Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Resolution 2016-17 10/25/2016
RESOLUTION 2016 -17 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 76 GAS STATION PROJECT LOCATED AT 4998 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH APN: 007 - 412 -015 FILE NO: PLSR 15 -0013 WHEREAS, Muthana Ibrahim, of M I Architects on behalf of property owner Mr. De Long Liu of Petaluma 88, Inc., submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for to demolish existing gas station facilities and construct a new fueling canopy, fuel dispensers, 2,179 sq. ft. convenience store, self- service car wash and storage area, and associated landscaping and appurtenant parking ( "Project ") located at 4998 Petaluma Blvd North at APN 007 - 412 -015; 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 on air quality, leaking underground storage tanks, hazardous materials, water supply, flooding, and traffic, the City relied on the General Plan 2025 EIR certified on April 7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) by 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 (Exhibit 1) for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15163 and determined that a Negative Declaration was supported by substantial evidence in the records and that no new or additional significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR would result from implementation of the Project; and, WHEREAS, on or before September 23, 2016 the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a 30 -day public comment period commencing September 23, 2016 and ending October 24, 2016; and a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on October 25, 2016 before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission, were published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 25, 2016, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project, the Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study, the staff report dated October 25, 2016 analyzing 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 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, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 1 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 Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration 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, 1 1 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952, Attention: Milan Nevajda; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study for the Project identified no potentially significant impacts, 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: The proposed remodel to the 76 Gas Station at 4998 Petaluma Blvd. is, for the reasons discussed in the October 25, 2016 Planning Commission staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1 -P -2 (Promote infill development), Policy 1- P -11 (Land use intensification at strategic locations), Policy 2 -P -5 (Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterials), Policy 2 -P -6 (Create a strong sense of entry at gateways), Policy 2 -P -47 (Reinforce Petaluma Boulevard North as a gateway), and Policy 2- P-50 (Ensure Petaluma Boulevard North maintains a landscaped character along the street). 2. The Project is consistent with the "Community Commercial" General Plan land use designation because the project provides a variety of commercial services serving the region. C. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the Negative Declaration, 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 will have a significant effect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Negative Declaration, 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 2 ADOPTED this 251h day of October, 2016, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Councilmember King X Benedetti- Petnic X Chair Gomez X Lin X Vice Chair Marzo X Pierre X Wolpert X ATTEST: He Cher Hines, Com ' ission Secretary Diana Gomez, C APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lisa Tennenbaum, Assistant City Attorney Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY 76 GAS STATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared By: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 September 9, 2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 4 CITY OF PETALUMA 76 GAS STATION CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: 76 Gas Station Lead agency name and address: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Contact person and phone number: Milan Nevajda, Associate Planner (707) 778 -4317 Project Location: 4998 Petaluma Boulevard North, Petaluma, CA 94952 APN: 007 - 412 -015 Project sponsor's name and address: Mr. Muthana Ibrahim M I Architects 2221 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Property Owners: Petaluma 88, Inc. Mr. De Long Liu 2501 N. Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (510) 759 -2384 General Plan Designation: Commercial oning: Commercial 2 (C2) Description of project: The project proposal requests a Site Plan and Architecture Review (SPAR) approval from the City of Petaluma. The project consists of the demolition of the existing 1,188 square foot fueling canopy with 4 fuel dispensers and 1,193 square foot convenience store. Proposed improvements include the construction of a new 2,250 square foot fueling canopy with 4 fuel dispensers, a 2,179 square foot convenience store, a 1,129 square foot self- service drive - thru car wash with an attached 224 square foot storage area, and associated landscaping and appurtenant parking. Surrounding land uses and setting; The project site is located at the northeast corner of the briefly describe the project's Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive surroundings: intersection. The site is bounded by commercial retail to the north, Auto Center Drive and a gas station to the south, Petaluma Boulevard North and a gas station to the west and commercial uses to the east. To the northeast and southwest of the site are restaurant uses. Other public agencies whose approval is County of Sonoma- Dept. of Health Services required (e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements): Page 5 of 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 5 76 GAS STATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND....... 1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................ ............................... 1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. ............................... 1.3. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS ............................................................... ............................... 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................ ............................... 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................. ............................... 3.1. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................... ............................... 3.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................... ............................... 3.3. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................... ............................... 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................. ............................... 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................. ............................... 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................... ............................... 3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................... ............................... 3.8 HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................. ............................... 3.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................. ............................... 3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................. ............................... 3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................:........................... ............................... 3.12. NOISE ................................................................................................. ............................... 3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................... ............................... 3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................... ............................... 3.15. RECREATION .................................................................................... ............................... 3.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................................ ............................... 3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................... ............................... 3.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §15065) ............... 4. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ...... TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION ............................................................... ............................... FIGURE2 VICINITY MAP ........................................................................... ............................... FIGURE3 SITE PLAN ............................................................................... ............................... FIGURE 4 SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST ELEVATIONS .............................. ............................... LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................. ............................... TABLE 2 HEALTH RISK THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................. ............................... TABLE 3 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EMISSIONS ............................................... ............................... TABLE 4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS .............................................................. ............................... TABLE 5 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION GHG EMISSIONS ......................... ............................... PAGE # .4 ................5 ................6 ................7 ..............12 ..............12 ..............15 ..............16 ..............22 ..............24 ..............26 ..............29 ..............32 ..............36 ..............39 ..............41 ..............42 ..............45 ..............46 ..............47 ..............48 ..............51 ..............55 ..............56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 6 ..8 ..9 10 13 17 17 19 20 31 1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND General Plan: The Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted in 2008, serves the following purposes: • Reflects a commitment on the part of the City Council and their appointed representatives and staff to carry out the Plan; • Outlines a vision for Petaluma's long -range physical and economic development and resource conservation; enhances the quality of life for 'all residents and visitors; recognizes that human activity takes place within the limits of the natural environment; and reflects the aspirations of thecommunity; • Provides strategies and specific implementing policies and programs that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize impacts and hazards; and • Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as Development Codes, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), facilities and Master Plans, redevelopment projects, and the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB). General Plan EIR: Because CEQA discourages "repetitive discussions of the same issues" (CEQA Guidelines section 15152b) and allows limiting discussion of a later project that is consistent with a prior plan to impacts which were not examined as significant effects in a prior EIR or to significant effects which could be reduced by revisions in the later project (CEQA Guidelines section 15152d), no additional benefit to the environment or public purpose would be served by preparing an EIR merely to restate the analysis and the significant and unavoidable effects found to remain after adoption of all General Plan policies /mitigation measures. All General Plan policies adopted as mitigation apply to the subject Project. The EIR reviewed all potentially significant environmental impacts and developed measures and policies to mitigate impacts. Nonetheless, significant and unavoidable impacts were determined to occur under the General Plan. Therefore, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations, which balances the merits of approving the project despite the potential environmental impacts. The impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the General Plan are: • Increased motor vehicle traffic which would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at six intersections covered in the Master Plan: o McDowell Boulevard North /Corona Road, Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, Lakeville Street /East D Street, Petaluma Boulevard South /D Street, Sonoma Mt. Parkway /Ely Boulevard South /East Washington Street, and McDowell Boulevard North /Rainier Avenue. • Traffic related noise at General Plan buildout, which would result in a substantial increase in existing exterior noise levels that are currently above City standards. • Cumulative noise from proposed resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of intra -city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts. • Air quality impacts resulting from General Plan buildout to population levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. (This regional air quality plan has since been replaced by the 2010 Clean Air Plan, which is further discussed in Sections 3.3 Air Quality and 3.7 Greenhouse Gases.) • A possible cumulatively considerable incremental contribution from General Plan development to the significant impact of global climate change. This environmental document tiers off of the General Plan EIR (SCH NO.: 2004082065), which was certified on April 7, 2008, to examine site- and project- specific impacts of the proposed 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. Page 7 of 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 7 1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Setting Petaluma is located in southwestern Sonoma County along the 101 corridor approximately 15 miles south of Santa Rosa and 20 miles north of San Rafael. It is situated at the northernmost navigable end of the Petaluma River, a tidal estuary that drains to the San Pablo Bay..The City originated along the banks of the Petaluma River, spreading outward over the floor of the Petaluma River Valley as the City developed. The Petaluma Valley is defined by Sonoma Mountain on the northeast and by the hills extending northward from Burdell Mountain on the west. To the south are the Petaluma Marshlands and the San Francisco Bay beyond. Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines the limits within which urban development may occur and encompasses approximately 9,911 acres. The UGB was implemented in 1987 (as the Urban Limit Line), formally adopted as the UGB in 1998 via Measure I, and will expire in 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 currently exists as a gas station with a convenience store. The project's location within the City of Petaluma and surrounding environs is shown in Figure 1: Regional Location, below. Vicinitv Settin The site is in an urbanized area within northwest Petaluma that is well served by public utilities and services. North of the site is a Hertz Rent -A -Car, Jay - Palms, and Cattleman's Restaurant, south of the site is Auto Center Drive beyond which is the North Petaluma Gas Outlet, and to the west of the site is Petaluma Boulevard North, beyond which is a Chevron Gas Station and vacant land. The vacant lot east of the project site is classified as Community Commercial per the Petaluma General Plan and is currently used for overflow parking. The project site and vicinity are developed and have been since the late 1960s'. The project site is well connected to the rest of the City and outer environs as it maintains frontage on two major arterials and has connectivity to Highway 101 (see Figure 2: Project Vicinity, below). The project site is bounded on all sides by commercial uses. Recently approved entitlements located in relatively close proximity to the project site are limited to the Hansel Toyota Expansion and Remodel, which is currently under construction. Project Site The project site, located at 4998 Petaluma Boulevard North, supports an existing 76 Gas Station constructed circa 1964. The assessor parcel number (APN) of the subject site is 007 - 412 -015. The 0.365 -acre project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive and is within the Petaluma Boulevard North Subarea. An existing shared driveway provides access to the gas station with the retail uses to the north. The project site is generally flat and fully improved with paved surfaces, landscape islands, curbs, lighting, and signage. The existing 76 Gas Station is comprised of a 1,193 square foot convenience store and an attached 1,188 square foot rectangular fueling canopy, which contains 4 multi - product gas - fueling dispensers. The 76 Gas Station property is identified as an open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case currently under corrective action and regulatory oversight. According to available records, soils and groundwater beneath the project site are contaminated with gasoline product (petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel volatile organic compounds) related to former underground storage tanks (UST) and fueling systems that were removed in 1987. At present, there are 22 on and off site monitoring wells that are monitored on a quarterly basis. In addition, there are 21 on and off site sparge wells that are attached to the air sparging remediation system. Soil contamination is generally confined to the current and former UST on the east side of the existing convenience store. ' Per historic aerials accessed via google earth 2016. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 8 On April 14, 2016 the County approved a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared for the subject site. The RAP details activities necessary to reduce residual site contamination to levels below the Low - Threat UST Case Closure Policy (LTCP) screening levels established by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, 2012). Remediation work is proposed to coincide with redevelopment of the 76 Gas Station following the demolition stage. Following completion, the responsible party will go into post remedial monitoring to verify that the remediation was successful in reducing contaminant concentrations to levels acceptable for closure under the State's LTCP. Site closure is anticipated to occur in the summer /fall of 2017. According to the 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 0893F, the project site is within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or Zone AE. However, on June 22, 2016, in response to a request made by the applicant, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) indicating that the subject site is not located in the SFHA. The LOMA determination effectively amends the FIRM to remove the subject property from the SFHA. As of June 22, 2016, the subject property was removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area and has now been assigned Flood Zone X. This determination will be reflected on the next scheduled map revision. 1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 76 Gas Station project proposes the re- development of an existing 76 Gas Station located at 4998 Petaluma Boulevard North. The General Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial with a zoning designation of Commercial 2 (C2). Fuel (gas) Station is a permitted use under General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project site is comprised of an irregular shaped parcel (0.365 acres) at the northeast corner of the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive. At present, the project site is improved with a gas station and convenience store constructed circa 1964. Prior to 1964 the site served as the Oberg Lumber Yard. The existing development on the project site is comprised of a convenience store that is a 1,193 square foot one -story steel framed rectangular building sited in the center of the property and accompanied by an attached, 1,188 square foot rectangular fueling canopy on the southeast side of the building. The fueling area contains four multi - product fueling dispensers (eight fueling positions) and two underground 12,000 - gallon double walled fiberglass storage tanks (UST). Other existing features onsite include 10 ozone /air - sparging wells and associated remediation equipment enclosed by a chain link fence, commercial signage, and an above ground storage tank (AST) for propane. Other than a narrow strip of landscaping on the eastern boundary, the entirety of the lot is paved and features seven groundwater - monitoring wells. There are two existing easements at the site frontage (Easement A and B) that generally form an L -shape around the southwest and southeast portions of the site and allow for passage of pedestrians and vehicles. Site preparation will involve demolition of the existing convenience store and fueling canopy, removal of the two 12,000 gallon UST, and the removal of existing site improvements including pavement, curbs, and landscaping. Abandonment and removal of ozone /air sparging equipment and the relocation of at least three of the seven groundwater- monitoring wells will also occur. Soil excavation activities consistent with the Remedial Action Plan will be carried out concurrently with demolition and site preparation activities. The project includes construction of a new gas station featuring eight (8) fuel positions (4 dispensers with two fueling positions each) located beneath a 2,250 square foot fuel canopy, a 2,179 square foot convenience store, and a 1,129 square foot carwash tunnel with a 224 square foot equipment storage room to complement the proposed use (See Figure 3, Site Plan). The project will introduce two new 20,000 - gallon underground storage tanks in the northeast portion of the site to serve the fueling dispensers. Associated site improvements include sixteen parking spaces, eight devoted to the fueling area at each fueling position, one van accessible stall, one air /water parking stall, and six standard stalls (one of which will have access to an electric vehicle charging station). The project will also introduce landscaping along the site periphery and at the parking area bulb outs. Construction activities including site preparation, remediation, demolition and building are expected to take place over a six -month period. New landscaping onsite will introduce trees, shrubs and groundcover. The landscape area includes a strip along the site's western boundary that wraps around to the northern boundary following the edge of the carwash loop. Planter bulb outs are located at the parking area. The landscape area consists of Page 9 of 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 9 approximately 1,417 square feet and will include Crape Myrtles, Arbutus Marina trees, variegated Japanese shrubs, Yellow Trumpet vines, and groundcover. The landscape plan incorporates drought tolerant plants of various species that will replace the existing turf onsite. The gas station and associated facilities will be oriented to the interior of the site with the convenience store located along the north boundary of the project site and parking located at the convenience store entrance. The proposed fuel canopy will be sited along the south /southeast extents of the site. The carwash will be accessed from the drive aisle between the convenience store and the fueling canopy, with the carwash tunnel located along the northern most property line. The new 76 Gas Station design will feature an architectural treatment that includes smooth cement plaster, stone accents, and metal paneling. The gas station canopy will exhibit a height of 19' to top of roof. The convenience store will exhibit a height of 20' from grade to top of parapet. The project includes LED canopy lights located on the fueling canopy ceiling, pole mounted lights at the parking area and at the rear of convenience store, and wall mounted lights featured on the convenience store and at the carwash entrance and exit. The fueling area, convenience store and carwash have been designed in accordance with (C2) development standards and will be subject to site plan and architectural review (SPAR). The site is currently accessed via a driveway off of Petaluma Boulevard North and from Auto Center Drive, which will continue to provide both ingress and egress at operation. The stacking area and alignment of the fuel dispensers has been designed to accommodate simultaneous fueling of full size vehicles as well as the queuing of vehicles outside of the fuel canopy area. The 76 Gas Station, convenience store, and carwash will operate 24 hours /day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. At operation the project is expected to employ one (1) employee per shift for three (3) shifts Monday through Friday for a total of three (3) full time employees, and one (1) employee per shift for three (3) shifts Saturday and Sunday for a total of three (3) part time employees. There will be no carwash employees on duty. The fueling pumps will dispense both unleaded and diesel fuels that will be available from four multi- product fuel dispensers with eight fueling positions, served by two 20,000 gallon underground storage tanks. 1.3. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS The applicant has applied to the City of Petaluma for the following entitlements: • Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 10 Figure 1 Regional Location ,.. IN pp a� r 0 0.5 1 1.5 z Miles REGIONAL LOCATION 76 GAS STATION 4998 PETALUMA BLVD N. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Page 11 of 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 _l fsc1 PETALUMA CITY LIMITS i SONOMA COUNTY 7k PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 Page 11 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 0 100 200 300 400 PROJECT VICINITY i,`1 j PROJECTAREA Feet e 76 GAS STATION 4998 PETALUMA BLVD N. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 12 I t tl BLII C fTS (L LL (1) 0 a_ �o Ln 0 uo 10 m IL st LL kil ma Hil 5 C L PI 4 Jig Uoirl , Roil I t tl BLII C fTS (L LL (1) 0 a_ �o Ln 0 uo 10 m 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Aesthetics 7. GHG Emissions 13. Population / Housing 2. Ag / Forest 8. Hazards 14, Public Services 3. Air Quality 9. Hydrology 15. Recreation 4. Biological Resources 10. Land Use 16. Transportation / Traffic 5. Cultural Resources 11. Mineral Resources 17. Utilities 6. Geology / Soils 12. Noise 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 X 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 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: Milan Nevajda, Associate Planner September 9 2016 Date Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following discussion addresses the potential level of impact relating to each aspect of the environment. 3.1. AESTHETICS Less inan Potentially Significant Less than No Impact Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact 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 General Plan and EIR; and Site Plans and Elevations submitted July 20,2016. Aesthetics Setting: The Project site is located in the Petaluma Boulevard North Planning Subarea (Figure 2 -1 of the General Plan) within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Petaluma Boulevard North Subarea encompasses the area surrounded by Hwy 101, the western edge of the UGB, and the railroad tracks. The Planning Subarea supports commercial and industrial uses on the eastern side of Petaluma Boulevard North and rural residential development on the western side. The Subarea further supports a number of Petaluma's dominant retail centers, including the Auto Mall and Factory Outlet Village. The subject site is also located within the Petaluma Boulevard North Planning Area -North of Cinnabar Avenue, which is considered a gateway connecting Highway 101 to Downtown. The project site is comprised of an irregular shaped parcel (0.365 acres) at the northeast corner of the intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive surrounded generally by commercial (gas stations, Cattleman's restaurant, Jay Palms saddle shop) and industrial land uses. The project will involve the demolition of the existing fueling station and associated convenience store and redevelopment with a new fueling canopy, convenience store and carwash. The existing building to be demolished is a rectilinear, horizontally oriented building characteristic of late 20th century suburban fueling stations. The existing building consists of a steel framed structure atop a concrete slab foundation and capped with a pitched roof. Existing landscape on the site is minimal and consists of a narrow pocket of landscaping at the southwest corner of the site and four small ornamental trees. The balance of the proposed project site features paved areas that are devoted to parking stalls and driveway aisles. There is little to no division between the project site and adjacent land uses. The new convenience store, associated canopy, and carwash will feature a composite of neutral colored materials of varying texture, strong horizontal orientation, and simple modern detailing. Proposed materials include smooth cement panels, El Dorado stone, and ribbed metal paneling (see Figure 4: Elevations below). Proposed landscaping will include trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The area directly in front of the site and bordering Petaluma Boulevard North is under Caltrans jurisdiction and currently undergoing new landscape planting. This area will be retained and unaffected ,by the proposed project. Page 15 of 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 15 z. 00 O ui ca t 0 z ca 0 U) Itt (D hetics Impact Discussion: 3.1(a) (Scenic Vista) No Impact: The 2025 General Plan EIR identifies vistas of Sonoma Mountain and the Petaluma Valley as significant visual resources with notable viewpoints seen from Washington Street Overpass, McNear Peninsula and Rocky Memorial Dog Park. The proposed gas station is not located in the direct vicinity to any of the notable viewpoints and would neither obstruct nor diminish any existing viewsheds. The project is proposed on a developed parcel located within the bounds of the UGB and will replace an existing gas station. Therefore, development of the proposed gas station would have no impacts to scenic vistas or views. 3.1(b) (Scenic Resources) No Impact: In 1963 the California legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program with the purpose of preserving the character of scenic highways and protecting them from changes that could diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent lands. Sonoma County includes two state designated scenic highways located along stretches of Highway 116 and Highway 12; however, the City of Petaluma does not contain any state designated highways. As no State Scenic Roadways traverse the planning area, no scenic resources, including, but not limited to; trees, rock outcroppings, and /or historic buildings visible from a State Scenic Highway would be impacted. 3.1(c) (Visual Character and Quality) Less Than Significant Impact: The redevelopment of the existing 76 Gas Station with a new convenience store, carwash and fueling canopy will not incite a significant departure from the existing conditions of the subject site which currently supports a 76 Gas Station. Further, the site is surrounded by existing urban development consistent with the existing and proposed use. The proposed development would not impact views or create incongruous visual elements because the height and massing of new development would be similar in scale to that currently existing. As such, the project is not expected to create any substantial visual dissonance that would degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. 3.1(d) (Light and Glare) Less Than Significant Impact: At present, the site features an existing gas station with lighting and is surrounded by other urban uses including a variety of businesses that emit light and glare typical of a retail /commercial use. The proposed 76 Gas Station will feature a new canopy with recessed LED lighting and new pole mounted lighting will be installed along the convenience store flanks and frontage and at the carwash tunnel. The project is installing new lighting fixtures, and as a result, these fixtures are required to conform to Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) § 21.040.D, which specifies lighting standards for all new exterior lighting such as the provision that the cone of direct illumination be sixty degrees if the luminary is greater than 6 feet above the ground. Adherence to a condition of project approval including applicable sections of the IZO will limit substantial light and glare such that any impacts would be less than significant. In addition to the proposed on -site lighting it can be expected that headlights and taillights from vehicles entering, exiting and queuing may introduce new light and glare onsite and on adjacent roadways. Vehicles are expected to enter and exit from both Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive. While vehicles will be turned off while fueling, those queuing may idle with their headlights on. In order to reduce light intrusion onto adjacent northern properties and Petaluma Boulevard North, the site will feature joined screening from the carwash tunnel and landscaped shrubs that serve to block and /or filter light and glare generated by vehicles utilizing the 76 Gas Station. Accordingly, impacts related to light and glare will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 17 3.2. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as ❑ shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Sources 2025 General Plan and EIR. Agricultural Setting: El a 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. 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: LVINIM T! i1.: 3.2(a -e) (Farmland Conversion, Williamson Act, Forestland /Timberland Conflict) No Impact: The project site does not include any agricultural or forested land. The project, as proposed, consists of replacing the existing gas station with a new gas station on a developed lot and will not impact prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The project will not interfere with Williamson Act contracts or any existing agricultural uses. In the absence of forested lands there is no potential for the project to conflict with existing forested land zoning or encourage the loss or conversion of forested land to another use. The project is within the UGB and will not provide an impetus for the conversion of farmland or forest to any alternative use. Therefore, the project will have no impact to agricultural and forestry resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 18 3.3. AIR QUALITY 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 General Plan and DEIR; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Regulation 8 Organic Compound Rule 7 Gasoline Dispending Facilities, BAAQMD, November 6, 2002; California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2012; Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan BAAQMD September 2010 Air Quality Setting: The City of Petaluma including the project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ( SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is charged with managing air quality for the region through the implementation of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation and education. The intent of which is to achieve conformance with established air quality standards that are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Air Resources Control Board for the California Clean Air Act. The ambient air quality conditions of the SFBAAB achieve established standards with the exception of ozone and particulate matter (PM). Elevated ozone levels are a result of the cumulative emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Particulate matter includes both PM,o, with a diameter of 10 mircometers or less and PM2.5, with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. Construction and operation of various land uses contribute to the generation of air quality pollutants and can exacerbate non- attainment conditions when the generation of ozone precursors or particulate matter are excessive. The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for both the one -hour and eight -hour state and national ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Basin is also in non - attainment for the PM,o and PM2.e state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than 20 pg /m3 for PM,o and less than 12 pg /m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for the national 24 -hour PM2.5 standard. All other national ambient air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.2 "2010 Clean Air Plan," prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 19 Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No Would the project: with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact 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 General Plan and DEIR; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Regulation 8 Organic Compound Rule 7 Gasoline Dispending Facilities, BAAQMD, November 6, 2002; California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2012; Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan BAAQMD September 2010 Air Quality Setting: The City of Petaluma including the project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ( SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is charged with managing air quality for the region through the implementation of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation and education. The intent of which is to achieve conformance with established air quality standards that are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Air Resources Control Board for the California Clean Air Act. The ambient air quality conditions of the SFBAAB achieve established standards with the exception of ozone and particulate matter (PM). Elevated ozone levels are a result of the cumulative emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Particulate matter includes both PM,o, with a diameter of 10 mircometers or less and PM2.5, with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. Construction and operation of various land uses contribute to the generation of air quality pollutants and can exacerbate non- attainment conditions when the generation of ozone precursors or particulate matter are excessive. The Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for both the one -hour and eight -hour state and national ozone standards; 0.09 parts per million (ppm) and 0.070 ppm, respectively. The Basin is also in non - attainment for the PM,o and PM2.e state standards, which require an annual arithmetic mean (AAM) of less than 20 pg /m3 for PM,o and less than 12 pg /m3 for PM2.5. In addition, the Bay Area Air Basin is designated as non - attainment for the national 24 -hour PM2.5 standard. All other national ambient air quality standards within the Bay Area Air Basin are in attainment.2 "2010 Clean Air Plan," prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, September 2010. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 19 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set forth thresholds of significance for land use development projects based on emission levels expected to be generated during construction and at operation. Established thresholds are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds (Ibs per day) Operational Threshold (Ibs per day) ROG 54 54 NOx 54 54 P M 10 82 82 PM25 54 54 CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8 -hour avg.) or 20.0 ppm (1 -hour avg.) Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or other Best Management Practices Not Applicable Source: BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines: May 2011 In addition to the Guidelines, BAAQMD has established rules in order to ensure that projects conform to air quality regulations. The 76 Gas Station Project is subject to several of the Rules established by BAAQMD including Regulation 11, Rule 2 for the control and management of asbestos containing materials, Regulation 8, Rule 7 to control for the emission of reactive organic compound (ROG) from a stationary source emitter due to fuel dispensing onsite, and Regulation 7 which controls forodors. As an existing fuel dispensing operation, the 76 Gas Station, is considered a stationary source emitter and is regulated to control the emission of reactive organic compound (ROG) pursuant to Regulation 8, Rule 7 of the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Rule 7 requires that stationary source emitters such as the 76 Gas Station use enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) systems. The provision of Regulation 2 -2 -301 requires that Best Available Control Technology such as CARBs certified CNI EVR Phase I equipment and VST Balance EVR Phase II equipment3 be utilized. This Rule controls for the evaporation of vapors including Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and benzene in particular. TACs are defined by CARB as those pollutants that "may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." TACs are chemical compounds that result from industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations. In the context of the subject project, expected TACs include diesel particulate matter (DPM), non - diesel total organic gases (TOG), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and benzene. DPM consists of diesel exhaust that contains a mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. TOGS are emitted by gasoline powered vehicles from running exhaust and evaporative running losses. Benzene is a component of gasoline, diesel fuel and vehicle exhaust that is emitted through the evaporation of gasoline vapors. TACs are regulated at the state and federal level on the basis of risk to human health. BAAQMD has established thresholds of significant for exposure to TAC and PM2.5 as part of the aforementioned Guidelines. These thresholds are utilized in order to identify potentially significant health risk impacts that may result from exposure to sensitive populations. Table 2 below provides the Community Risk Thresholds for determining significance. Table 2 Health Risk Thresholds of Significance 3 CARB Executive Order VR -104 and VR -204. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 20 Excess Cancer Risk Non - Cancer Hazard Index PM2.5 pglm3 Single Source >10 in 1 million >1.0 >0.3 Cumulative Source >100 in 1 million >10.0 >0.8 Source: BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines: May 2011 3 CARB Executive Order VR -104 and VR -204. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 20 Single sources would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk impact if they would exceed any of the established thresholds set forth in Table 2. Cumulative sources would be considered to have potentially significant impact if any of the thresholds in Table 2 were exceeded due to the aggregate total of all past, present and foreseeable sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the fence line of a source or from the location of a sensitive receptor plus the contribution from the project. As an existing gas station that will be replaced with a like use, no changes to TAC emissions are expected. W .. • 3.3(a) (Air Quality Plan) Less than Significant Impact: The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in September 2010 to comply with state air quality planning requirements set forth in the California Health & Safety Code. The 2010 CAP serves to update the 2005 Ozone Strategy and provides control strategies to address air quality pollutants including ozone (03), Particulate Matter (PM), toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). A total of 55 control strategies have been developed as part of the CAP for land use, energy and climate, stationary sources, transportation, and mobile sources. Control strategies are designed to: reduce emissions of ozone precursors, PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases; work towards attainment of state ozone standards; reduce transport of ozone to neighboring basins; and to protect public health and the climate. Measures to implement control strategies include the use of clean and efficient vehicles, Green Construction Fleets, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access, energy efficiency, and others. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines set forth criteria for determining consistency with the CAP. In general a project is considered consistent if a) the project supports the primary goals of the CAP, b) includes control measures and c) does not interfere with the implementation of CAP measures. Development of the proposed 76 Gas Station is consistent with the CAP as it supports the primary goals, includes basic control measures, and would not result in any conflicts in implementing the CAP. As an existing area source emitter, the gas station is regulated by the BAAQMD and the proposed re- development is expected to result in a similar level of area source emissions as the current use given that the same number of fueling positions are proposed. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts due to a conflict with the regional Air Quality Plan. 3.3(b -c) (Air Quality Standard, Criteria Pollutant) Less than Significant Impact: Air quality emissions associated with the proposed project would result from short -term construction activities and ongoing operation. BAAQMD Guidelines, as adopted in 2010, include "screening criteria" that provide a conservative estimate above which a project would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to air quality. Projects that are below the screening criteria threshold are reasonably expected to result in less than significant impacts to air quality since pollutant emissions would be minimal. Air quality emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5) from construction and operation are evaluated pursuant to the 2010 CEQA Guidelines.' There is no CO emissions threshold applicable to construction emissions. For CO, the operational significance threshold is 9.0 particles per minute (8 -hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1 -hour average). The transfer and storage of gasoline results in air quality emissions due to dispensing activities. As mentioned above, Rule 7 regulates such activities to control for ROG and the formation of NOx and ozone. Emission rates associated with loading, breathing, refueling and spillage are based on the Gasoline Service Station Industry- wide Risk Assessment Guidelines developed by the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) and are referred to as "Evaporative Gasoline Emissions ". Given that there will be no net change in ' BAAQMD's 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District complies with CEQA. Nonetheless, the City of Petaluma recognizes these thresholds represent the best available scientific data and has elected to rely on these to determine screening levels and significance. On August 13, 2013 the Court of Appeals issued a decision on the lawsuit that upheld the significance threshold. Table 3 -1 of the 2010 CEQA Guidelines is used to assess screening levels. The case has since been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court but not based on the adequacy of the thresholds. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 21 the number of fuel dispensers or fueling positions, . the project is not expected to substantially increase air quality emissions associated with fuel dispensing. However, demolition, limited expansion of the convenience store, and the introduction of a carwash will generate air quality emissions during construction and subsequent operation. CalEEMOD Methodology The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)5 Version 201322 was used to estimate construction and operation emissions associated with the project. To capture the net effect of the project, two scenarios were modeled. The first scenario captured the existing operating conditions and emissions generated by onsite energy use, vehicles traveling to and from the gas station and area source emissions from fueling activity. The second scenario captured the proposed project including the demolition, site preparation, construction and operation of the convenience store and fueling stations. For modeling purposes the Land Use Category of "Convenience Market with Gas Pumps" was utilized. Although the project proposes a 2,179 square foot convenience store, CaIEEMod was adjusted upward to 3,532 square feet to capture the proposed carwash (approximately 1,129 square feet) and the equipment closet (approximately 224 square feet). The Fuel Canopy was not included in the emission estimate as the structure will not be enclosed and energy requirements for its use would be negligible compared to other components of the project. The construction emission estimates rely on the second scenario as further described below. The operational emission estimates consider the net difference between the existing conditions (first scenario) and the proposed project (second scenario). CalEEMod outputs are provided in tons per year, which are then converted into pounds per day assuming a total of six months (approximately 120 working days) for construction period emissions and 365 days for operational emissions. Construction was projected to begin in 2016 and be completed by 2017. Construction Emissions The project's emission levels during construction are compared to the BAAQMD thresholds of significance as set forth above in Table 1. Construction of the 76 Gas Station will result in air quality emissions associated with demolition of the existing building and structures onsite, removal of the pavement and landscaping and the redevelopment the fueling bays, convenience store, carwash tunnel and associated parking and landscaping. Construction - related air quality emissions may result from the generation of fugitive dust, operation of heavy - duty equipment, trips from the delivery of material and workers commuting to the project site, as well as off - gassing from paving and the application of architectural, coatings. Table 3 below provides the projected air quality emissions expected to be generated from construction of the Project. Table 3 Construction Period Emissions Table 3 above shows that none of the pollutant concentrations generated during construction of the proposed project would result in emissions that exceed established thresholds. However, demolition and construction activities may result in the generation of fugitive dust, which must be controlled in accordance with the City's Dust Control Ordinance and BAAQMD's Best Management Practices (BMP). In order to ensure that fugitive dust generated during construction is minirrlized, all BMPs as set forth below will be required per condition of approval: • Water all active construction areas (staging, parking, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved driveways, etc) at least twice daily. 5 CalEEMod is a statewide computer model program developed in cooperation with air districts statewide in order to calculate air emissions associated with the construction and operation of various land use projects. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 22 ROG NOX PM,o Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Construction emissions (tons) 0.10 tons 0.74 tons 0.05 tons 0.05 tons Average daily emissions (pounds) 1.67 lbs. 12.33 lbs. 0.83 lbs. 0.83 lbs. BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. Exceeds Threshold? INo JNo INo No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 accessed March 2016. Table 3 above shows that none of the pollutant concentrations generated during construction of the proposed project would result in emissions that exceed established thresholds. However, demolition and construction activities may result in the generation of fugitive dust, which must be controlled in accordance with the City's Dust Control Ordinance and BAAQMD's Best Management Practices (BMP). In order to ensure that fugitive dust generated during construction is minirrlized, all BMPs as set forth below will be required per condition of approval: • Water all active construction areas (staging, parking, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved driveways, etc) at least twice daily. 5 CalEEMod is a statewide computer model program developed in cooperation with air districts statewide in order to calculate air emissions associated with the construction and operation of various land use projects. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 22 • Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose materials offsite. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto adjacent roads. • Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes that extend beyond the construction site. • A certified mechanic shall verify that equipment is properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications. • Idling times shall be limited to 5 minutes or less pursuant to the "no idling" rule for in -use off -road diesel - fueled vehicles. Signage shall be posted at the construction site indicating the idle time limitation. • All diesel - powered off -road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engineer or the equivalent. • Diesel- powered generators or air compressors shall not be used on -site for more than two days continuously, unless under emergency conditions. • 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. Application of the above BMPs will ensure that potential impacts due to the generation of fugitive dust would be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operation of the 76 Gas Station will result in air quality emissions associated with the use of energy and water onsite, vehicle trips generated by the project, exhaust emissions from vehicles idling onsite, and the evaporative emissions from the storage and use of gasoline. As the project site is currently occupied by an existing 76 Gas Station, which will be demolished and replaced with a new 76 Gas Station, an analysis of the net condition was conducted. As described above, under the methodology discussion, the net analysis considers the difference between the operational emissions of the existing condition and the emissions of the proposed gas station. Table 4 below provides a summary of the net project emissions that will be generated by the proposed 76 Gas Station. Table 4 Onerational Emissions Scenario ROG (tons /yr) NOx (tons/ r PM10 (tons /yr) PM2,0 (tons /yr) nnual Project Operation Emissions 1.65 1.81 0.71 0.20 Existing Operation Emissions 0.56 0.61 0.24 0.07 Net Project Emissions 1.09 1.20 0.47 0.13 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons per year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No Net Average daily emissions (pounds per day) 5.97 lbs. 6.58 lbs. 2.58 lbs. 0.71 lbs. 6AAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2, accessed March 2016. Table 4 above shows that all net pollutant concentrations generated during operation of the proposed project Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 23 are well below established thresholds. Project - generated traffic and area source emissions are well below the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 24 established annual and daily BAAQMD thresholds. There will be no net change in the number of fueling pumps or fueling positions. It is expected that the carwash may generate a limited increase in traffic and may require that vehicles idle while queuing for the carwash. However, these activities are not expected to substantially increase idling or vapor emissions such that the project would violate an air quality standard or cumulatively contribute to an existing air quality violation at operation. Accordingly, operational impacts to air quality from the 76 Gas Station would be less than significant. In summary, the project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantial pollutant concentration that would exacerbate a non - attainment condition. Further, a condition of approval requires implementation of all BMPs described above during construction activities in an effort to limit fugitive dust generation. As such, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to air quality. 3.3(d) (Sensitive Receptors) Less than Significant Impact: Sensitive receptors are defined by CARB as persons with elevated sensitivity to air pollutants including children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Land uses that contain higher concentrations of sensitive receptors include residential neighborhoods, hospitals, elementary schools, and parks. The project vicinity is dominated by commercial uses and does not support land uses associated with sensitive receptors. Other emission sources within 1,000 feet of the project include North Petaluma Gas Outlet opposite of Auto Center Drive, Chevron across Petaluma Boulevard North, and Highway 101 about 500 feet to the north. The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 emissions during construction in the form of exhaust from heavy -duty construction equipment and during operation from project generated vehicle trips and delivery truck exhaust, vehicles idling onsite during queuing periods, and emissions from fuel dispensing. Because there will be no net change in the number of fuel pumps, TAC and PM2.5 emissions are expected to remain unchanged, with the exception of emissions generated during construction activities. As there are no sensitive receptors in the project vicinity and given that TAC and PM2.5 emissions will be below thresholds during construction, the project would not result in substantial exposure to sensitive receptors. Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive receptors related to elevated cancer risk, hazard index, or PM2.5 concentration resulting frorn all proposed activities associated with the 76 Gas Station would be less than significant. 3.3(e) (Odors) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project will result in the generation of odors temporarily during construction. Temporary construction odors are short term in nature and typically consist of exhaust from heavy -duty equipment, and off gassing from paving and architectural coatings. Operational odors from the proposed gas station would occasionally be noticeable onsite. However, these odors from gasoline vapor dissipate quickly and would not be detectable offsite. As mentioned above and pursuant to Regulation 8, Rule 7 of BAAQMD regulations, the facility will be required to employ CARB certified vapor recovery systems. These systems further the reduction of odors generated from on -site fueling activities. Additionally, the project will replace the existing gas station onsite with the same use, and will not result in a substantial change in odors relative to the existing conditions. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 25 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less than No Would the project: Significant Significant Impact p 1 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 E F1 z 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 El El 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 El El ❑ Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or El E] ❑ 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 E El 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 El 1:1 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR; DER Figure 3.8 -1: Habitat Areas and Special Status Species; Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan: Figure 6 -1; Holland's Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986) • •• M. I • �• Biological resources are protected by statute including the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) affords protection to migratory bird species including birds of prey. These regulations provide the legal protection for plant and animal species of concern and"theirhabitat. 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 26 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 (1996) contains policies and guidelines to protect biological resources. The 0.365 acre project site is located within an established commercial area in the Petaluma Boulevard North Subarea. The site is flat and substantially covered by asphalt. On -site vegetation, where present, consists of urban and ornamental plantings. The project site is located on Petaluma Boulevard North which serves as a major thoroughfare and is bounded by commercial /retail, and industrial uses. As a fully developed urban parcel, currently occupied with an existing Gas Station, the project site does not exhibit any habitat value. Biolo ical Resources Impact Discussion: 3.4(a) (Special Status Species) No Impact: The project site does not directly support any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. At present, the project site does not contain any suitable habitat and there is no expectation that the site would support special status species. There are four ornamental trees on -site that will be removed as part of the re- development activities. These trees are low in stature, lack mature foliage, and are not expected to provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. Further, in accordance with the provisions of the META, tree removal will occur outside of the bird - nesting season. Accordingly, the project will not adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and no impacts are expected. 3.4(b) (Riparian Habitat) No Impact: The project site is currently developed with an existing gas station, associated amenities including paved parking areas and limited landscaping. The property does not contain riparian habitat, waterways, nor does it support sensitive natural communities. Because the proposed project will replace an existing gas station and is not expected to substantially alter the intensity and use of the site, the project will not adversely affect any known biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to natural communities or riparian habitat as a result of development activities. 3.4(c) (Wetlands) No Impact: No federally protected wetlands, including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools or coastal wetlands, exist within the project site boundaries or vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impacts on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3.4(d) (Wildlife /Fish Movement & Nursery) No Impact: The project site is currently developed with an existing gas station and is surrounded by a mix of commercial /retail and industrial uses. No migratory corridors have been identified on site or in the immediate vicinity that would be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project. There is no expectation that the project would 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. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to migratory corridors or the movement of species. 3.4(e) (Tree Preservation) No Impact: The vegetation present on the project site is ornamental and does not include any landmark, heritage, or trees protected under a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources including a tree preservation policy or ordinance. There will be no impact under this criterion. 3.4(f) (Habitat Conservation Plan) No Impact: At present, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan exist for the City of Petaluma. The already developed project site, located within a predominantly commercial portion of the UGB, is not designated open space and does not support any significant animal or plant habitat. As such, the project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or any other Natural Community Conservation Plan approved by a local, regional or state body. Therefore, the project will have no impacts under this criterion. Mitigation Measures: None required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 27 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Would the project: 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? Less inan Significant Less than No with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 MIMME • The City of Petaluma features a variety of historic' and cultural resources that contribute to Petaluma's character and identifiable sense of place. The City and adjacent areas contain resources that date to the inhabitation of the Coastal Miwok Tribe and a number of resources that visibly chronicle the evolution of the City from early settlement to today. Such resources include buildings, structures, landscapes, sites, objects, and larger districts. Within the UGB there are 3 historic districts; Oakhill- Brewster, Downtown Commercial, and A- Street. The Downtown Historic District has been designated as a National Historic District. Upwards of 300 properties have been identified as potentially eligible for listing on a local, state, or national register of historic places. In order to perpetuate the unique character found in Petaluma, the City has adopted policies and programs that serve to compliment and reinforce the sense of place. The City has implemented policies to regularly update and /or expand surveys of local historic resources and pursue incentives and programs that will aid in preservation efforts. Existing policies and regulations governing historic preservation within the City can be found in Chapter 3 of the 2025 Petaluma General Plan and Chapter 15 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing gas station within the Petaluma Boulevard North Subarea. The project site is not located within any designated historic districts and it does not contain any identified historic resources. Further, pursuant to Public Resources Code §2080.3.1(d) and Assembly Bill 52, the City of Petaluma notified the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria of the proposed project on April 25, 2016. In accordance with Public Resources Code §21083.3.1, 21083.3.2, and 21083.3 the Tribe has thirty (30) days to request consultation. The Tribe did not request consultation under AB 52 for this project indicating that there are no concerns associated with the potential presence of Tribal Cultural Resources. u•. •� 3.5(a) (Historical Resource) No Impact: The project site does not contain any identified historic resources and does not constitute a historically significant site. In the absence of any historic resources on or in direct proximity to the project site, there is no expectation that activities associated with the project would adversely affect the significance of any extant historic resources. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to diminishing the significance of historical resources. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 28 3.5(b) (Archaeological Resources) Less Than Significant Impact: No known archaeological resources have been identified within, or in close proximity to, the project site. Groundbreaking activity and site development performed when the site was initially graded and developed (c.1960s) did not expose any archeological resources. Due to the absence of any cultural resources discovered during the previous ground disturbance and subsequent development, it is unlikely that any archeological resources are present on the project site. Although the subject site is not located within any areas of elevated potential for the occurrence of archeological resources, there remains a low 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 the condition of approval addressing accidental discovery, the project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource. Therefore, impacts to archeological resources as a result of project development will be less than significant. 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 developed; associated activities would have resulted in ground disturbance. Therefore it is unlikely that paleontological resources are 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 of approval 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. 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 in accordance California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and the California Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA). These requirements are imposed by the city through a condition of approval noting the statutory requirements. Accordingly, impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 29 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant with Less than No Impact Mitigation Significant Would the project: Incorporated Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known ❑ fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Publication 42. 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? El El El El El El Z M ❑ © ❑ El 0 ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ NINNERN Sources: 2025 General Plan and EIR; GP DEIR Fig. 3.7 -5 Geologic Hazards; and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Encon Solutions Inc September 23 2014 GPI „gy and Soils Setting: The City of Petaluma is located in California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4. Petaluma is susceptible to the effects of regional seismic activity that are capable of producing moderate to strong ground shaking reaching intensity levels of V to VIII according to the modified Mercalli scale. In the City of Petaluma, the only known active fault trace identified by the state under the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 is the Rodgers Creek segment of the Hayward- Rodgers Creek Fault Zone. The traces of the Rodgers Creek Fault have not been active within the last 200 years, but have exhibited activity within the last 11,000 years. There are no earthquake fault zones and no known active faults within the City's UGB. Nonetheless, seismic events in the region have the potential to result in geologic hazards from ground shaking, such as liquefaction, ground failure and seismically induced landslides. Expansive soils and soil erosion are also of concern within the City of Petaluma. The clay rich soils typical of low -lying regions and valley floodplains tend to shrink or swell according to fluctuations in moisture content. Without proper geotechnical considerations, buildings, utilities and roads can be damaged by expansive soils Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 30 due to the soils propensity to cause gradual cracking, settling and weakening of foundations. To reduce the potential risks posed by the presence of expansive soils, the City's building code requires that any construction site that is intended for human occupancy and suspected to contain expansive soils be investigated and the hazard be mitigated. Geology and Soils Impact Discussion: 3.6(a. i) (Faults) No Impact: The project site is not within an identified Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no identified active faults traverse the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to the presence of an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone will occur. 3.6(a. ii) (Ground- Shaking) Less Than Significant Impact: The proximity of the City's UGB to the Hayward Rodgers Creek Fault Zone places it within Zone VIII (Very strong) of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity level. As such, the project site holds potential to expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. An earthquake in the Hayward Rodgers -Creek fault zone with a 7.1 magnitude holds potential to create peak ground accelerations up to or greater than 0.6g. The resultant vibrations would likely cause primary damage to buildings and infrastructure with secondary effects being ground failures in loose alluvium, landslide deposits or poorly compacted fill. Both the primary and secondary effects pose a risk of loss of life or property. The City of Petaluma General Plan DEIR Figure 3.7 -2: Local Geology, indicates that the site is underlain by fine grained Holocene Alluvium. Conformance with standards set forth in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, (CBC 3.7 -20, Chapter 3: Setting, Impacts and mitigation measures) 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. The Project is required to comply with Petaluma uniformly applied development standards, including that which stipulates compliance with the most current version of the California Building Code. As the project is required to comply with Petaluma's uniformly applied development standards, impacts associated with strong ground shaking will be less than significant. 3.6(a. iii -iv) (Ground Failure and Landslides) Less Than Significant Impact: Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loosely packed, fine grained sediment to a fluid like state as a result of ground shaking. Landslides often occur as a result of earthquake ground shaking and the presence of liquefied subsurface materials. Landslides have been known to occur in Sonoma County, but are typically limited to slopes steeper than 15% and confined to areas underlain by geologic units that have demonstrated stability problems in the past. The project site is generally flat and is located outside areas identified as having high to very high potential for liquefaction as delineated in the GP DEIR, Fig. 3.7 -5: Geologic Hazards. Based on the site's flat topography and the soil profile of medium - grained Holocene alluvium, impacts associated with liquefaction and landslides are expected to be less than significant. 3.6(b) (Erosion) Less Than Significant Impact: Development of the 76 Gas station at 4998 Petaluma Boulevard North will require site preparation and grading activities that hold the potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil if not properly controlled. Preparation for site grading will involve demolition /removal of the existing commercial structure and a limited number of site improvements that include curbs, parking spaces, and four small ornamental trees. In accordance with the City of Petaluma's Grading Ordinance (Chapter 17.31.010 of the Municipal Code), the applicant will be required to prepare an erosion control plan that identifies measures and practices to be implemented during construction and establishes controls for grading activity during the rainy season. Compliance with this uniformly applied development standard will reduce any potential effects from erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. 3.6(c) (Unstable Geologic Unit) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is generally flat and exhibits a minimal grade with no apparent soil migration within the project site boundaries. No signs of soil creep or lateral spreading are readily apparent on or near the project site, nor is the project site located in an area known to be particularly susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse. The project site is not known to contain an especially unstable geologic unit that may become unstable as a result of development activities. Adherence to standard CBC stipulations are sufficient to ensure that impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse would remain at less than significant Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 31 levels. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts due to the presence of a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. 3.6(d) (Expansive Soils) Less Than Significant Impact: Expansive soils are a concern within the Urban Growth Boundary. In order to ensure that the potential presence of expansive soils does not result in significant impacts, the applicant must comply with Seismic Zone 4 Soil and Foundation Support Parameters outlined in Chapters 16 and 18 of the California Building Code and grading requirements outlined in Chapters 18 and A33 of the California Building Code. Furthermore, to ensure that the design and construction techniques adequately account for expansive soils a design level geotechnical report will be prepared and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits. Uniformly applied development standards require that the project follow applicable building code and stipulate that design level review is performed. As such, compliance with uniformly applied standards will ensure that that sufficient soil stability is achieved. Therefore, impacts due to expansive soils will be less than significant. 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 subdivision. 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 32 3.7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No with Significant Impact Would the project: Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either El El ® El directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or El El regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing_ the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR; BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Regulation 8 Organic Compound Rule 7 Gasoline Dispending Facilities, BAAQMD, November 6, 2002; California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2012; and Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan BAAQMD September 2010 Greenhouse Gas Setting: Greenhouse gases (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, GHGs contributing to global climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. In the United States, CO2 emissions account for about 85 percent of all 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 GHG emissions by reducing urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled. The City of Petaluma has taken steps to address GHG emissions within city limits. The City adopted Resolutions 2002 -117 and 2005 -118 (both incorporated herein by reference), which 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, in partnership with the County and other jurisdictions has released a draft Climate Action Plan. Once approved, this effort will implement General Plan Policy 4 -P -27. General Plan Goal 5 -G -8, which calls for the City to "expand the use of alternative modes of mobility serving regional needs," is being pursued and implemented in part through the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Plan, which will provide light rail commuter service to Petaluma. The light rail effort is estimated to take more than 1.4 million car trips off Highway 101 annually and reduce GHGs by at least 124,000 pounds per day. A number of other General Plan policies also serve to reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction, design and operation. In addition to those outlined above, General Plan policy 3- P -127 requires that projects prepare a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address recycling of major waste generated by demolition and construction activities. Particularly relevant to the project is policy 4 -P -10 which requires an electric vehicle charging station and alternative fuel facilities at all new and remodeled gas stations. Furthermore, the City adopted an update to the California Building Standards Code and requires compliance with the mandatory California Green Building Code (CalGreen) and the provisions of CalGreen Tier 1. All new development within the City of Petaluma must comply with these standards. As such, new development is expected to be more energy efficient, use fewer resources, and emit less GHGs. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted revised CEQA Guidelines, which included thresholds of significance for GHGs. The Guidelines were subsequently updated in May 2011. The BAAQMD was the first regional air district to adopt numeric thresholds for GHGs. The guidelines identified 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent per year (CO2e /yr) or 4.6 MT /year per service population (residents /employees) as a numeric emissions level, below which a project's contribution to global climate change would be considered less than significant. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 33 The BAAQMD Guidelines use a three - tiered approach for setting a significance threshold for the project -level contributions to cumulative GHG impacts. Based on the BAAQMD Guidelines, a project is considered less - than- significant if it either: a) Complies with a legislatively adopted GHG Reduction Strategy which meets or exceeds one of the following three options: i. Reduces emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, ii. Reduces emissions 15% below baseline (2008 or earlier) emission level by 2020, or iii. Meets the plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e /service population /year; b) Emits a total of less than 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year; or c) Emits less than 4.6 MT /service population /year. Metric tons per capita for the service population per year (service population includes residents and any employees). In 2007, the City prepared a revised Air Quality section for the General Plan EIR to address GHGs. Appendix A of the 2007 Revised EIR includes all of the applicable policies from the General Plan that reduce GHG Emissions. The General Plan is not considered a "qualified" GHG reduction strategy by the BAAQMD. As such, BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalents per year (CO2e /yr) is used to evaluate project level significance. Qraanhouge Gas Emissions Impact Discussion: 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, as such GHG estimates for construction activities are presented below for information purposes only. BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalents per year (CO2e /yr) is used to evaluate the significance of operational emissions. The following discussion also evaluates compliance of the proposed project with AB 32 GHG reduction measures, and General Plan 2025 measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. Projects proposed in areas where a qualified BAAQMD GHG Reduction Strategy has not been adopted are reviewed against a screening threshold of 1,100 MT CO2 equivalents per year (CO2e /yr). The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2011.1.1 was used to predict net GHG emissions from demolition, construction and operation of the proposed 76 Gas Station. CaIEEMod calculates emission projections for transportation, area sources, electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, electricity usage associated with water use and wastewater discharge, and solid waste disposal. The results of the CaIEEMod GHG emission projections are set forth below under Table 5. Construction emissions As stated above, 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. Accordingly, best management practices will be imposed on the project per a condition of approval. Further, while no significance threshold exits for construction - related GHG emissions, the project's annual construction emissions (65.2 MT of CO2e) will be below the lowest project emission threshold considered by BAAQMD (1,100 metric tons MT CO2e /yr). Accordingly, GHG emissions generated from construction of the proposed project will not directly or indirectly result in significant impacts to the environment and any impacts will be less than significant. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 34 Operational emissions The BAAQMD establishes a screening threshold of 1,000 square feet to determine potentially significant impacts from GHGs at operation of a convenience market with gas pumps.6 As the development proposes an increase to the convenience store square footage, as well as the introduction of a carwash, a quantitative GHG emission analysis was conducted. Similar to the discussion in Section 3.3 above, operational emissions of GHGs were determined by deducting the proposed projections from existing uses in order to quantify net emissions. At operation GHG emissions are conservatively projected to be 861 MT of CO2e per year before deducting emissions generated by the existing use. After factoring for emissions generated by the existing use, net GHG emissions from the project are estimated to be 570 MT of CO2e /year. The projected net GHG emission level is well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e /yr. Therefore impacts to air quality resulting from GHG emissions during operation of the 76 Gas Station would be less than significant. Table 5 Construction and Operation GHG Emissions Source Category 2017 Project Emissions (MT/ r) Area <1 Energy Consumption <1 Mobile 855 Solid Waste Generation 5 Water Usage <1 Operational Emissions Total 861 Existing GHG Emissions 291 Net GHG Emissions 570 BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 MT of CO2e /yr Significant? No Construction Emission Total' 65.2 Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2, March 2016. 1. Construction emission thresholds of significance for GHGs have not been established by the BAAQMD. 3.7(b) (GHG Plan Conflict) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed 76 Gas Station is consistent with applicable GHG regulations and General Plan policies. The project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building standards and 2013 Building & Energy Efficiency Standards. The project further proposes the installation of an electrical vehicle charging stall, pursuant to General Plan policy 4 -P -10. As a condition of approval, the applicant will prepare a Construction Phase Recycling Plan pursuant to policy 3 -P -127 to address the disposal of materials from demolition and construction. Therefore, potential impacts due to the generation and emission of greenhouse gases would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 35 Table 3 -1, pg 3 -2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May2012. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 36 3.8. HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS e) For a project located within an airport land use Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No Would the project: with Significant Mitigation Impact Impact would the project result in a safety hazard for ❑ ❑ ❑ Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ © ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the wildlands? environment through reasonably foreseeable upset Inc., September 23, 2014; personal communication with Glenn Morelli, Sonoma County Department Health Service, April 4, 2016 and July 13, 2016; Remedial Action Workplan prepared by AECOM, April 6, and accident conditions involving the release of ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ FX1 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ M 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 DEIR; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Encon Solutions, Inc., September 23, 2014; personal communication with Glenn Morelli, Sonoma County Department Health Service, April 4, 2016 and July 13, 2016; Remedial Action Workplan prepared by AECOM, April 6, 2016; and Geotracker accessed July 13 2016 Hazardous Material Settina: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) defines a hazardous material as: "a substance or combination of substances that, because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: 1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed." Hazardous materials are generally classified based on the presence of one or more of the following four properties: toxicity; ignitability; corrosivity; and reactivity. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 37 Regulations governing the use, management, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are administered by federal, state and local governmental agencies. Federal regulations governing hazardous materials and waste include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); and the Superfund Amendments and Re- authorization Act of 1986 (SARA). In California hazardous materials and waste are regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). Pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Law, the DTSC maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list, also known as the "Cortese List." There are no known Cortese sites within the City of Petaluma. In California the Secretary for Environmental Protection established the Unified Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Program, also known as "Unified." The Unified program is intended to consolidate and ensure consistency in the administration of requirements, permits and inspections for six programs, including the Underground Storage Tank LUST) program. The six programs established by the Unified Program are administered and implemented locally-through "Certified Unified Program Agencies" (CUPA). The Petaluma CUPA manages the acquisition, maintenance and control of hazardous materials and waste generated by industrial and commercial business under the auspices of the Petaluma Fire Department. Under CUPA, projects that intend to store, transport or generate hazardous waste must apply for and obtain a permit and submit a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory on an annual basis. The proposed project will involve demolition of the existing fueling canopy and 4 fueling dispensers (8 fueling positions), convenience store, and removal of two 12,000 gallon UST, as well as the limited removal of existing site improvements. Project site redevelopment will introduce a new gas station onsite. At operation the site will feature two underground fuel tanks each with a capacity of 20,000 gallons that will serve four dispensers (8 fueling positions), a new 2,179 square foot convenience store, carwash, new paving, landscaping and lighting. The primary hazardous materials considerations related to the project include proper disposal and removal of potentially hazardous materials during demolition and proper handling and storage of fuel during operation. Existing Site Conditions A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by Encon Solutions, Inc in September 2014. According to available records, soils and groundwater beneath the project site are contaminated with gasoline product (petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel volatile organic compounds) related to former USTs and fueling systems that were removed in 1987. The 76 Gas Station property is identified as an open LUST case currently under corrective action and monitoring with regulatory oversight. At present, there are 22 on- and off -site monitoring wells that are monitored on a quarterly basis. In addition, there are 21 on- and off -site sparge wells that are attached to the air sparging remediation system. Soil contamination is generally confined to the current and former USTs on the east side of the existing convenience store. Soil investigations and remediation at the'site took place between 1987 through 2008. In August 1987, two gasoline USTs were removed from the subject site. Additional soil was removed from the waste oil UST in September 1987. Subsequently, in 1994 an oil and water separator was abandoned at the site and soil samples were collected around excavation in the pit. Soil samples taken at the time indicated concentrations of gasoline and diesel in the areas investigated. In 1994 a second waste oil tank was removed from the site. Since the mid- 1990s, site remediation has occurred in phases. Iq 2004, 21 ozone sparge wells were installed on site and attached to a sparge remediation system. The system operated intermittently through 2012 when it was determined that the sparge remediation system was outdated and required replacement. On April 6, 2016 a Remedial Action Workplan was prepared by Consultants, AECOM, to detail the remedial activities that will be conducted to address residual subsurface contamination believed to be causing groundwater concentrations to exceed water quality objectives. The objective of the remedial action excavation is to remove the secondary source of contamination in soil and to reduce the concentrations of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 38 contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater to levels below the Low - Threat UST Case Closure Policy screening levels established by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, 2012). On April 14, 2016, the County approved the proposed Remedial Action Work Plan. Remediation work is proposed to coincide with redevelopment of the 76 Gas Station following the demolition stage. Once remedial work is completed, a remedial action completion report will be developed to document the remedial action excavation activities. The report will include details regarding the final dimensions and volume of the excavation, the volume of groundwater extracted, treated and discharged, the amount of soil transported and disposed of off -site and the associated waste manifests, the results of the soil and water sampling, the components of the backfill, the amount of excavated soil that was reused as backfill, the amount of imported clean fill that was used as backfill, the method of backfill compaction, and the results of compaction testing. Following completion the responsible party will go into post - remedial monitoring to verify that the remediation was successful in reducing contaminant concentrations to levels acceptable for closure under the State's Low Threat Closure Policy (LTCP). Once those objectives are met, the open corrective action case may be closed. Typically, post remedial monitoring is performed for 1 year following remediation. Given the above, closure of the corrective action case for the site can be anticipated to occur in the summer /fall of 2018. Hazards /Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion: 3.8(a -b) (Routine Transport, Upset and Accident Involving Release) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will involve the demolition of the existing gas station and appurtenant facilities followed by soil and groundwater remediation, construction of a new gas station and associated convenience store and carwash. Site remediation, 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. While the project site is expected to house hazardous materials on both a temporary and permanent basis, strict adherence to best management practices and compliance with all applicable regulations will ensure that potential impacts remain at levels below significance. Construction Demolition activities may hold the potential to release asbestos containing material given that the building's construction date preceded the banning of spray - applied asbestos in 1989. The EPA defines recognized asbestos containing materials (RACM) as any material exhibiting a composition with 1% or more of asbestos. National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Regulation 40 CFR Part 61, stipulates that no emissions are allowed during building demolition or renovation activities involving RACM. In accordance with NESHAP, facilities proposed for demolition must be surveyed for total RACM, Category 1 non - friable ACM, and Category 11 Non - friable ACM prior to project activities. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) implements EPA regulations governing RACM through Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 establishes requirements for the identification, reporting, handling, and disposal of RACM. The due compliance with federal, state and local regulations described above will ensure that hazards associated with the potential presence of RACM will not exceed less than significant levels. Operation At operation, the 76 Gas Station project proposes a once daily delivery of fuel to take place in the morning and evening. Twenty- thousand (20,000) gallons of fuel will be stored in each of the two Underground Storage Tanks (USTS). The transfer and storage of gasoline will result in the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are also assumed to be reactive organic gases (ROGs). Such compounds are emitted through the loading, breathing and vehicle refueling /dispensing of USTs with Phase 1 vent valves. The State of California requires that fueling stations incorporate proper control equipment necessary to minimize vapor emitted from the facility such as enhanced vapor recovery systems. (See expanded discussion in Sect. 3.3, Air Quality). Additionally, the facility is required to be constructed in accordance with California's Fire, Building Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 39 and Health Codes that require measures such as automatic shut offs and signage and spill containment for USTs. Last, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Petaluma CUPA and submit a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory that must meet CUPA standards. Compliance with all Federal, State and Local regulations outlined above and adherence -to best management practices will ensure that impacts related to hazards to people and the environment from redevelopment and operation of the 76 Gas Station remain below levels of significance. 3.8(c) (Emit or Handle Hazardous Material Within 1/4 Mile of School) No Impact: The project site is located in a commercial area in close proximity to Highway 101. There are no schools within a quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is Cinnabar Elementary, located on the far side of the Petaluma River approximately 3/ of a mile southeast of the project site. Adherence to existing federal, state and local regulations will ensure that any and all hazardous materials are properly transported, stored and disposed. Therefore, the project will have no impacts to nearby schools. 3.8(d) (Government Code §65962.5 Site) Less Than Significant Impact: As described above, the project site is a designated LUST site based on soil and groundwater contamination due to past leaking USTs. Based on the presence of residual contamination there is a potential that previously undetected soils containing petroleum hydrocarbon could be encountered. In accordance with the requirements of the Remedial Action Plan, in order to protect worker health due to contact with onsite contamination, the project applicant is required to prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) prior to commencement of site remediation activities and in accordance with 29 CFR Section 1910.120(1)(2), CCR, Title 8, Section 5192 (Cal /OSHA) and Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. The HSP will delegate responsibilities, establish personal protection standards, and provide for contingencies that may arise during site remediation. The HSP will be signed by an individual certified in the Comprehensive Practice of Industrial Hygiene by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene and trained in hazardous waste site operations. A copy of the HSP will be kept on site during excavation activities and will be reviewed and updated as needed to account for any change in scope or site condition. Implementation of the HSP as overseen by the County through compliance with the Remedial Action Plan (corrective action monitoring) will ensure proper consideration of health and safety concerns associated with residual petroleum hydrocarbon in soils and protections for workers conducting subsurface work. Accordingly, potential health and safety risks from worker exposure to hazardous materials will be less than significant levels. 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 3 miles east of the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with airport - related hazards are expected. 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 project will have no impact on an Emergency Response or Emergency Evacuation Plan. 3.8(h) (Wildland Fire) No Impact: The project site is located in the Petaluma North Planning Subarea within the UGB and is bounded by commercial and industrial 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 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 40 3.9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No Would the project: p J with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ FX1 Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR; "Chapter 6: Floodway and Flood Plain Districts," Implementing Zone Ordinance, Revised July, 2014; Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 0893F; Figure 4.1: Tioretention Facility ", BASMAA Post- Construction Manual, July 2014; FEMA LOMA Determination for Case No 16- 09 -1672A June 22 2016. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 41 Hydrology and Water Quality 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. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Construction General Permit, 2009 - 0009 -DWQ requirements apply to grading, grubbing, and other ground disturbance activities. Construction activities on more than one acre are subject to NPDES permitting requirements including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies stormwater collection and discharge points, drainage patterns across the site, and best management practices that dischargers will use to protect stormwater runoff. The City of Petaluma collects Storm Drainage Impact Fees as a means of mitigating storm drainage impacts occurring as a result of development. The criteria provides for either the payment of fees or the construction of on- or off -site detention areas, based upon the type of project and amount of runoff generated, as calculated for a 100 -year storm. Fees collected are used by the City for the acquisition, expansion, and development of storm drainage improvements. Chapter 15.80 of the City's Municipal Code regulates stormwater discharges. Grading and erosion control requirements are set forth in Chapter 17.31 of the Municipal Code. Low Impact Development (LID) requirements establish limitations on the stormwater runoff emanating from development sites. New development, including the 76 Gas Station, is required to mimic pre - developed conditions, protect water quality, and retain runoff from impervious surfaces onsite. 3.9(a) (Water Quality Standards) Less than Significant Impact: The 76 Gas Station project is required to adhere to water quality discharge requirements. As a fuel station, the 76 Gas Station is considered a "stormwater runoff hotspot" based on the increased potential for stormwater containing hydrocarbons and /or sediment. The applicant has proposed the installation of bio- retention facilities to receive and filter on -site runoff prior to discharge. The bio- retention facilities will resemble the cross - section shown in Figure 4.1 of the BASMAA Post Construction Manual. Additionally, discharge -from the site will not substantially increase as a result of the proposed improvements since the site is currently developed and operating with an existing gas station. The installation of the bio- filtration /infiltration trench and adherence to best management practices for erosion control during construction activities as required per uniformly applied development standards will ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, the project's potential to violate water quality or waste discharge standards would be less than significant. 3.9(b) (Groundwater Supply and Recharge) Less Than Significant Impact: The City has adequate water resources to accommodate development of the 76 Gas Station without depleting, degrading or altering groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge. The subject project would not result in a lowering of the aquifer or the local ground water table. The project's net water demands are consistent with the water demands evaluated in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which found sufficient water supplies are available to meet existing and planned future development within the UGB. Groundwater reserves will not be impacted by the proposed development and impacts will be less than significant. 3.9(c -d) (Drainage Pattern or Runoff) Less than Significant Impact: The project would not alter the course of the existing surface drainage feature. Stormwater runoff generated by impervious surfaces will be conveyed to the bioretention facilities mentioned above and concentrated at the northern extents of the site. There is no expectation that the project will induce substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, or that it would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Existing flow volume and direction would largely be retained since the existing use will be reestablished after construction is completed. Therefore, the project's potential to alter drainage patterns and resultant impacts would be less than significant. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 42 3.9(e -f) ( Stormwater Drainage System Capacity, Otherwise Degrade Water Quality) Less than Significant Impact: As the project entails redevelopment of an existing gas station, it is not expected to result in a substantial increase to impervious surfaces that would generate an excess of stormwater runoff. Project plans indicate an increase in impervious surface of approximately 500 square feet relative to existing conditions. In order to accommodate runoff generated by a 100 -year peak storm event, the site will feature an infiltration/bio- filtration facility located at the northern portion of the site that will contain and filter stormwater flows. Because the site is considered a stormwater runoff hotspot, the bio- filtration trench will include several layers of filtration comprised of cobbles and soils which are expected to sufficiently capture litter, suspended solids and /or particulate metals present in runoff flows. The negligible increase in impervious surfaces and the installation of bio- filtration facilities will ensure that the project does not contribute an increased amount of runoff or degrade water quality. Impacts associated with drainage are expected to be less than significant. 3.9(g -j) (Flood Hazard, Seiche, Tsunami, Mudfl.ow) No impact: The project consists of the redevelopment and minor expansion of services currently offered by the existing gas station. On February 17, 2016 the project applicant submitted a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) to the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated February 19, 2014, Community Panel Number 06097C0893F, to remove the subject property from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The SFHA refers to an area subject to inundation by a flood having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). On June 22, 2016, in response to the applicant's request, FEMA issued a LOMA determination indicating that the subject site is indeed not located in the SFHA. The LOMA determination effectively amends the FIRM to remove the subject property from the SFHA. As of June 22, 2016, the subject property was removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area and has been designated as Flood Zone X. This determination is to be reflected on the next scheduled map revision. Accordingly, given that the project site is not located in a SFHA and is located outside of the 0.2% annual floodplain, the project would not place housing or structures within a zone subject to a flooding hazard or impede or redirect flow. Further, the site is not located near a large water body that would be a source of a seiche or tsunami, nor is the site in a area with heightened potential for mudflow. Therefore, the 76 Gas Station project is not expected to generate impacts related to hazards associated with flooding or inundation. Mitigation Measures: None required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 43 3.10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Impact Significant Significant Impact with Impact Would the project: mitigation 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 and DEIR; and Petaluma Economic Development Strategy, 2010 Land Use and Planning Setting: The predominant land uses with the City's Urban Growth Boundary include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space, and public lands. Approximately 0.8% of the UGB lands are designated for commercial use. The 2025 General Plan proposes commercial /retail development that would increase the existing development by 2.87 million square feet relative to 2005 conditions. At buildout, commercial /retail uses are expected to total 7.06 million square feet or account for approximately 3% of the land uses. As proposed, the project will replace the existing gas station facility with a new slightly expanded facility resulting in a net increase in commercial space of 986 square feet. The project site exhibits a General Plan land use designation of "commercial" which is typified by regionally - oriented retail and commercial uses. According to the "Petaluma Economic Development Strategy" gasoline service stations are one of the top retail categories that contribute substantially to the $10 million in annual regional sales volume. Gasoline service stations are the second - largest profit generator in the "automotive" category. As mentioned above, the project site is located in an urbanized area of Petaluma and is adjacent to commercial and industrial uses. The project site has been developed since at least 1960 and developed with a modern gas station since at least 1977. The site is in close proximity to two major travel corridors including Petaluma Boulevard North and Highway 101. As an existing regional and community- serving commercial land use, the proposed project is expected to continue to complement adjacent commercial uses. . • . it .. i 3.10(a) (Divide An Established Community) No Impact: The project proposes to redevelop the existing 76 Gas Station site to include a new gas station, convenience store and carwash. The project site is located in a built out urban area and bounded by existing commercial and industrial uses. No substantive changes are proposed to the location of existing site ingress /egress. 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 or severely limiting 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 at the corner of Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive will not result in a departure from the existing use or intensity, of the site which is presently defined by commercial uses. There is no expectation that the project would substantially reduce mobility or access. Therefore, the project would have no impact due to the division of an established community. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 44 3.10(b) (Land Use Plan, Policy, Regulation Conflict) No Impact: The proposed project is required to comply with all General Plan policies and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. As proposed, the project does not involve a re -zone or change in land use and will continue to serve local and regional retail needs. The project is consistent with the goals of the 2025 General Plan and applicable regulations and policies therein. As redevelopment of an existing use within the UGB, the project is able to achieve several of the goals outlined in the 2025 General Plan. The project is able to meet Guiding Principle 9 by expanding retail opportunities that serve the community and provide revenue, while also maintaining the existing character. As a retail facility, the fuel station, convenience store, and carwash are able to encourage a healthy fiscal environment while retaining the existing character of the area. The project also includes elements intended to meet the sustainability goals outlined in the General Plan 2025. The project includes an electric vehicle charging station thereby meeting General Plan goal 4 -P -10. The sustainable practices proposed by the project include using drought resistant landscaping, bio- filtration trenches, LED lighting, and the installation of bike racks, which will achieve General Plan goals 8 -P -10; 8 -P -36, and 8 -P -39. The siting of the new fuel station, convenience store, and carwash within an existing commercial area achieve General Plan goals 9 -P- 14 and 9 -P -16. As the project will not incite a significant departure from the existing conditions and /or use of the site, the project is not expected to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, the project will have no impacts under this criterion. 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 45 3.11. MINERAL RESOURCES other land use plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR. • P •� 3.11(a -b) (Mineral Resources or Plan) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the UGB. No valuable resources have been identified on or near the site that would be impacted by activities associated with the proposed project. The project site has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will make a known mineral resource unavailable, nor would it conflict with access to a locally important mineral resource site. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 46 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X other land use plan? Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR. • P •� 3.11(a -b) (Mineral Resources or Plan) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources within the UGB. No valuable resources have been identified on or near the site that would be impacted by activities associated with the proposed project. The project site has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will make a known mineral resource unavailable, nor would it conflict with access to a locally important mineral resource site. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 46 3.12. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Would the project result in: Less inan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No 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 ❑ ❑ X❑ 1:1 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 and DEIR. Noise Setting: Noise is generally characterized as "unwanted sound" that is either annoying or disturbing. Noise sources within the City's Urban Growth Boundary include vehicular traffic, trains, and industrial activities such as mechanical equipment and refrigeration units. Freight train service through Petaluma is currently irregular and therefore is not considered a significant source of noise. In the future, the addition of SMART service is expected to contribute to noise levels within the Urban Growth Boundary, The City of Petaluma regulates noise through Section 21.040 of the IZO. Office /Commercial uses as well as schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and nursing homes are considered normally acceptable in a noise environment up to 70 dBA (Ldn or CNEL). The IZO further stipulates an hourly average level of 60 dBA as the maximum that may be generated on one land use that may affect another land use; the allowable levels are adjusted to account for the ambient noise levels and in no case shall the maximum allowed noise level exceed 75 dBA after adjustments are made. The 2025 General Plan Noise Contours (Fig. 10 -1) indicate the noise levels at the project site are expected to be 65 dBA CNEL/ Ldn at General Plan build out. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 47 • Ill• � • 3.12 (a, c) (Noise Standards, Ambient Noise Levels) Less than Significant Impacts: The City of Petaluma regulates the noise environment through Section 21.010 of the IZO. As stated above, commercial uses in areas with an Ldn up to 70 dBA would normally be acceptable. The General Plan noise contours indicate a noise level of 65 dBA at the project site at General Plan build out. Operational noise sources at the 76 Gas Station will include: • Parking lot activity including engine starts, door slams, and patron noise concentrated in the gas fueling area and parking area north of the kiosk. • Truck deliveries • Mechanical equipment associated with the convenience store and carwash The surrounding commercial land uses are not expected to generate exterior ambient noise levels exceeding 65 dBA. With present and reasonably foreseeable conditions noise levels onsite would be within the normally acceptable range. As a redevelopment project that is very similar in size, scope and use to the previous land use, the project is not expected to expose adjacent or nearby receptors to excessive exterior noise standards. Therefore, impacts from the project due to a permanent increase in the ambient noise environment including groundborne vibration would be less than significant. At project operation the onsite land use and associated noise environment will be typical of community /regional serving commercial and subject to the City's noise exposure standards. The 76 Gas Station project is not expected to introduce a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise environment as a result of stationary or mobile sources. The redevelopment of the gas station would result in stationary noise similar to that already present on the project site, including daily activities and movements related to fueling activity and activities performed by employees and customers, landscaping and maintenance activities and the use of the car wash. All of the above listed activities emit intermittent sources of noise levels typical of a commercial setting and are not expected to cause a perceptible noise increase. Accordingly, operation of the 76 Gas Station will have less than significant impacts to the existing noise environment. The project will have a negligible increase in traffic trips relative to the existing condition. The noise levels on Petaluma Boulevard North and in the immediate vicinity are expected to be consistent with the current condition, because the proposed project will result in only a slight expansion relative to the existing use. The increase in ambient noise levels from traffic generated by the project are not expected to exceed the normally acceptable thresholds. As such, noise levels generated by the project from mobile and stationary sources do not constitute a substantial increase in the noise environment and impacts to the ambient noise environment would be less than significant. 3.12 (b, d) ( Groundborne Vibration and Noise, Temporary or Periodic Noise Increase) Less than significant Impact: Construction activities will involve site preparation, demolition, foundation work and construction of the new convenience store, canopy, and carwash. The project has the potential to generate noise levels from the use of heavy equipment, especially during site preparation, demolition, and to a lesser extent, during construction phases. Construction activities associated with demolition and construction are expected to result in a periodic and temporary increase in ambient noise levels in and around the project site that may occasionally reach intrusive levels. These excessive noise levels will occur only during active construction activities and will end once the project is operational. Noise generated during construction would vary depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. Construction activities that would generate noise include site grading, excavation, hauling and deliveries, foundation work, and to a lesser extent framing, and exterior and interior finishing. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. No pile driving or work that would generate substantial groundbourne vibration is anticipated. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 48 The project is not located in proximity to sensitive receptors that may be affected by noise from construction activities. The project is also subject to conditions of approval including City of Petaluma's Noise Ordinance outlined in Section 21.040.A.3 of the IZO which limits the hours of construction. For these reasons, the project's impact relative to construction - related noise is considered to be less than significant. 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 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 Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 49 3.13. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Significant Less than No Impact Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, ® through ❑ ❑ ❑ extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ ,1 housing elsewhere? Sources 2025 General Plan and DEIR: City of Petaluma 2015 -2023 Housing Element. Population and Housing Setting: The 2.025 General Plan anticipates the population to reach 72,707 at General plan buildout in 2025, which translates to a growth rate of 1.2% per year. As a regional- serving commercial redevelopment project, the proposed 76 Gas Station is not expected to result in significant impacts related to population and housing. V#TpTM, menwairs][07Me r0f . .� 3.13(a) (Substantial Growth) Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes the redevelopment of an existing 76 Gas Station within the UGB. As with the existing onsite use, the redeveloped gas station will continue to utilize the existing city street network and infrastructure. As both a regional and community serving commercial facility, the project is not expected to induce growth through the creation of jobs or housing. Accordingly, impacts associated with the inducement of growth will be less than significant levels. 3.13(b -c) (Housing or Person Displacement) No Impact: The project involves the redevelopment of an existing commercial /retail site. At present, no people or housing occupy the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts resulting from the displacement of people or housing. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 50 3.14. PUBLIC SERVICES: b) Police protection? ❑ Less inan M ❑ Potentially Significant less than No Impact © Significant with Significant Would the Project: 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? ❑ ❑ M ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ © ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR. Public Services Setting: The project site is located in a developed area that is well served by existing public services. The proposed use and intensity of the site does not depart significantly from that of the existing use of retail /commercial and will not generate a heightened demand for public services. In order to offset the cost of improving or expanding City services to accommodate the demand generated by new or expanded development the City charges one -time impact fees on new private development. Development impact fees are necessary in order to finance required public service improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service related to fire and police protection services, open space, parkland and other such public services. LO, M •1 3.14(a -b) (Fire & Police Protection) Less Than Significant Impact: Fire and police protection is provided by the City of Petaluma Fire Department and Police Department, respectively. The project, which involves a slight increase in commercial /retail space, will not necessitate a significant increase in demand for fire or police services. In addition, the applicant is required to pay all development impact fees applicable to a commercial development project, including fire suppression facilities and law enforcement facilities impact fees. The funds generated by the impact fees will ensure sufficient services are maintained. Therefore, impacts to fire and police protection services will remain at levels below significant. 3.14(c -d) (Schools, Parks) Less Than Significant Impact: Fueling stations are generally considered local /regional serving commercial. They may provide a temporary influx of people into the immediate vicinity but are not expected to result in population growth that would then create a heightened demand for school and park facilities. Moreover, as a redevelopment project, the applicant will be required to pay school impact fees and general development impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. The payment of those impact fees are expected to sufficiently offset any impacts the project may have on local schools and parks. Therefore, any impacts will remain at levels below significant. 3.14(e) (Other Public Facilities) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not generate a substantial increase in demands that warrant the expansion or construction of any new public facilities. The project is proposed to redevelop an existing gas station with a new gas station of essentially the same size and intensity. Since the intensity of the site will remain similar to existing conditions, any potential impacts to other public facilities will remain at levels below significance. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 51 115. RECREATION Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less than No Impact Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated 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 and DEIR; Recreation Setting: The City of Petaluma offers a number of passive and active recreation opportunities within the UGB with approximately 18% of land (1,300 acres) devoted to parks and open space. Park land development and open space acquisition impact fees are required and help to mitigate any potential impacts generated by the project on parks and open space. .Tl .� 3.15(a -b) (Park Deterioration, Recreation Facilities) No Impact: The proposed 76 Gas Station will not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and /or regional parks or related recreational facilities. No new park facilities are being proposed or will be required as part of this development. Therefore, no impacts to recreational parks and amenities are expected. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 52 3.16. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Less inan Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ FA 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 DEIR. Transportation and Circulation Setting: The City of Petaluma is bisected by Highway 101, which serves as the primary route between San Francisco and Marin and Sonoma Counties. Highway 101 accommodates over 90,000 vehicles per day within Petaluma. The circulation system within the City of Petaluma consists of approximately 140 miles of streets including, arterials, collectors, connectors, and local streets. The major arterials serving the project site include Petaluma Boulevard North and Highway 101. The Petaluma General Plan 2025 was adopted in May 2008 and specifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets wherein the minimum acceptable operation is LOS D. Policy 5 -P -10 states, "Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi - modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project." The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are based on industry standards and indicate that a traffic study is warranted if a project is anticipated to create either 500 trips per day or 50 trips per peak hour. If a project falls within 10% of these thresholds the City may exercise discretion in whether or not to require a project specific traffic study. The proposed 76 Gas Station project is not expected to generate 500 or more daily trips or generate 50 or more peak hour trips for the following reasons: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 53 The proposed project includes the redevelopment of an existing gas station with a new gas station of substantially the same fueling capacity size, with an expanded retail component and new carwash station. The retail and carwash components of the project occupy the same space of the lot as the existing convenience store building that will be replaced. The new 76 Gas Station will feature eight (8) fuel positions (4 pumps with two fueling positions per pump) located beneath a 2,250 square foot fuel canopy, a 2,179 square foot convenience store, and a 1,129 square foot carwash tunnel with a 224 square foot equipment storage room. The net change in commercial retail square footage would be approximately 986 square feet. There will be no net change in fueling positions that would substantially increase the station's fueling capacity. While the carwash will expand the gas station's services, as an ancillary amenity, it is not considered a large traffic generator and the balance of carwash users will include customers who are already using the gas station. Furthermore, gas stations are not typically large traffic generators given that the majority of traffic trips associated with the use of gas stations are a result of pass -by trips. The proposed project is, likewise, not expected to contribute substantially to traffic on Highway 101. In addition, affected highway segments are expected to be widened as part of the Marin- Sonoma Narrows project, currently underway. Given the anticipated increase in highway capacity and the fact that the project would result in only a negligible change relative to the existing condition a site - specific traffic impact analysis was not required by the City. General Plan Policies: Mobility 5 -P -10: Maintain an intersection level of service (LOS) standard for motor vehicle circulation that ensures efficient traffic flow and supports multi -modal mobility goals. LOS should be maintained at Level D or better for motor vehicles due to traffic from any development project. 5 -P -20: Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities. Transportation and Circulation Impact Discussion: 3.16(a) (Plan, Policy, Ordinance: Circulation System) Less than Significant Impact: The site is accessed via a driveway off of Petaluma Boulevard North and from Auto Center Drive, which will continue to provide ingress and egress at operation. The stacking area and alignment of the fuel dispensers has been designed to accommodate simultaneous fueling of full size vehicles and vehicle queuing beyond the fuel canopy area. Parkin The site will include sixteen parking spaces, eight devoted to the fueling area at each fuel position, one van accessible stall, one air /water parking stall, and six standard stalls (one of which will have access to an electric vehicle charging station). The proposed parking spaces are expected to be sufficient to accommodate patrons of the fueling station and /or appurtenant convenience store. Queuing and Access The proposed redevelopment of the 76 Gas Station is designed to provide efficient internal circulation by minimizing conflicts between fuel pump bound traffic and fuel delivery trucks. The fuel pumps are spaced 25 feet from each other and are able to sufficiently accommodate simultaneous fueling of full sized picks -ups or SUVs. Once customers pull away from the pump they will have the option to exit the gas station via a right- out - only driveway onto Petaluma Boulevard North or exit along Auto Center Drive. Further, the project's circulation plan is subject to review and approval by the Petaluma Public Works & Utilities Department (Engineering & Traffic Division) and the Fire Marshal. The applicant is required to pay all development impact fees. The payment of impact fees in addition to proposed site design measures will ensure the project's impact to traffic and circulation will be less than significant. Accordingly, any impacts associated with performance of the circulation plan will be less than significant. Fuel Truck Delivery Path Fuel Delivery trucks will make one morning delivery and an evening delivery daily. The ingress and egress path will utilize the Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive ingress and egress points and is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 54 designed to have adequate space to loop around the fuel canopy to deliver fuel. No apparent issues or conflicts are indicated with the proposed truck ingress /egress pathway. Level of Service As a redevelopment of an existing use with only minimal expansion, the project will not cause traffic levels to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard "D" or below, established by the Petaluma General Plan. Project area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels for the near - term and long -term. Traffic volumes generated by the project will not have a significant impact on the existing intersection of Petaluma Boulevard North and Auto Center Drive. Level of Service for planning area intersections and highway segments are not expected to be altered by the proposed project. 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. 3.16(c) (Air Traffic Patterns) No Impact: The project will not result in an increase in traffic in a manner that changes the air traffic pattern. Nor will the project introduce a safety concern related to air traffic pattern due to the location of facilities. The project is located over 3 miles from the Petaluma Municipal Airport and does not contain any elements that would affect the air traffic pattern. Therefore, the project would have no circulation impact that affect air traffic. 3.16(d) (Design Feature Hazard) Less than Significant Impact: The project's design provides sufficient set back from roadways and maintains visibility around corners. No Landscaping is proposed for the ingress /egress points at Petaluma Boulevard North or Auto Center Drive that would conflict with visibility for turning movements. As proposed, there are no hazards that impede or block visibility or represent an incompatible design feature. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impact resulting from site design hazards or inadequate site distance. 3.16(e) (Emergency Access) No Impact: The project's internal circulation plan has been reviewed and meets all standard conditions imposed by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. Site circulation was determined to be adequate, including sufficient internal street widths to allow for fire truck turn around. Therefore, the project as proposed will have no impact to emergency access. 3.16(f) (Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian Facilities) Less than Significant Impact: The project conforms to adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Bike lanes currently do not exist along Petaluma Boulevard North or Auto Center Drive. A sidewalk along Petaluma Boulevard North, at the western extent of the subject parcel, provides connectivity as it transitions into Old Redwood Highway North over Highway 101. As proposed, the project will remove the existing fence along Petaluma Boulevard North and introduce a new accessible path of travel joining the sidewalk to the convenience store. A new in ground anchored bike rack will be installed at the southwest of the convenience store. All modes of transportation including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian are expected to adequately serve the project. There are no aspects of the project that would decrease performance or safety of existing alternative transportation facilities. The project is designed to connect to the existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts due to a conflict with an established regulation or plan pertaining to alternative modes of transit would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 55 3.17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 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 Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No Would the project: with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated project's projected demand in addition to the provider's a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicab© ❑ ❑ ❑X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ z capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulatiorn I_I ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? Sources: 2025 General Plan and DEIR; Water Resource and Conservation 2010 UWMP; and Sonoma County Water Agency 2010 UWMP Water Service System The Petaluma Department of Public Works and Utilities is the water purveyor for the City of Petaluma. The City purchases potable water wholesale from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). The primary source of water is supplied by the Russian River and supplemented with groundwater from the Santa Rosa Plain via the Petaluma Aqueduct. The City of Petaluma also extracts groundwater from the Petaluma Valley Basin. Groundwater serves as an emergency water supply in the event that SCWA water deliveries are curtailed. The City's Water Resource & Conservation District (WR &C) provides municipal water service to upwards of 60,000 customers and is required to prepare an urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) on a 5 -year basis, pursuant to the Urban Water Management Plan Act. The City's 2010 UWMP updated the water supply /demand projections set forth in the General Plan 2025 by extending the term of water analysis through the year 2035.7 The UWMP water analysis further refined the supply and demand management programs The City released the Draft 2015 UWMP in April 2016. It is currently undergoing public review and comment. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 56 based on population trends and land uses set forth in the 2025 General Plan, the current water supply contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and planned City water recycling and water conservation programs. The 2010 UWMP projected that by 2035 (expected General Plan buildout year) the gross water demand would be 14,022 acre -feet per year. It further estimated that implementation of water demand reduction programs would achieve a water savings of 2,402 acre -feet per year. Therefore, the net demand projected for the City's water service area is 11,047 acre -feet at buildout of the General Plan. As a potable water purveyor, the SCWA also prepared a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Brown & Caldwell June 2011), which was adopted on June 21, 2011. The SCWA maintains water rights permits for surface water from the Russian River with a limit of 75,000 acre -feet per year. The permits typically contain terms limiting the rates of direct diversion in order to protect fish and wildlife species and recreation activities. It is anticipated that the SCWA will obtain water rights approval from the State Water Control Board to increase future water diversions above 75,000 acre feet in 2027 and to 80,000 acre -feet in 2035. This expectation is based on a number of factors including the fact that the physical infrastructure needed to support additional diversion already exists, the requested increase remains relatively small, customers and policy makers are maximizing conservation efforts to the greatest extent practicable and finally, that the need for additional diversions is supported by the findings of the SCWA 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Accordingly, the SCWA expects to be able to increase annual water deliveries to Petaluma from approximately 7,200 acre -feet in 2010 to 11,400 acre -feet by 2035. Severe Drought Conditions California has experienced several consecutive dry years and on January 17, 2014, Governor Brown proclaimed a state of emergency throughout 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 imposing a mandatory 25 percent reduction for the State's 400 local water supply agencies and requiring that local water agencies 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. The State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) is responsible for developing the regulatory framework to implement the Executive Order, On April 18, 2015, SWRCB issued updated proposed regulatory instructions that grouped urban water suppliers into nine tiers, with conservation standards ranging from 8 percent to 36 percent. The City of Petaluma is designated as a Tier 6 and is held to a 16% conservation standard which takes into account past conservation efforts. Two subsequent executive orders have since been issued by the governor including EO B -36 -15 (Nov. 13, 2015) and EO B -37 -16 (May 9, 2016). EO B -36 -15 bolsters the states drought response to a fifth year drought condition and assist recovery efforts from wildfires. EO B -37 -16 aims to make water conservation way of life by enhancing clime and drought resiliency statewide. The City of Petaluma has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan which outlines four stages of water shortage and implements water use reduction measures according to severity of the drought. The four stages are as follows: Stage 1 (minimal); Stage 2 (Moderate); Stage 3 (Severe); and Stage 4 (Critical). In March of 2014 the City of Petaluma imposed voluntary measures in accordance with Stage 1 of the Water Contingency Plan to reduce water usage by twenty percent. Subsequently, on April 27, 2015, the City of Petaluma implemented Stage 2 mandates that include measures such as no landscape irrigation with potable water between 8 am and 7 pm, no run off, no washing of vehicles without hoses with automatic shutoffs, and no decorative water features unless recirculating. The General Plan stipulates the need for routine monitoring of water supplies relative to actual use and expected demands of each new development project (GP policy 8 -P -4) as a means to ensure that the City of Petaluma maintains a sufficient water supply to meet the City's water demands through General Plan buildout. Despite the low rainfall over the last few years, Lake Sonoma, which provides a majority of the SCWA water supply, is currently (7.26.2016) at 93 percent water supply capacity with multiple years of water supply remaining. Wastewater Treatment Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 57 The Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility treats all wastewater generated by the City of Petaluma and the unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove. The water recycling facility produces tertiary recycled water in compliance with the California Department of Health Services. The facility is comprised of more than 190 miles of underground piping and 9 pump stations, with plans for incremental expansion until 2025. At present, treatment capacity is at approximately 6.7 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow) with actual treatment at approximately 5 million gallons per day. During the dry summer months, recycled water is introduced into the City's recycled water system with allowable irrigation uses including: residential landscaping, unrestricted access golf courses, agricultural lands, parks, playgrounds and schools and other uses permitted by the California Department of Health and Safety Code. During the winter months secondary treated water is conveyed to the Petaluma River, Storm Drains Within the City of Petaluma storm drains convey runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and buildings to gutters that drain to creeks and the Petaluma River and ultimately the San Pablo Bay. This water is untreated and carries with it any contaminants picked up along the way such as solvents, oils, fuels and sediment. The City has implemented a storm drain labeling program to provide a visual reminder that storm drains are for rain water 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. Utilities and Service Systems Impact Discussion: 3.17(a -b) (Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements, New On -Site Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities) No Impact: The project site is served by the Ellis Creek Wastewater Recycling Facility which treats wastewater and produces approximately 700 million gallons of tertiary water per year. The proposed 76 Gas Station would generate water similar to the existing use onsite, which was accounted for in the 2025 General Plan and the 2010 UWMP. The project's generation of wastewater falls within the current capacity of the sanitary sewer lines and the City's Wastewater Sewer Plan. The project will not necessitate the expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to exceeding wastewater treatment requirements or requiring new or expanded wastewater facilities. 3.17(c) (Require New Stormwater Facilities) No Impact: The project is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts due to the expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities or construction of new facilities. Redevelopment of the project site will not result in a substantial increase in impervious services. As proposed the project will include onsite bioretention facilities to treat runoff onsite prior to discharging into storm drains. At present, the storm drainage infrastructure. exhibits sufficient capacity and is expected to continue to do so at project buildout. Therefore, there will be no impacts that will require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of new facilities that could cause potentially significant environmental effects. 3.17(d) (Sufficient Water Supplies) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed gas station is not expected to create a demand that would exceed existing water supplies. The project site is within the UGB and is consistent with the development potential' envisioned by the 2025 General Plan. As an existing use, water demands are currently being generated by the project site and are not expected to be substantially different under the proposed project. In comparing the 2025 General Plan projected water demand to actual use through December 2012 it was found that potable water demand is well within the SCWA supply, both for the 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 offset peak demands. 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 standard condition from the department of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project comply with the City's Water Conservation Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 58 Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Water demand onsite will be limited through efficient irrigation of landscaping using drip line irrigation equipped with weather tracking controller; plants will also be grouped in "Hydrozones" grouped according to water demand. The proposed carwash will capture and reuse water so as to limit water waste. As such, the project's impacts to water supplies and infrastructure would be less than significant. 3.17(e) (Wastewater Treatment Capacity) No Impact: 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 redevelopment of the project site with a new gas station, convenience store and carwash is well within the flow capacity analyzed as part of the General Plan: The project will not generate wastewater that exceeds the capacity of the City's existing wastewater treatment plant when added to existing and projected commitments through General Plan buildout. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to the adequacy or capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. 3.17(f -g) (Landfill Capacity, Solid Waste Statutes) No Impact: The proposed 76 Gas Station, convenience store and carwash will contribute minimally to the generation of solid waste within the UGB. The net amount of solid waste expected to be generated by the project is considered negligible relative to existing conditions and is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma 2025 General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Solid waste facilities are owned and operated by the Sonoma County Department of Transportation and Public Works; 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. The project applicant is required to adhere i:o all regulations governing the disposal of solid waste. Policy 4 -P- 21 requires waste reduction in compliance with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (COLWMP) and any waste generated from demolition and construction activities will be reduced through the development of a Construction Waste Management Plan. Solid waste generated during operation will be collected using canisters for waste, green waste and recyclables provided by the Petaluma Refuse and Recycling for Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Services and transferred to Sonoma County Landfill site. As the project entails redevelopment of an existing gas station it is expected that the project will have no impacts related to the disposal of solid waste or violations of Federal, State and /or Local statutes and regulations governing solid waste. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 59 3.18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §15065) A focused or full environmental impact report for a project may be required where the project has a significant effect on the environment in any of the following conditions: Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less than No with Significant Impact Would the project: Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ eliminate a plant 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? 3.18(a) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is located within the UGB and is considered as part of the development anticipated by the City's General Plan and analyzed in the EIR. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and goals, policies and programs. 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 76 Gas Station 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, especially considering that the project will replace an existing gas station. The project is also consistent with the surrounding land uses and implements the intent of the UGB through redevelopment in an existing urbanized area. Public utility and service providers will be capable of serving the project with existing or planned facilities. Potential environmental impacts are expected to remain at levels below significance, and long -term environmental goals are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. The Project does not increase the severity of any of the impacts from the levels identified and analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore the project's cumulative impacts will be less than significant. 3.18(c) 3.18(c) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not expected to generate any adverse impacts to humans. The 76 Gas Station project will not cause a significant environmental effect(s) 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 60 4. 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 Desi n, 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 & General Plan Chapter 5. Mobility -Safety General Plan Chapter 11. Housing General Plan Chapter 6. Recreation, Music, Parks, & the Arts Implementing Zoning Ordinance/ Maps Other Sources of Information City of Petaluma General Plan EIR City GHG Plan Petaluma UWMP Geotracker and Envirostor SC WA UWMP General Plan 2025 EIR FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines BAAQMD CAP FEMA LOMA Determination 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. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment," prepared by Encon Solutions, Inc. September 23, 2014. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016 -17 Page 61