner that does not obstruct sight distance at the project driveway. Because the project includes
landscaping and possibly signage at locations that could potentially obstruct sight lines, this is considered a
potentially significant impact. In order to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, Mitigation
Measure TRAF -1 is required.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 sufficient site distance will be maintained and impacts
relate to site design hazards will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
TRAF -1 In order to maintain sufficient site distance, all landscaping, signs, and monuments located in the
vicinity of ingress /egress points shall be maintained such that tree canopies are trimmed to at least
seven feet above the ground and other landscaping shall be limited to low -lying vegetation no greater
than three feet in height. Any signage, inclusive of monument signage along Marina Apartments
project frontage, should further be placed such that it does not obstruct or inhibit site distance.
3.16 (e) (Emergency Access) Less Than Significant Impact: The project's internal circulation plan has
been reviewed and meets all conditions imposed by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. Site
circulation was determined to be adequate, including sufficient drive aisle widths to allow for fire truck turn
around and access. Therefore, emergency vehicle access is adequate and potential impacts due to a conflict
with emergency access will be less than significant.
November 19, 2015 Page 71 of 81
Mitigation Measures: None required.
3.16 (f) (Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian Facilities) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Given the
site location, it is reasonable to assume that some project residents will walk, bicycle, and /or utilize transit for
trips to and from the project site.
Facilities for alternative modes of transportation are well established in the project vicinity. However, the
introduction of a residential component to the Mixed -Use area warrant consideration of the adequacy of
facilities. In order to ensure that the project does not decrease performance or safety of the existing
alternative transportation facilities, several improvements are required as detailed below.
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the sites proximity to retail areas located west and south of the project site it is likely that future
residents will favor alternative forms of transport to access nearby retail facilities. At present, sidewalks exist
along the project's frontage on Lakeville Highway and there is an existing Class 1 multi -use path along the
northern portion of the project site that commences at the Lakeville Highway driveway and terminates just
short of Baywood Drive. As analyzed herein, the project would extend this Class I path from Baywood Drive to
Marina Avenue.
To supplement the existing pedestrian facilities, and provide for connectivity, Mitigation Measure TRAF -2 shall
be implemented. TRAF -2 provides that the current gap in the pedestrian trail (between the terminus of the
Class I facility and the existing sidewalk along Baywood Drive be corrected. TRAF -2 will include the
installation of a sidewalk extension for a length of approximately 80 feet along the west side of Baywood Drive
and between the Bank of Marin and proposed Marina Apartments.
Additionally, the driveway access off of Lakeville Highway intersects with the Class I Off Street Trail at the
northwest portion of the project site. The introduction of residence onsite has the potential to result in
increased pedestrian traffic at this location. In order to ensure that safety is preserved, mitigation measure
TRAF -3 provides for the installation of pedestrian crosswalk at the right -turn in only driveway off of Lakeville
Highway.
With the introduction of crosswalk and closure of the gap in the pedestrian network, pursuant to Mitigation
Measure TRAF -2 and TRAF -3, potential impacts associated pedestrian access will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Bicvcle Facilities
At present, there are bike lanes on Baywood Drive, planned bike lanes on Lakeville Highway, a proposed
Class I bike path between Baywood Drive and Marina Avenue, and a planned trail along the SMART corridor,
which will provide adequate access to the site for bicyclists. On -site, covered, bicycle parking is provided at a
rate of 10 percent of required automobile parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires that all bike parking be
covered with at least 60% of the spaces secured. However, this provision is intended to apply to retail or
commercial facilities. The project does not proposed secured bike parking based on the assumption that
future residents will be able to secure their bicycles in their apartments. The project will provide for 16 covered
bicycle spaces. The proposed bicycle facilities are expected to adequately serve the project. Therefore, the
project would have less than significant impacts related to bicycle facilities.
Public Transit
Petaluma transit provides local and regional public transportation throughout the City via dedicated bus stops
and planned routes. Sonoma County transit (SCT) local route 40 provides loop service to destinations
throughout Petaluma and the larger Sonoma County. On a local level, Petaluma transit's local route 24
provides service throughout southwest and central Petaluma. Dial -a -ride (paratransit) provides door to door
service and is available to those unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental
disability. In order to promote the use of public transit and improve transit accessibility for future residents the
project shall be required to construct or contribute funds toward the construction of one or more bus shelters
) 0 - -1)_
Page 72 of 81 November 19, 2015
at the adjacent bus stop at Lakeville Hwy/ Baywood Drive as required per Mitigation Measure TRAF -5. With
implementation of TRAF -4 potential impacts due to inadequate transit services would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Alternative Transit Summary
The Project conforms to adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, and would not decrease the performance of such facilities. Proposed facilities include sidewalks
along project frontage and connectivity to adjacent pedestrian paths in the project vicinity and the
enhancement of public transit facilities as prescribed per mitigation measures TRAF -2 through TRAF -4. With
the implementation of these mitigation measures all modes of transportation including transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian are expected to adequately serve the project and nothing about the project will decrease the
performance or safety of existing alternative transportation facilities. Therefore, potential impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
TRAF -2 The applicant shall construct an approximately 80 foot sidewalk to close the existing gap between
the terminus of the existing Class I facility and existing sidewalk along Baywood Drive.
TRAF -3 The applicant shall install a pedestrian crosswalk along the Class I Off Street Path where it
intersects with the right -only driveway at the northwest portion of the project site.
TRAF -4 The applicant shall construct and /or contribute funds toward bus stop enhancements at the
existing stops at Lakeville Highway / Baywood Drive at a rate commensurate with the installation of
one or more transit shelters.
10-13
November 19, 2015 Page 73 of 81
4.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less inan
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
❑
❑
®
❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
❑
❑
®
❑
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
❑
❑
®
❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
❑
❑
®
❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
El
E]
®
F-1
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
E]
El
®
F-1
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
El
E]
®
El
regulations related to solid waste?
Sources: 2025 GP and EIR; Water Resource and Conservation
2010 UWMP; and Sonoma
County Water
Agency 2010
UWMP.
Settings:
The City's water supply is sourced from the Russian River Water System and supplemented with local
groundwater. Water from the Russian River Water System is obtained via the Petaluma Aqueduct through a
contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The City's Water Resource and Conservation
Division (WR &C) provides municipal water service to approximately 60,000 customers and therefore must
comply with the Urban Water Management Plan Act, which requires the preparation of an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. The most recent UWMP prepared for the WR &C was completed
for the 2010 cycle and was adopted on June 6, 2011.
The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) updates information from General Plan 2025
background and environmental documents and extended the term of water demand analysis through 2035.
The 2010 UWMP was determined to be consistent with the General Plan 2025. The UWMP includes a water
supply /demand analysis based on population trends and land uses set forth in the 2025 General Plan, the
City's existing water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water
recycling and water conservation programs.
Page 74 of 81 November 19, 2015
SCWA adopted its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan on June 21, 2011. The SCWA holds water right
permits for the diversion of surface water from the Russian River with a limit of 75,000 acre -feet per year.
Instream flow requirements have also been established to protect fish and wildlife species and recreation.10
Based on regional water supply availability, the SCWA expects to be able to increase annual water deliveries
to Petaluma from approximately 7,200 acre -feet (AC -FT) in 2010 to 11,400 AC -FT by 2035.
Based on the evaluation of future Russian River supply including, minimum in- stream flow requirements,
SCWA expects to obtain water rights approvals necessary to increase its total diversions above 75,000 acre -
feet per year (AC- FT/YR) by 2027 and to 80,000 AC -FT/YR by 2035. This assumption is based on the most
likely outcome of decisions by regulatory agencies and implementation of the Restructured Agreement
(executed in 2006) and proposed improvements to the water delivery system.
To assure that the City of Petaluma has sufficient water supplies to meet increased water demand, the
General Plan requires routine monitoring of water supplies against actual use and evaluation for each new
development project (see Policy 8 -P -4).
Severe Drouaht Conditions
On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown proclaimed a state of emergency to exist through the State of
California due to severe drought conditions. On April 25, 2014, Governor Brown issued a follow -up
proclamation declaring a continued state of emergency throughout the State of California due to the ongoing
drought. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B -29 -15 and, in doing so, imposed
requirements on state resources agencies that will save water, increase enforcement to prevent wasteful
water use, streamline the state's drought response and invest in new technologies that will make California
more drought - resilient.
On March 17, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted emergency regulations for
water conservation." Those regulations were subsequently updated in response to Executive Order B -29 -15
and, as approved by the SWRCB, are intended to increase water conservation in urban settings by 25%
statewide. For the City of Petaluma, the SWRCB established a 16% reduction in annual per capita water use.
Based on monthly water use reports provided to the SWRCB, the City of Petaluma has exceeded that
mandate; i.e., between June 2014 and May 2015, water by residential customers decreased by 33.56 %.
On June 1, 2015, the Petaluma City Council adopted a resolution pursuant to the SWRCB directive and which
implements a Stage 2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In addition to furthering mandates of the SWRCB,
the City of Petaluma is also pursuing a host of other measures to increase water conservation (e.g., public
outreach, rebates and incentives) and will soon consider amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 15.17
(Water Conservation Regulations).
Wastewater Treatment
The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and
unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The collection system is comprised of more than
190 miles of underground piping and nine (9) pump stations. The Facility's treatment capacity is about 6.7
million gallons per day (average dry weather flow). The facility treats approximately five (5) million gallons per
day, leaving approximately 1.7 million gallons in available treatment capacity. During the summer, recycled
water is introduced to the City's recycled water system and is used for irrigation of approximately 800 acres of
agricultural lands, two golf courses, and a vineyard. In the winter, secondary treated wastewater is conveyed
to the Petaluma River.
Storm Water
Within the City of Petaluma storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks,
10 State Water Resources Control Board: Decision No. 1610 ( http:// www. waterboards.ca.gov /waterrights)
11 Office of Administrative Law File No. 2015 - 0320 -01 EE.
10 - -15
November 19, 2015 Page 75 of 81
and buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This
water is untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels
and sediment. The City has implemented a storm drain - labeling program to provide a visual reminder that
storm drains are for rainwater only. The City's Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, set
forth in Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal Code, 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 -33A: Any project within an area subject to inundation in a 1% (100 -year) storm event shall include site
specific analysis of impacts and identification of mitigations.
8- P -37J: Projects may construct detention /retention facilities as mitigation for surface water impacts, so
long as the improvements result in an improvement to the pre - project conditions by way of a net
reduction in storm water elevations and downstream flows.
As mentioned in the hydrology section above, a portion of the project site is located within a flood hazard area
and, underwent review and consideration, in accordance with General Plan Policy 8 -P -33A. It was determined
that the footprint of the building was located outside the flood hazard area, the building pad was sufficiently
elevated and therefore did not pose a substantial adverse risk. Policies 8 -P -30C and 8 -P -37J are
implemented through the Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance which locally codifies the
requirements of the NPDES permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Impact Analysis:
3.17 (a) (Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements) Less Than Significant Impact: The project
excludes off -site stormwater facilities but does include on -site facilities designed to convey stormwater to
existing stormdrains, adjacent roadways (i.e., Lakeville Highway and Baywood Drive) and will maintain an
existing discharge to the abutting outfall channel, which is owned /maintained by the Sonoma County Water
Agency. As proposed, the project would discharge stormwater at a volume that is no greater than that which
currently exists. The project also includes stormwater treatment methods such as biofiltration basins, in
compliance with the NPDES permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board, to ensure the quality
of stormwater leaving the site does not adversely impact receiving areas and waters.
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 e below. The
project does not propose any industrial uses that would generate wastewater requiring special treatment or
exceeding applicable standards. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (b) (New On -Site Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities) 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 Marina Apartment wastewater flows will be conveyed to the Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility, which has sufficient operating capacity to handle the minimal additional flows generated by the
Marina Apartment project. There would be no new construction or expansion of domestic water or wastewater
facilities as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact to
)0 --��
Page 76 of 81 November 19, 2015
wastewater treatment capacities. (Also see response 3.17(d) below for discussion on water facility impacts)
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (c) (Require New Stormwater Facilities) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed
apartment complex will minimally increase the amount of impervious surfaces present on the project site,
including building roofs, pavement and sidewalk, thereby minimally increasing stormwater runoff. The site is
served by existing catch basins which will be relocated onsite to coincide with the new storm drain
infrastructure.
As proposed, the project includes an onsite storm drain system that connects with the existing storm drain
system in a manner that is consistent with the pre - development conditions. The proposed project is not
expected to increase runoff to the existing storm drain system relative to the existing condition, because the
apartment complex site will be improved with an onsite storm drain system that conveys runoff to the outfall
channel west of the project site and to existing 12 -24" storm drain in the eastern portion of the site. Therefore,
the Project will not result in significant environmental impacts due to the expansion of existing storm water
drainage facilities or construction of new facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (d) (Sufficient Water Supplies) Less Than Significant Impacts: In evaluating the sufficiency of water
supplies to meet existing water demands in addition to water demand generated by the proposed project, the
City has compared General Plan 2025 projected water demand to actual use through December 2012. The
results of that comparison find that potable water demand is well within the available SCWA supply, both for
this project, and for cumulative demand through 2035 as set forth in the 2010 UWMP.
The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan updated the General Plan 2025 water analysis and further refined
a water supply program that relies upon water from SCWA, recycled water (potable offset), and conservation.
As noted in General Plan 2025 Policies 8 -P -5 -C and 8 -P -19, the City also anticipated continuing use of
groundwater to meet emergency needs and to offset peak demands. Per Policy 8 -P -4 of the Petaluma
General Plan 2025, City staff is required to monitor actual demand for potable water in comparison to the
supply and demand projections in the 2006 Water Supply and Demand Analysis Report.
In April 2015, staff compared 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. In
both instances, potable demand is well within available SCWA supply capacity. For the Year 2015, the
projected demand is less than 10,000 acre-feet . 12 Tiered water rates, conservation efforts, and the conversion
of Rooster Run Golf Course to recycled water have in recent years kept annual and peak demands within the
available SCWA supply. These conservation efforts will be enhanced through the implementation of
mandatory measures imposed through the Stage 2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
The existing water supplies, facilities and infrastructure are sufficient to meet the demands of the project
without the need for a substantial expansion or new construction. A condition from the Petaluma Department
of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project comply with the City's Water Conservation
Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Water demand onsite will be limited through efficient irrigation
of the landscaping and water efficient fixtures and appliances indoors, consistent with requirements
established by the CalGreen Building Code. Therefore, the project impacts to water supplies and
infrastructure would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (e) (Wastewater Treatment Capacity) 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 60 90 multi - 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
12 See Item 4(B) of June 1, 2015 City Council agenda (http: / /cityofpetaluma .net /ccierk /archives.htm]).
to - -11
November 19, 2015 Page 77 of 81
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 adequacy or capacity of
wastewater treatment facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (f) (Landfill Capacity) Less Than Significant Impact: The Marina Apartments project, consisting of 80
90 multi - 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.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
3.17 (g) (Solid Waste Statutes) 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 (CoIWMP). Construction related waste will be reduced,
consistent with General Plan Policy 2 -P -122, through the development of a construction waste management
plan mandated by the California Green Building Standards Code.
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 then significant
impact due to solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
t 0__1 %
Page 78 of 81 November 19, 2015
4.18. 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 J Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ❑ ❑ ® ❑
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection ❑ ❑ ® ❑
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ® ❑
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Mandatory Findings Discussion:
3.18 (a) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is located within the City of Petaluma's UGB and, with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure LU -1, would consist of a residential density anticipated by the
General Plan and its accompanying EIR. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
designation for the site, including its goals, policies and programs. With implementation of mitigation
measures set forth above, the project's potential impacts 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.
3.18 (b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan land
use designation for the site and the City's long -range plan for future development.
The project will contribute to cumulative impacts identified in the City's GP EIR but not to a level that is
considered cumulatively considerable. As described in the analysis above, when the project contributes
to a cumulative impact identified in the General Plan, its contribution is incremental or the project
includes design features or mitigation measures that reduce cumulative impacts to levels below
significance. Therefore the project's cumulative impacts will be less than significant.
The project has the potential to incrementally contribute in the following cumulative impacts identified and
analyzed in the General Plan EIR:
• Intersection LOS (Impact 3.2 -1): The project would contribute vehicle trips to intersections identified
in the General Plan EIR as operating at an unacceptable LOS at build -out. However, as described in
the analysis above, the affected intersections have either already been determined to acceptably
10 --1 q
November 19, 2015 Page 79 of 81
operate at an LOS E or LOS F due to overriding considerations and conflicts with other General
Plan policies or the project's contribution to those intersections are below the threshold established
by the General Plan El (i.e., cause the LOS to deteriorate to the next lowest level).
• Water Demand (Impact 3.5 -1, Impact 8- P -20): The project will increase water demand during a
period of extreme drought. However, with implementation of mandatory water conservation
measures (e.g., through SWRCB and California Green Building Standards Code) and information
about current and projected water supplies, the project's incremental increase in demand is not
considered cumulatively considerable.
• Noise (Impact 3.9 -1, Impact 3.9 -2): The project will increase vehicle trips on local roadways and, in
doing so, incrementally contribute to noise levels determined by the General Plan to be significant at
build -out. However, the project excludes new stationary noise sources and its incremental
contribution through vehicular trips is insufficient to result in a perceptible change in noise level.
Therefore, the project is considered to result in an effect that is less than cumulatively considerable.
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, or be
mitigated to, 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: The project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to humans
due to air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, noise, and circulation /transportation. 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.
W -V
Page 80 of 81 November 19, 2015
5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use,
Growth Management, & the Built
Environment
General Plan Chapter 7.
Community Facilities, Services &
Education
General Plan Chapter 2.
Community Design, Character,
&Green Building
General Plan Chapter 8. Water
Resources
General Plan Chapter 3. Historic
Preservation
General Plan Chapter 9. Economic
Health & Sustainabilit
General Plan Chapter 4. The
Natural Environment
General Plan Chapter 10. Health &
Safety
General Plan Chapter 5. Mobility
General Plan Chapter 11. Housing
General Plan Chapter 6.
Recreation, Music, Parks, & the Arts
Implementing Zoning Ordinance/
Maps
Other Sources of Information
Petaluma UWMP
Published geological maps
SCWA UWMP
General Plan 2025 EIR
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
SMART Master Plan
BAAQMD CAP
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
Bay Conservation Development
Commission
National Research Council
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. "Environmental Noise Assessment, Petaluma, CA," prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 8,
2015.
B. "Marina Village Apartments Biological Resources Review," prepared by WRA Environmental
Consultants, March 23,2015
C. "Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment," prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.,
April 13, 2015
D. "Geotechnical Investigation," prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering, May 5, 2015.
E. "Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Apartments," prepared by W- Trans, May 7, 2015 and updated
July 29, 2015. Marina Apartments Traffic Study Additional Baseline Project, provided November 2,
2015.
F. "Shared Parking Analysis for the Marina Apartments Project," prepared by W- Trans, May 6, 2015 and
updated July 27, 2015.
G. Preliminary Stormwater Mitigation Report, prepared by Steve Lafranchi and Associates, Inc., August
2015.
H. Marina Apartment Project, Petaluma - Air Quality and GHG Issues, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin,
January 27, 2016.
I. Traffic and Parking Implications of the Marina Apartments Project with 90 Units, prepared by W-
Trans, January 25, 2016.
10-,26 1
November 19, 2015 Page 81 of 81