Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 9.B 06/20/2005UP CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA June 2.0, 2005 AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Conduct a public hearing and introduce ordinance Meetine Date: June 20, 2005 adopting a Precise Plan Line for Water Street North (Poultry Street) between Washington Street and Lakeville Street. Meetine Time: ❑ 3:00 PM © 7:00 PM Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ® Public Hearing ❑ New Business ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department:Director: , Contact Person: Phone Number: Community Mike Moo e Craig aulding 778-4466 Development Cost of Proposal: N/A Account Number: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Name of Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: Ordinance with Legal Description and Plat (Exhibit 1) Aerial Photo with Alignment (Exhibit 2) Summary Statement: The Precise Plan Line for Water Street North (Poultry Street) will provide future right-of-way to access properties behind the existing buildings on Petaluma Boulevard, adjacent to the Petaluma River and between Washington Street and Lakeville Street. Recommended Citv Council Action/Sueeested Motion: Approve proposed alignment and introduce ordinance adopting Water Street North Precise Plan Line. Reviewkd by Admin. Svcs. Dir: D te���� Todav's Date: June 9, 2005 Reviewed by City Attornev: Revision # WDate'Revised: Approved by Citv Manager: 0 Date: File Code: CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 20, 2005 AGENDA REPORT FOR CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PRECISE PLAN LINE FOR WATER STREET NORTH (POULTRY STREET) BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKEVILLE STREET. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Precise Plan Line for Water Street North (Poultry Street) will provide future right-of-way to access properties behind the existing buildings on Petaluma Boulevard, adjacent to the Petaluma River and between Washington Street and Lakeville Street. 2. BACKGROUND: A recent development application has created the need to establish a Precise Plan Line for future right-of-way. The proposed development and Precise Plan Line are located behind the existing buildings on Petaluma Boulevard North, adjacent to the Petaluma River and between Washington Street and Lakeville Street. The subject Precise Plan Line defines the future right-of-way alignment and width of Water Street North. Right-of-way alignment and width is based on Central Petaluma Specific Plan thoroughfare standards, typical sections and required lane and parking geometry. The alignment also generally follows the existing railroad easements in the area. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 21, 2005 to discuss the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, the related Water Street North Condominium Development and the Precise Plan Process. Approximately 20 people attended to listen to the presentation and participate in a question and answer session. A legal description and plat have been prepared and an attached exhibit reflects the alignment over an aerial photo of the proposed plan line location. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 24, 2005 and recommended approval of the Water Street North Precise Plan Line to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council, on June 6, 2005, adopted a Resolution of Intent to establish a Precise Plan Line and conduct a public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: Continue the public hearing and delay introduction of the ordinance. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A CONCLUSION: The Community Development Deparhnent finds that the proposed Water Street North Precise Plan Line provides orderly and efficient traffic circulation for future right-of-way access. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed alignment and introduce ordinance adopting the Water Street North Precise Plan Line. S:\CC-City Cauneil\Reports\Water Street Plan Line 6-20-2005.doc 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ORDINANCE NO. Introduced By N.C. S. Seconded By AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PRECISE PLAN LINE FOR THE RESERVATION OF FUTURE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR WATER STREET NORTH BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKEVILLE STREET BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council fords that on May 24, 2005 the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council an affinnative recommendation relative to the establishment of a Precise Plan Line and that said recommended Precise Plan Line is further designated and shown on that certain description attached hereto, designated Exhibit A and Exhibit B and by reference made a part hereof. Section 2. The City Council further finds that said Planning Commission held a hearing on said proposal to establish Precise Plan Line on May 24, 2005, after having given notice of the hearing in the manner, for the period in the form required by Ordinance No. 597 N.C.S. Section 3. The City Council further finds that notice of the public hearing required to be held by the City Council upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation and as set forth in Resolution No. N.C. S. duly adopted by this Council on .Tune 6, 2005 was given in the mariner, for the period and in the form required by Ordinance No. 597 N.C.S. Section 4. The City Council further finds that, after the public hearing on June 20, 2005, no protests or objections to said proposed Precise Plan Line which should be sustained were received; and that any changes and modifications were made to said proposed Precise Plan Line and that the public safety, comfort, convenience, interest and welfare required by the adoption of the recommended Precise Plan Line is consistent with the purpose of Ordinance No. 597. Section 5. That pursuant to Ordinance No. 597 the City Council hereby orders the establishment of the Precise Plan Line described above, and further designated on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish this ordinance including Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto, in the maimer and for the period prescribed by the City Charter. RE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 INTRODUCED AND ORDERD published this 20`h day of June 2005. ADOPTED this day of 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Approved: City Attorney EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION WATER STREET PLAN LINE BOUNDARY The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of Sonoma, City of Petaluma. Being a portion of Lot(s) 371 through 379, 381, 382, 509, 511, 512,514 and 515 as the same is laid down and designated upon the Official Map of the City of Petaluma, as made by Jas. T. Stratton, Esq., Surveyor, and a portion of land east of the Petaluma River as shown on "Map of East Petaluma (Harmonl857)" and which portion is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point in the center of a three (3) inch brass disc (Monument No. 26) set in a monument well case, said point being the intersection of the centerlines of Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard North (Main Street) as shown on the unrecorded map of "Oficial Re -survey of City Limit Line" (Pearson 1953) on file with the City of Petaluma, from which point Monument No. 25 bears North 67' 40'00" East (Map =North 68° 01'28" East), 149.56 feet as shown on said Pearson Survey; thence from said point of commencement, North 19' 41'22" East, 47.12 feet to the most southerly corner of Lot 371 as shown on the "Official Map of the City of Petaluma" (Stratton 1865) filed in the Office of the Sonoma County Recorder, said corner being formed by the intersection of the northeasterly line of Petaluma Boulevard North and the northwesterly line of East Washington Street; thence from said corner and along said northwesterly line of East Washington Street, North 67° 40100" East, 102.09 feet to a point marking the intersection of the westerly right of way line of the "Water Street Plan Line Boundary," with the northwesterly line of East Washington Street, said point of intersection being the True Point of Beginning of the portion of land herein described; thence leaving said northwesterly line and along said Water Street Plan Line Boundary the following courses and distances: North 14° 21127'1 West, 3 9.3 7 feet to a point which marks the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 555.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 13' 34' 12", an arc length of 131.45 feet; thence North 00° 47' 15" West, 58.37 feet to a point which marks the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 472.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 07'47'37", an arc length of 64.20 E 1114 1 of 5 feet to a point of reverse curve to the left with a radius of 728.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 07' 59'04", an arc length of 101.45 feet; thence North 00° 58'42" West, 12.94 feet; thence North 67° 04'58" East, 12.94 feet; thence North 00° 58'42" West, 2.92 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 265.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 43° 23' 32", an arc length of 200.69 feet; thence North 44' 22' 14" West, 17.56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right with having a radius of 255.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 19° 53'26", an arc length of 88.52 feet; thence North 24° 28'48 " West, 389.34 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 550.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 22' 39'47"; an are length of 217.55 feet; thence North 01' 49'02" West, 139.95 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 13' 02'51 " an are length of 113.86 feet to the beginning of a non -tangent curve to the left whose center bears South 75'08'07" West, 220.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 20° 25'23", an arc length of 78.42 feet to a point of reverse curve to the right having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 16' 38'43", an arc length of 145.26 feet more of less to a point on the southerly line of Lakeville Street (shown as Bridge Street on the "Official Map of the City of Petaluma," Stratton 1865) said point bears South 89' 12' 05" West, 15.93 feet more or less from the northeasterly corner of Parcel 2 as shown and designated upon that certain map entitled, "Parcel Map No. 36", recorded in Book 156 of Maps, at page 47, Sonoma County Records; thence along said southerly line of Lakeville Street, North 89° 12105 " East, 63.48 feet; thence leaving said southerly line along a non -tangent curve to the left whose center bears North 68` 49'25" East, 440.00 feet; thence through a central angle of 14° 06'41", an are length of 108.37 feet to a point of reverse curve to the right with a radius of 280.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 20' 25'23", an arc length of 99.81 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right whose center bears South 75' 08'07" West, 560.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 13` 02' 51", an arc length of 127.53 feet; thence South 01 ` 49'02" East, 139.95 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 490.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 22° 39'47, an arc length of 193.82 feet; thence South 24' 28'48" East, 389.35 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 195.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 19` 53'26" an arc length of 67.70 feet; thence South 44' 22' 14" East, 17.56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 325.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 43' 23'32" an are length of 246.14 feet; thence South 00' 58'42" East, 20.69 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 800.00 feet; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 07° 59' 04", an are length of 111.48 feet to a point of reverse curve to the left having a radius of 400.00 feet; thence along said curve to the left through E W-PCOWPOWDESG105-26.051114 2 of 5 a central angle of 07" 47'37", an arc length of 54.41 feet; thence South 00` 47' 15" East, 95.28 feet; thence South 11' 04'28" East, 65.47 feet; thence South 10" 2639" East, 42.17 feet to a point on the aforementioned northwesterly line of East Washington Street; thence along said northwesterly line South 72" 5724" West, 4.93 feet; thence continuing along said northwesterly line South 67'40'00" West, 65.91 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 112,329 square feet (± 2.58 acres) more or less. The Basis of Bearings for this description is the Record of Survey filed in Book 666 of Maps at pages 48 and 49, Sonoma County Records. This description was compiled in the office of CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. from record deeds, field survey, mapping for plan entitled, "City of Petaluma - Water Street - Proposed Plan Line", dated February 2005. No gaps nor gores are intended to be created where record information may be in conflict. (A portion of A.P.N.'s 006-284-021, 025, 032, 035, 034, 028, 029, 010, 018, 036, and, 006-163-022, 025, 026, 054, 053, 005, 052, 040, 041, 044, 045, 047, 049 and 006-171-007, 008, 009, 010.) Prepared by: CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. John J. FitzGerald, P.L.S. # 4419 Date (License Renewal 9-30-05) Job No. 5.1114.00 June 9, 2995 (Water Street Plan Line Boundary) E Ud-NA60 ME5G\05-26051110 3 of EXHIBIT B 7 P -------- L- - © PIER C4 L9" - I i I I 19 19 18 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 17 I 12 I I I I I I I i I 1 I I NORTH Graphic Scale (in feet) PETALUMA BLVD. BOUNDARY AREA = t112,329 5F ('2.58 AC) I REV. 16/09/05 CSW CSW/STUBER—STROEH I ISCALE: 1"=120' S t] 2 ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. WATER STREET CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLAN LINE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SHEET 4 of 5 TEL (707)795-4764 FAX (707) 795-0516 ® 2005 PETALUMA SONOMA CALIFORNIA \\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\5111400\Dwg\SCOTT\BOUNDARY-EXHIEIMOFuj,I6MM005 3:33:04 PM, salsa, 1:1 A 2 �rFNs `'6 G c9 08 Z (q PR gt77 ry is C713®N' I ® POB U o N 0 o W Z BLVD. BOUNDARY AREA = t112,329 5F ('2.58 AC) I REV. 16/09/05 CSW CSW/STUBER—STROEH I ISCALE: 1"=120' S t] 2 ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. WATER STREET CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLAN LINE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SHEET 4 of 5 TEL (707)795-4764 FAX (707) 795-0516 ® 2005 PETALUMA SONOMA CALIFORNIA \\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\5111400\Dwg\SCOTT\BOUNDARY-EXHIEIMOFuj,I6MM005 3:33:04 PM, salsa, 1:1 A C8 _C 9 /� _ C7 PARCEL 2 PM 36 156 M 47 ® 3 e$ og r � r � NORTy PETALUMA Graphic Scale (in feet) M Mm r ' , 9 C9 3 ATfR STREET C6 © /L1? EXTENSION 19 - i i REV. 16/09/05 Csw 2 CSW/STUBER-STROEH I (SCALE: 1"=120' [st � ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. WATER STREET 1310 Redwood Way, NS TIN PetalumINEERS 94954 PLAN LINE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT SHEET 5 of 5 TEL (707)795-4764 FAX (707) 795-0516 ® 2005 PETALUMA SONOMA CALIFORNIA \\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\5111400\Dwg\SCOTT\BOUNDARY-EXHI91TB EWJ,l6%9M005 3:33:09 PM, salsa, 1:1 A LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE LENGTH I BEARING CURVE LENGTH DELTA RADIUS I LI 4.93 572'57'24"W C1 131.45 13'34'12' I 555.00 I L2 65.91 I S67'40'00"W C2 64.20 7'47'37" 472.00 L3 39.37 N14'21'27"W C3 101.45 7'59'04" 728.00 L4 58.37 N00'47'15"W C4 200.69 43'23'32" 265.00 L5 12.94 N00'58'42"W C5 88.52 19'53'26" 255.00 L6 12.94 N67'04'58"E C6 217.55 22'39'47" 55D.00 L7 2.92 N00'58'42"W C7 113.86 13'02'51" 500.00 L8 17.56 N4422'1 4"W C8 78.42 20'25'23" 220.00 L9 389.34 _ N24'28'48"W C9 145.26 16'38'43" 500.00 L10 139.95 N01'49'02"W C10 108.37 14'06'41" 440.00 1-11 63.48 _ N89'12'05"E C11 99.81 20'25'23" 280.00 L12 139.95 501'49'02"E C12 127.53 13'02'51" 560.00 L13 389.35 524'28'48"E C13 193.82 22'39'47" 490.00 L14 17.56 544'22'14"E C14 67.70 19'53'26" 195.00 L15 20.69 S00'58'42"E C15 246.14 43'23'32" 325.00 L16 95.28 S00'47'15"E C16 111.48 7.59'04" BOOM L17 65.47 SI 1'04'28"E C17 54.41 I 7'47'37" 400.00 LIB 42.17 Si 0'26'39"E C8 _C 9 /� _ C7 PARCEL 2 PM 36 156 M 47 ® 3 e$ og r � r � NORTy PETALUMA Graphic Scale (in feet) M Mm r ' , 9 C9 3 ATfR STREET C6 © /L1? EXTENSION 19 - i i REV. 16/09/05 Csw 2 CSW/STUBER-STROEH I (SCALE: 1"=120' [st � ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. WATER STREET 1310 Redwood Way, NS TIN PetalumINEERS 94954 PLAN LINE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT SHEET 5 of 5 TEL (707)795-4764 FAX (707) 795-0516 ® 2005 PETALUMA SONOMA CALIFORNIA \\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\5111400\Dwg\SCOTT\BOUNDARY-EXHI91TB EWJ,l6%9M005 3:33:09 PM, salsa, 1:1 A iw:Y • ��YGK.Eu"�.XL.A.t�_.�.,`�'�#''.IY �.t'�' �.i`e: UNE TABLE ) I CURVE TABLE LINE LENGTH 1BEARING J 1 CURVE LENGTH DELTA RADIUS Li ( 4.93 lfr6 11 572'S724"W J CI 131.45 13'34'12" I 555.00 1 L2 5.32 567'4000W J C2 64.20 7.47'37^ 1 472.00 L3 10.59 567'40'00"W C3 101.45 759'04" 728.00 1 I L4 39.37 1 014'21'27"W ( C4 200.69 43'23'32" 265.00 ) I L5 58.37 1 N00'4715"W I C5 51.46 17'33'46" 255.00 jL6 12.94 NDD'59'42"W I I C6 37.06 8'19'40" 255.00 L7 12.84 N67'04'58"E ) ! C7 217.55 22'39147" 550.00 LB 2.82 N00'58'42"W I CB 113.86 13'02'51" 500.00 f L9 17.56 N44'22'14"W I C9 78.42 20'25'23" 220.00 L10 261.61 N24'28'48"W i CIO 145.26 16'38'43" 500.00 1 LIi 12773 N24'28'48"W I CII 108.37 14.06'41" 440.00 f L12 139.95 N01'49'02"W I C12 99.81 20'25'23" 280.00 L13 63,48 N89'12105"E C13 127.53 13'02'51" 560.00 L14 139.95 501'49'02"E CI4 193.82 22'39'47" 490.00 L15 169,19 524'28'48"E C15 37.16 10'55'04" 195.00 '. L16 220.16 524'28'46"E C16 30.54 8.58'22" 195.00 L17 17.56 544'22'14"E f C17 246.14 43'23'32" 325.00 LIB 20.69SOO'58'42"E ! CIB 111.48 7.59'04" 800A0 719 95.28 SO 7715-E C19 I 54.41 1 7.47'37' 400.00 L20 1 65.47 511'04'28"E I 721 42.17 510'26'39"E I REVISIONS A 5/25/05 STREET NAMES ADDED, ETC 5/06/05 SUBMITTED FOP. CITY REVIEW (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) NO I DATE j DESC. 1' - I:. Er�"' II . IN , I v ] CQW,,'STUBER-STROEH ENGI1\1EERING i IJP, INC. CONSULTII\IG Et\IGINEEP,S 1310 P,edwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SAS TEL (707 795-4764 G_ BY FAX (707; ,9� 0576 I 0 2005 PREPARED U14DER THE DIRECTION OF DATE: 5/06!05 SCALE: "=120' WATER STREET PRECISE PLAN LINE BOUNDARY PHOTO EXHIBIT PETA.LUMA SONOMA CAL'FORNIA d' �4te - ii �'a lfr6 11 ; ..._ 1 � SK '1S 1' - I:. Er�"' II . IN , I v ] CQW,,'STUBER-STROEH ENGI1\1EERING i IJP, INC. CONSULTII\IG Et\IGINEEP,S 1310 P,edwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SAS TEL (707 795-4764 G_ BY FAX (707; ,9� 0576 I 0 2005 PREPARED U14DER THE DIRECTION OF DATE: 5/06!05 SCALE: "=120' WATER STREET PRECISE PLAN LINE BOUNDARY PHOTO EXHIBIT PETA.LUMA SONOMA CAL'FORNIA SCREEN/NG • Document off-site trees and consider screening of the project and the neighboring apartments to those existing residents across the creek Sheet A1.0 now shows the off-site trees as does the aerial, civil sheet 12. Six eucalyptus trees which are just over the subject property line on the Sonoma County Water Agency's Washington Creek property will remain; these are single trunk specimens and taller and more attractive than the resprouted stumps of previously felled trees on site. The 6 eucalyptus trees - as well as a large redwood, a willow, and a number of small oak trees growing along the creek - will provide some screening of the proposed development for the Margo Lane residents across the creek. The six eucalyptus trees are also expected to continue to provide screening, though not as densely with the resprouted trees removed, of the existing Washington Creek Apartment complex for the Margo Lane residents. The applicant also provided a written response to Commission comments, please see Attachment F. STAFF ANALYSIS The plans prepared for this second Planning Commission review are still somewhat conceptual and do not comply with all City standards. The civil sheets have not yet been prepared. Staff recommends to the Commission conditions 10 and 26 requiring that the full set of plans be submitted to the City before the Council hearing is scheduled, in order to allow staff the ability to review the proposal and prepare appropriate conditions prior to City Council review. Based on the plans submitted for the Commission hearing, staff offers the following analysis. OFF-SITE PARKING IMPACTS WITH MARTIN WAY ALTERNATIVE Staff received a letter from Eden Housing on March 315`, indicating that they do not object to the Martin project utilizing the non-exclusive general roadway easement through Martin Way, but that they reserve the right to approve the final plan and agreement. The southern and western portion of easement over private Martin Way (labeled C, D, and E on the Potential Access Exhibit, Attachment 1) is owned by the Nelson Trust, who own the Kenilworth Apartment complexes (and also the first nearly half of Sturcon Way, labeled F on that Exhibit, over which the shopping center and Martin property have a non-exclusive general roadway easement). Previously, a represent of the Nelson Trust approved the installation of a sidewalk along Martin Way, in accordance with the existing easement; no correspondence has been received from the Trust regarding further use of the easement for roadway purposes. Of primary concern to staff is the proposed elimination of parking spaces from Eden's Washington Creek Apartments with construction of the Martin Way access. These apartments were approved with the requirement that 48 spaces be provided for the 32 unit family apartment complex. Thus, any net reduction in parking would result in the apartment complex being out of compliance with its approval. The Initial Study includes a mitigation measure that any lost spaces at the Washington Creek Apartments must be recreated, at the applicant's expense, on the apartment parcel and/or by dedication of proximal extra spaces on the Martin Farm property or other abutting property, subject to evaluation by staff and review and approval by the City Council. On April 26`h, the project applicant submitted a sheet titled Parking Exhibit (Attaclunent 1). It depicts a redesign of the Martin Way connection so that 3 rather than 4 spaces are eliminated and depicts the possible location of the 3 replacement parking spaces on the apartment site. Time and further information are necessary to determine if the replacement as proposed will in fact be Page 5 possible. The asphalt area just south of the proposed two standard parking spaces is a half court basketball court which should remain. The City Engineer requires, as recommended by the consulting traffic engineer, that 5 diagonal public parking spaces on Ellis Street at the Martin Way intersection be eliminated with the Martin Way alternative, in order to ensure minimally desired intersection sight distance (condition 25). These spaces are in the Ellis Street public right-of-way and were not counted by any adjacent use to comply with the parking requirement in effect at the time of the use's construction. The Kenilworth Apartments were constructed between 1958 and 1960 when only one parking space was required per apartment. The diagonal parking spaces in front of these apartments may be serving present day parking demand; none -the -less, the spaces are for the benefit of the public and the Planning Commission may recommend that they are eliminated to serve the project. Additionally, the Martin Way alternative includes a proposed Lot Line Adjustment whereby the subject property gains the last 13 feet of the Sturcon Way easement from the Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center. This LLA would result in the loss of one of the center's parking spaces; however, as the Plaza has approximately 18 parking spaces more than required (and as these last spaces appear to be under utilized); it may be eliminated without replacement. This LLA was suggested by the shopping center owners. The City Engineer has added condition 24 requiring the recordation of a declaration of intent between the parties regarding the lot line adjustment (subject to Tentative Subdivision Map approval) prior to Council review. SITE PLAN The plans prepared for this hearing require modification to comply with City standards. Staff recommends conditions 10 and 26 to ensure that the plans are adequate prior to the Council hearing. On the Planning side, the most common revision necessary is for the parking spaces to meet dimensional standards, 9 by 19 feet for standard spaces and 8 by 22 for diagonal spaces such as on lot 2. The third parking space at lots 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12, visitor spaces 12 and 18, and both spaces at lot 14 are substandard as drawn. The Visitor spaces 20 - 24 and thus the adjacent roadway must be pushed one foot south to provide the required 3 feet landscape buffer at the property line. Some of these corrections may lead to design modifications, such as on lot 14 where, the water tower space and barn unit space, when adequately sized will overlap. The refinement of the site plan might result in the loss of a parking space, but with the current plan providing 3 more spaces than the total required by the Zoning Ordinance, this may be acceptable. Staff does have some concern about the awkward vehicular access to the lot 13 garage and driveway space, which results in the additional negative impacts of otherwise unnecessary paving and the more distant location of visitor parking spaces 12 and 13. The Commission might wish to consider directing a modification to the site plan in this area, such as relocating unit 13 to the creekside abutting one of the detached units. GENERAL PLAN As a point of information, the General Plan density of the proposed 17 residential units on 1.6 acres represent a density of 10.7 units per acre or 11 units per acre when the 3,212 square foot office use parcel is excluded. Thus, the finding of "measurable community benefit" is still necessary for the City to approve the project (densities of 10 to 30 units per acre require this finding, further detailed in the March 81h Staff Report, Attachment H, page 3). At the March 8°1 hearing, the Commission was concerned that the proposed plan did not adequately comply with the General Plan designation of the property as a gateway. In general, the ^ Page 6 /J( General Plan states that gateway designated properties ought to provide important entries into Petaluma with "extraordinary treatment" "through signs and landscaping" to "provide tourist information and/or impart a sense of entry into the city" (page 36). Specifically, the General Plan notes that the Martin site is "an example of private property suitable for special landscaping" and continues that it can be "landscaped when developed to provide a pleasant entry to the city'; it notes that the "property makes an important visual statement before the motorist encounters the drive-in establishments along East Washington Street" (page 18). The associated conceptual drawing depicts the Martin water tower with "Petaluma" painted on two sides and landscaping surrounding (see attachment G). The modified site plan includes a preserved and improved lawn and landscaping area in front of the historic Martin house and water tower, fewer new buildings close to East Washington Street, and the preservation of oak trees near East Washington Street. The Historic & Cultural Preservation/Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee will be informed of this gateway designation as part of the design review process. Historic and Cultural Preservation/Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee: On April 28"', the HCP/SPARC held a preliminary review the project. Video minutes may be reviewed at http://petaluma.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.plip?view_id=4. Only after the project receives City Council approval and prior to building permit issuance will HCP/SPARC formally review the site plan design, building design, PUD Development Standards, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. Summarv: Since the March 8"' Commission hearing, the project has been revised. Three residential units were eliminated, which allowed the applicant to makes site plan modifications including increasing on-site parking, preserving the two large oak trees, adding a common play area, preserving the landscaped yard in front of the Martin house, and minimizing the number of new structures most proximal to East Washington Street. Additionally, alternative access via private Martin Way to public Ellis Street was evaluated by the applicant's team and now represents the applicant proposed access to Ellis Street rather than the originally proposed route via private Sturcon Way (through the shopping center). The Martin Way access appears to result in the elimination of 3 parking spaces on the Washington Creek apartment property, which the applicant needs to replace, and the loss of 5 public parking spaces on Ellis Street to ensure minimally adequate site distance. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend this project to the City Council, that recommendation should include your preferred access alternative. PUBLIC COMMENTS As the Planning Commission continued the project to a date uncertain and as the Initial Study has been modified, the project was re -noticed with a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing published in the Argus Courier on April 20, 2005 and sent to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. As of May 2nd, no new written communication has been received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared. The potential for the following significant impacts were identified: noise, biological, and historic resources. In light of the project revisions, particularly the preservation of native trees and the possible use of private Martin Way rather than private Sturcon Way to provide access to public Ellis Street, the Initial Study was revised. The potential for the following significant impacts are now identified: noise, Page 7 biological, transportation/traffic, and historic resources. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been prepared. (hiitial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Report attached as Attachment D.) ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval — Planned Unit District Amendment, Revised Development Standards, and PUD Map Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map with Recommended Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Initial Study & Mitigation Monitoring Plan Attachment E: W -Trans update and review of alternative access, March 31, 2005 Attachment F: Applicant's (ADR) Planning Commission Response, March 30, 2005 Attachment G: General Plan 1987-2005 Excerpts regarding gateway, pages 18 and 36 Attachment H: Planning Commission Staff Report of March 8, 2005 (for specific or all attachments, please call Planning) Attachment I: Site plan, area plan, elevations, and conceptual landscape plan (one grouping), dated March 31, 2005, as well as a potential vehicular & pedestrian access exhibit dated March 31, 2005 and a parking exhibit dated April 26, 2005 Page 8 3G Community Development Department Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 7071778-4301 Initial Study of Environmental Significance E Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals, staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i. e., Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of Petaluma Planning Division. Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision Site Address: 1197 East Washington Street Access also from either Martin or Sturcon Way off Ellis Street Posting Date: April 20, 2005 File No: 04 -TSM -0379 -CR APN: 007-361-022 Comments Due: May 10, 2005 Lead Agency Contact: Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner, City of Petaluma Phone: (707) 778-4301 Community Development Department 11 English Street, Petaluma CA, 94952 Applicant: Steve Lafranchi, Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates Phone: (707) 762-3239 Civil Engineers - Land Surveyors 775 Baywood Drive Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 Properly Owner: Historic Properties, LLC —managed by Anton Selkowitz Project Description: The applicant is seeking approval for a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment for an 18 -lot subdivision on the 1.59 -acre "Martin Historic Plaza" property at 1197 East Washington Street (at the intersection with the southbound 101 off -ramp) adjacent to Washington Creek. Seventeen of the lots would be developed with 10 two-story shared -wall homes and 7 two-story detached homes on lots that average 2,300 square feet. The last lot would comprise the existing c. 1910 house which would be used as offices. The existing water tower/pump house would be relocated to lot 14 and converted into an accessory dwelling (grainy) unit. Access would occur from Ellis Street via an easement (called Sturcon Way) behind the strip shopping center at East Washington or via an easement on private Martin Way. Right turns in and out would also be allowed from East Washington Street. The internal street (Parcel A) would be private. Environmental Setting: The project would be located on a 1.59 -acre infill site. The parcel is currently developed with a residence that dates to c. 1910 and is being used as office space as well as with a water tower/pump house, barn, tack house, and shed. Washington Creek is 25 feet over the north property line. There are many eucalyptus trees along the creek and in the west corner of the property; 4 oaks and a few other trees are also on site. The parcel is relatively flat. The subject parcel is surrounded by a small commercial development (Petaluma Town Plaza) to the southwest, an apartment complex to the northwest, Washington Creek to the north with single-family homes on the opposite side, the Highway 101 southbound off -ramp to the east, and Kenilworth,37 Junior High across East Washington Street to the south. Attachinent 5 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No, 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 2 Responsible/Trustee Agencies: The project requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council of a Tentative Parcel Map and PUD Amendment with associate Planned Unit District Design Guidelines. Following approval from the City Council the project must be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. Lastly, the project will be subject to building permit review and approval by the Community Development Department, 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" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use & Planning 2, Population, Employment & Housing 3. Geology & Soils 4. Air 5. Hydrology & Water Quality 6. Biological Resources ■ Determination 7. Noise g, Visual Quality & Aesthetics 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 10, Transportation/Traffic 11. Public Services 12. Recreation 13. Utilities Infrastructure 14. Mineral Resources 15. Cultural Resources 16. Agricultural Resources 17, Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a X 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 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 I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of April 20 through May 10, 2005. Prepared by: Tiffanv Robbe Name Signattl're Associate Planner Title 412.0/o5 Date PH Project Name: Martin harm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 3 ® Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer should be explained where it is based in project -specific factors as well as general standards, i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off-site as well as on-site cumulative, project - level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) bead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, i f any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. PX Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 4 Potentially Less than Less III=No $IEnitiCanl SignificantCJ7(,'Illl'enin imppCl Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures ® Environmental Analysis Land Use and Planninq. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project' (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal grogram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XI c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The General Plan designation on the parcel is Mixed Use. The General Plan designation was amended to Mixed Use in 1999 (from Urban High, 10.1 to 15.0 residential units per acre) by Resolution 99-84 as a part of a development proposal being pursued at that time. The Mixed Use designation allows for any combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. The intent of Mixed Use is to allow housing along with commercial uses and to not allow commercial strip uses/design. Densities of 10 to 30 units per acre are allowed "where measurable community benefit is to be derived; where infrastructure, services, and facilities are available to serve the increased density; where superior design ensures an attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment; and where the effects of the increased density will be compatible with the major goals of the General Plan." The 17 residential units on 1.6 acres represent a density of 10.7 units per acre; 11 units per acre when the 3,212 square foot office use parcel is excluded. The applicant has submitted their reasoning as to the measurable community benefit derived from the project; the City Council will only approve the project with the finding of this benefit. Thus, the current proposal complies with the density and use specified by the General Plan. The General Plan also designates the property as a gateway (G). Gateways are defined as property providing important entries into Petaluma with the intention that "extraordinary treatment of these gateways (e.g., through signs and landscaping) will provide tourist information and/or impart a sense of entry into the city" (page 36). The General Plan notes that this site is "an example of private property suitable for special landscaping" and continues that it can be "landscaped when developed to provide a pleasant entry to the city'; it notes that the "property makes an important visual statement before the motorist encounters the drive-in establishments along East Washington Street" (page 18). The modified site plan includes a preserved and improved lawn and landscaping area in front of the historic Martin house, fewer new buildings close to East Washington Street, and the preservation of oak trees near East Washington Street. As the Historic & Cultural Preservation/Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee will review and approve the landscape plan with this gateway designation in mind, the project will be consistent with this designation. A Planned Unit District (PUD) with a Historic Overlay (H) was adopted for this property in 1999 (rezoned from R-1:6,500 single-family residential). The PUD adopted in 1999 allowed for offices, apartments, a bed and breakfast inn, and small retail shops to serve the offices. This proposal includes a request for an amendment to the Planned Unit District Guidelines to make the guidelines consistent with the uses of the current proposal. Specifically, single-family residences have been added and retail shops have been removed to the list of allowed uses. A reference has been added that lot dimensions and setbacks shall be as shown on the PUD Plan. The Historic designation does seem to have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating the environmental impact of the elimination of the historic resource at 1197 East Washington Street. However, this project will not conflict with the Historic designation as the overlay will remain and, as discussed in section I l below, the historic consultant found the currently proposed project to be somewhat more appropriate than the previously approved project due to its more compatible style (given its residential characteristics and the smaller scale of the individual units) and as it provides greater visual prominence to the retained historic structures. Thus, the project would comply with the Planned Unit District (Martin Farm Subdivision), as it is proposed to be amended by this project, and with the Historic designation. There is no existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that exists for this area of the city. Therefore, no impact to the current land use would occur as a result of the proposal. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 6 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR 2. Pooulation. Emolovment and Housina. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 5 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w(Mitigation Impact Measures KA X R Discussion: The proposed subdivision would allow for 17 housing units to be constructed and for the reuse of two historic buildings (the pump house for an accessory/granny unit and the existing house for office space) in an infill area at a density and of a nature generally consistent with what would be expected considering the property's general plan and zoning designations. Thus, this project would not induce substantial population growth. The development will not displace any housing or people. In fact, the project would increase housing supply. Residential development projects of 5 or more units are required to contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to Policy 10 and Program 11 of the Housing Element orthe Petaluma General Plan. The applicant shall participate by paying an in -lieu housing fee for each residential unit payable at the close of escrow. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring, NIA 3. Geoloav and Soils. Would the project a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk or loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X 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? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ( X iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including X liquefaction? b, Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X u. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of an on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B f X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic I X substructures? I f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering I X f of the soil? g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X �1 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0374 -CR Potentially Significant Impact It. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? k. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? Page b Less than less Than No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures X X X X Discussion: The site and entire Northern California region are seismically dominated by the presence of the active San Andreas fault system. The Geotechnical Investigation Report by John H. Dailey, after geologic reconnaissance and a review of published geological data found that no active faults trend through or adjacent to the site. The active Rodgers Creek Fault is located about 3.5 miles to the east. The site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The foundations for the structures, as well as the structures themselves, will be designed to resist earthquake shaking. The potential for earthquake -induced ground failure from soil liquefaction at the site is considered low. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by John H. Dailey states that most of the site is blanketed with three to five feet of dark gray to black "adobe' clays which have a high expansion potential. However, near Washington Creek, there are about 5 l feet of unengineered old fill of variable density underlain by soft and saturated sandy clay soils. The Investigation found that, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site can be developed essentially as planned, provided that the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The standard requirement for a Geotechnical Report„ see below, ensures the recommendations are incorporated. The project is an in -fill development. The project will not result in unstable earth or geologic conditions, The project will result in minor changes in topography or ground surface relief features; however, these changes are not considered to be significant in scope and will not adversely impact the environment. As is typical of properties cast of the Petaluma River, the site contains expansive soils. Thus, as is also typical, all foundations will be engineered and constructed to succeed in this condition. The project will not result in destruction or covering of any geologic features, result in changes or erosion to water channels or water bodies, or expose people to any geologic hazards not typically associated with this region. The project site is relatively flat. Landscaping will be installed at the site and will help to mitigate erosion. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) will review the landscape plans for the location, size, type and species of plant material to be installed. The applicant will be required to submit foundation and structural designs for the proposed structures to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, the review of grading, public improvements and erosion control plans by the Engineering Division will mitigate any impacts to soil erosion that may result from the proposed construction. With the application of the City's standard conditions such as those that follow, these impacts would be short-term. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for. site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. Final project improvement and grading plans shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer (P,E.), and accepted by City staff prior to Final Map approval. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be prepared, paying special attention to prevention of increased discharge. 'Me control plan shall include measures such as: a) restricting grading to the non -rainy season; b) protecting storm drainage outlets from erosion and siltations; c) use of silt fencing, and straw wattles to retain sediment on the project site or Best Management Practices �1 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 7 PoBally Lessthan Sig Than I Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitt ation Impact Measures (BMPs) as recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Required improvements shall be reflected on plans submitted in conjunction with the project's improvement drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Prior to City acceptance, all public improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Public Improvement Plans, construction permits and project mitigation measures/conditions of approval, All public and/or private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance. All construction activities shall comply with the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local lawslordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitigation Mensures/Monitoring: N/A 4. Air. Would the project 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 non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? a. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? X f7 X Discussion: Temporary short-term increases in exhaust emissions and dust would result from the use of construction equipment. However, with the application of the City's standard mitigation measures (such as watering graded surfaces to reduce dust and shutting down vehicles when not in use), these impacts would be short-term. No fireplaces are proposed as a part of the project. Per City requirement, the applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and shall clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. Exposed soils shall be watered a minimum of twice daily during construction. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. The construction site shall provide a gravel pad area consisting of an impemteable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to12 reduce dust emissions. Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 8 Potentially( Less than Less 11tan No Significant I Significant SigniLeant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures Post-eonswction re -vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits. Ili61:at-ton Measures?Monitorinp.:.NlA 5. Hvdroloav and Water Quality. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage patten of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in it manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted nmoli? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? K Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Fm X X X F1 X X t:1 XI Discussion: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or substantially contaminate the groundwater. The project may change existing drainage patterns. However, these will not be significant alterations as all hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design shall be subject to review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the 44 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04 -TSM -0379 -CR Page 9 Petentially Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant ( Impact Impact II wlMitigatian Impact Measures City Engineer. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted, unless private storm drain easements are created to collect rear yard surface water runoff. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system. The project proposes one outlet into Washington Creek. The project engineer finds that the percentage of incremental increase of post -development runoff is statistically insignificant when one takes into account the size of the applicable drainage watershed areas for Washington Creek along with its accompanying flood control design. Washington Creek is a Sonoma County Water Agency (SWCA) Flood Control Channel Project that was designed and constructed by SWCA. Maintenance responsibilities also continue to fall to them, The Flood Rate Insurance Maps, as well as civil sheets 6 and 7, show that the I00 -year base flood elevation is contained within the creek banks. The course of the creek will not be altered but will be Tell in its existing state. Tlius, no development is proposed within the I00 -year floodplain. The project will not expose people to water related hazards. Prior to construction, the geotechnical engineer will review the final plans and specifications. In accordance with requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board, the applicant would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout project construction and operation. The Applicant shall complete and submit an NOT and appropriate filing fee to the SWCB. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall comply with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements and include the following as appropriate: Provision for vegetated streamside buffer areas separating formal landscape and developed areas from creek channels and drainage ways. The stream buffer zone shalt be landscaped with native plant species to filter and absorb sediment and chemical constituents and provide a zone for rainfall infiltration next to the creek channel. All drainage improvement plans shall include installation of permanent signs (concrete stamps or equivalent) at each storm drain inlet. The sign at each inlet shall read "No Dumping, Flows To The Peratuma River" or equivalent, and shall be installed at the time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutant entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The applicant shall designate on the improvement plans construction staging areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction staging areas shall be located away from any drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contamination from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak. No debris, soil, sand, cement, or washing thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any live creek channel. The creek channel shall be protected with cyclone fencing placed along the creekside property line. The one storm drain outlet will be the only in -stream channel work, shall be limited to the dry season, and shall be performed in accordance with conditions specified by the Department of Fish and Game in a Streumbcd Alteration Agreement. The applicant shall provide copy of the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading permits for work within any channel. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas during the rainy season (October 1st -April 15th). The applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit taA 5 Project Name: Martin Fami Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -Cit Page 10 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant Signi Gconl Significant Impact Impact wllviitigation Impact Measures Integrated Pest Management techniques. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. The Applicant shall be subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 6. Bfoloaieal Resources. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X 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? C. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? /IN Discussion: Golden Bear Biostudies conducted a Biological Assessment for the project including a survey for special status plant species and sensitive natural communities. The assessment found no special status plant or animal species or sensitive natural communities during the field surveys conducted on August Ila' and September 9, 2004. The assessment also determined that there were no Section 404 CWA federal jurisdictional wetlands on site. Because Washington Creek adjacent to the site is a SCWA flood control channel and is managed as a stormflow conveyance channel that has been subject to long-term intensive maintenance that includes vegetation removal, the aquatic habitat is highly degraded. Regarding special status plants, the absence of specialized habitats, such as wetlands, serpentines soils, or salt marshes, greatly restricts the possibility of finding rare and endangered species in the highly disturbed and weedy adjacent stormflow channel. However, the Biologist team will be confirming these preliminary conclusions with a floral survey at the property this spring. A mitigation measure has been added to require this. Adjacent to the site, all the vegetation from the channel bottom to the upper bank area is riparian habitat regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game. As such, it is considered a special status habitat. The one storm drain outlet will be the only in -stream channel work, however, the biological assessment found that this outfall structure may result in a temporary or permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands and impact riparian habitat and therefore recommends that mitigation be adopted 40 that the applicant obtain permits with required mitigation for the impact associated with the outfall structure from US Army Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 11 I Potentially Lessthan LessThanNo Significant I Significant S�ignificantImpact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the Water Quality Control Board. A mitigation measure has been added to require this. The assessment also recommends that best management practices are adopted to minimize the amount of sediment leaving the site, however, as this is already a standard condition as discussed above as part of Geology/Soils, a mitigation measure is unnecessary. While the City's policy is to preserve trees wherever possible, the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report by Horticultural Associates recommends that all 49 evaluated trees be removed — either due to their existing hazardous structure, species unsuitability for a subdivision setting, and/or because their preservation is not possible due to development impacts. Forty-one of the trees are red or blue gum eucalyptus, an undesirable species in this setting as they are invasive in this region and especially problematic along riparian corridors and as they are structurally weak. Only four of the 49 trees are natives and these are all coast live oaks. Two of these are small oaks (a height of 12 feet or less) making them replaceable. The two large coast live oak trees (T2 at 40 feet high and T3 at 25 feel high) are healthy and are worth preserving. The site plan has been revised to allow the preservation of both of these larger oaks as well as the larger of the two small oaks. Preservation of the 3 larger oaks as well as two additional small oaks (one in the play area and one on the northwestern rear fence of lot 11, which were not previously evaluated because of their small size) and the protection of several off-site oaks whose canopies reach into the Martin project will adequately mitigate the only native tree to be lost, the small (10 foot height and 3 foot canopy radius) oak tree I at lot 12. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to preserve the magnolia tree and the pepper tree behind the Martin farm house. Furthermore, 6 of the 49 trees recommended for removal are in fact off-site on the Washington Creek property (owned by the Sonoma County Water Agency) and so will remain; these are single trunk eucalyptus trees. The arborist has yet to reevaluate these to -be -preserved -trees and make recommendations to ensure their preservation; a mitigation measure has been added to require this evaluation. The Biological Assessment recommends that all tree removal occur during the fall season when raptors are not actively nesting to avoid the take of any raptor species; mitigation measure d has been added to require this recommendation. New landscaping is proposed as a part of the proposed facility. The type, location, size, and species of the landscaping to be installed will be reviewed by the Historic & Cultural Preservation/Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or stale habitat conservation plan that exists for Petaluma, which would regulate the proposed development on this parcel. Review of the Open Space Lands Map of the Petaluma General Plan Technical Appendix indicates that the site is not designated open space. The project is an in -fill site within an urbanized area. Mideation Measures/Monitorine: a. Prior to SPARC approval, the Biologist team will conduct a floral survey to supplement their previous survey. Any recommendations that the biologist makes at this time will become additional mitigation measures. b. Prior to any grading or construction work on the SCWA's property, the applicant shall obtain permits with required mitigation for the impact associated with the ornfail structure from US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the Water Quality Control Board. C, Prior to SPARC approval, a licensed arborist shall reevaluate the trees 2 — 4 (oaks), 5 (magnolia), and 15 (pepper); the two additional small oaks (one in the play area and one on the northwestern rear fence of lot 11), and the off-site trees whose canopies reach into the Martin project (including eucalyptus trees 29, 30, 42, 43, 46, and 48 and a number of oak trees particularly the one near the East Washington drive aisle and those at lots 4, 11 and 12) and recommend conditions to ensure their preservation. These conditions shall become HCP/SPARC conditions. d. Conduct tree removal during the fall when raptors are not actively nesting. If grading or construction must begin during the spring or early summer months, prior to commencement of grading or construction beginning a qualified biologist shall check the larger trees to ensure that no active raptor nest will be disturbed. If active nests are observed, appropriate setbacks from the trees or modified scheduling shall be established. 7. Noise. Would the project result in a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X 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 X 7 groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 1 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Potentially Significant Impact 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? C. 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? Page 12 Less than Less Than No Significant Sit3nificant Impact w/Mitigation impact Measures X M M Discussion: The General Plan establishes 64Ldn as the maximum "normally acceptable" noise level for exterior use areas and 45 Ldn as the interior noise level in single-family residential developments. The noise environment on the site is dominated by vehicular traffic on East Washington Street and, in the southeast comer of the property, by vehicular traffic on the southbound Highway 101 off -rump. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustics & Air Quality measured the on-site noise levels and found they exceed 60Ldn at six proposed units (they measured 64Ldn at the noisiest comer of the property adjacent to East Washington Street and off -ramp). These are Lots I I through 14. Mitigation is recommended by the noise consultant for these 4 lots to consist of a noise barrier wall or fence at the property line, as detailed in the Noise Study, and adequate forced air mechanical ventilation or air conditioning to provide a habitable interior environment when the windows are closed Mitigation measures have been added to require these recommendations. The Noise Study also finds that construction activities will temporarily substantially increase ambient noise levels at the adjoining multi -family housing complex to the west of the project. The study and staff find that the implementations of the following standard conditions of approval would make this temporary increase less than significant: • Construction scheduling: limit noise generation construction activities to daytime, weekday (non -holiday hours) 7:30am to 6pm and 9am to 6pm Saturdays, thereby complying with the City's Noise Ordinance and limiting disturbance to the neighbors. + Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance: Property muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. + Idling Prohibitions: Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines at the rear of the property. + Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall be placed away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible. Additionally, as with each construction project, all construction activities must comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. While the further residential development of this partially developed site will result in permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, the project site is currently surrounded by developed residential and commercial parcels and the effect of additional residential development will be less than significant. This site is within the Petaluma Municipal Airport's land use study area of the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. dated January 2001. However, it is not within the Airport's referral area as designated by that Land Use Plan area and therefore, no special measures are recommended by the Plan. Mitieation Measures(Menitorine: a. Prior to HCPISPARC approval, the plans shall include a noise barrier wall or fence for the benefit of the two units in the eastern comer of the site (lots 11 - 12). The noise barrier height shall be 8 feet, as shown on the Noise Study7jn Figure 1. Prior to HCP/SPARC approval, the plans shall include a 6 -foot high solid noise barrier fence for the duplex ProjectName: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Potentially Significant Impact Page 13 Less dmn L; 1'han No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures adjacent to the historic structure (Iots 13 -- 14), as shown on the Noise Study Figure 1. Wall heights are as measured above the final grade of the backyards of the units. The barriers must be constructed airtight over the surface and where it meets the ground and must have a minimum surface weight of at least 3-4 pounds per square foot. Suitable materials include wood, if properly detailed, precast masonry or concrete panels, or masonry or concrete blocks. b. Prior to building permit issuance, the duplexes on southeastern lots 11 — 14 shall include adequate forced air mechanical ventilation or air conditioning as necessary to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed, so that the occupants may close their windows at their discretion in order to control traffic noise intrusion. 8. Visual Qualltv and AestheHes. Would the project a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not I X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C, Substantially degrade the existing visual character or I X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which I X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the arca? Discussion: The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic resource or which requires scenic protection. The site is designated as a gateway by the General Plan. Gateways are defined as property providing important entries into Petaluma with the intention "that extraordinary treatment of these gateways (e.g., through signs and landscaping) will provide tourist information and/or impart a sense of entry into the city' (page 36). The General Plan notes that the Martin site is "an example of private property suitable for special landscaping" and continues that it can be `landscaped when developed to provide a pleasant entry to the city'; it notes that the "property makes an important visual statement before the motorist encounters the drive-in establishments along East Washington Street" (page 18). The modified site plan includes a preserved and improved lawn and landscaping arca in front of the historic Martin house, fewer new buildings close to East Washington Street, and the preservation of oak trees near East Washington Street. As the Historic & Cultural Preservation/Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee will review and approve the landscape plan with this gateway designation in mind, the project will be consistent with this designation. A grouping of 35 on-site eucalyptus trees will be removed as a part of this project. While these trees might provide scenic quality for some, they are invasive species not appropriate of a creek side and are hazardous due to their structurally week condition. Most of these eucalyptus trees are actually small trunks resprouted from the large stumps of previously felled trees and are straggly as well as highly prone to failure. Six eucalyptus trees which are just over the subject property line on the Sonoma County Water Agency's property will remain; these are single trunk specimens and taller and more attractive than the sprouted stumps growing on site. These trees as well as a large redwood, a willow, and a number of small oak trees growing along the creek will provide some screening of the proposed development from the residents across the creek (Margo Lane). The Martin house and water tower will continue to be visible and the central focal point from East Washington Street. The redesigned site plan includes lawn and landscaping in front of the Martin house, thus maintaining the existing visual character of the traditional, landscaped front yard before the historic house. The trees, mostly redwoods, along East Washington Street in the Cal Trans right-of-way will continue to provide some screening of the site; the removal of units and the preservation of on-site oak trees will minimize the number of new proximal structures adjacent to East Washington Street. No rock outcroppings exist on the site, nor are the historic buildings visible from a state scenic highway. Primary view corridors of the property from East Washington Street would be generally maintained. The applicant has submitted Planned Unit District Guidelines and unit elevations for the project. These guidelines and elevations will also be subject to final review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, and will serve to insure that the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surrounding is protected. The project would have lighting typical of any residential and small office use and would not increase light in the area such that it AQ creates a hazard. Proposed outdoor lighting in conjunction with development shall include design measures to reduce private lighil I Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 14 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant I Significant Significant Impact I Impact wlM itigation Impact Measures impacts such as no flood lights, only low profile light standards and/or wall mounted lights, lights attached to buildings shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall, no direct glare, no pole mounted lights, etc. Plans submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review shall incorporate lighting plans, which reflect the location and design of all proposed street and other exterior lighting proposed and conform to City Performance Standards. Mitigation Measures/Mon9torint=: N/A 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X i hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? I( d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? C. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard fur people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? It. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The site was a small -sized farm belonging, since the 1920s, to a Mr. Martin who bad a dairy operation in Chileno Valley. A walnut orchard was the principal agricultural use. Thus, the on-site agricultural activity was likely not intensive. Additionally, agricultural uses ceased at the site some time ago. There are no known hazards on-site or in the ground. The proposed project would not create a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, smoky chemicals, or radiation, in the event of an accident. The project will not interfere with emergency evacuation plans, create potential health hazards, or result in an increase in fire hazards due to flammable brush, grass or trees. No storage of chemical or hazardous materials is anticipated with the use of this site. Except during construction when equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the project does not involve hazardous substances. The project is located within two miles of an airport and within an airport land use plan (Petaluma Municipal Airport Chapter of the 2001 Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan). However, the airport land use plan requires that planes turn 5a Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 15 Potentially Less than Less' lmn I No Significant Significant Significant I Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures north toward the county land and not toward the city. Thus, planes are required to turn away from the subject site. For this reason, the safety hazard for people residing in the project area appears to be less than significant. During construction, the applicant shall comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. A Slormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to hazardous materials will be implemented during construction. For construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site, the applicant shall file a declaration form with the Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit. If hazardous materials are to be used or stored on-site, the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for approval by the Fire Marshal. The RMP shall include the following as appropriate: The applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous materials and shall maintain emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire Marshal, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities. The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination existing on-site and shall provide for proper treatment, removal, and disposal during construction. Mitieation MeasuresMonitorinq: N/A 10. Transoortaiion/Trafic. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X X X X X X Discussion: As part of the project submittal the applicant provided a traffic impact study prepared by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W -Trans) dated January 27, 2004 and updated with letters dated September 21, 2004 and February I and 9 and March 31, 2005. Proiect Trio Generation The project (new residential and existing office) is anticipated to generate an average of 307 daily vehicle trips including 18 trips during the morning peak hour and 22 trips during the evening peak hour (this is 29 fewer daily trips, 2 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 3 fewer p.m, peak hour trips than the original 20 unit residential project). This is fewer trips in each category than the office project approved on this site in 1999 which would have generated 401 daily trips, including 29 trips during the morning peak hour and 28 trips during the evening peak hour (all an Sturcon Way as the driveway to East Washington Street was to be closed). 51 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision Fite No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Potentially Significant Impact Page 16 Less than Less Thar' No Significant Significant Impact wNMitigation Impact Measures Intersections The following six intersections were studied: the five intersections along East Washington Street of Payran, Ellis Street/Fairgrounds, the Highway 101 southbound ramps, the Highway 101 northbound ramps, and McDowell Boulevard, as well as the intersection of Ellis Street and Alma Court. All intersections are currently operating acceptably at LOS (Level of Service) C or better during the a.m, and p.m. peak periods. All intersections are projected to remain at the same service levels as expected without the development of this site, with only minor incremental increases in average intersection delay. The March letter from the traffic consultant evaluated the alternative vehicular access way of Martin Way rather than Sturcon Way and thus added the Martin WaytEliis Street intersection to the evaluation. The March letter found that, if utilized, the Martin/Ellis intersection would also continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of project added traffic volumes. The project, as proposed, will therefore have a less than significant impact with respect to traliic. Vehicular Access Points The study first evaluated the project based on the two originally proposed vehicular assess points: continued use of the existing driveway onto East Washington Street with only right turning movements pemtitted and new use of the existing easement (called Sturcon Way) via the adjacent Petaluma Town Plaza shopping center to Ellis Street. The existing Sturcon Way easement is 30 wide, which coincides with the carriageway of 30 feet and is comparable to a minor residential street having a curb -to -curb width of 28 feet. The minor residential street is designed to accommodate 1,000 vehicles trips per day. With the 143 additional daily trips the Martin Farm project is expected to add to Sturcon Way (the remaining trips are expected on East Washington Street), it will continue to stay well below the 1,000 vehicle trip threshold. In addition, the proposal includes a minor reconfiguration of the intersection of Sturcon and Ellis to provide improved visibility to drivers traveling from Sturcon Way to Ellis Street 'thus, the traffic letter of February I" states that Sturcon Way is adequately designed and has sufficient capacity to serve as one of two access points for the Martin Farm project. Subsequently, after the Planning Commission hearing of March 8" where the Commission directed the applicant to evaluate establishing primary access over Martin instead of Sturcon, alternative access to Ellis Street via Martin Way was studied. Ellis Access Alternatives (Martin/Sturcon Wav1 Table A of the March 31, 2005 traffic impact letter shows that both the Sturcon and Martin access alternatives are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of project added traffic volumes. A review of collisions reported in recent years shows that each intersection has been the site of one collision. A review of Table B, shows that under the existing condition, the site distance at Sturcon Way is superior to Martin Way. With the addition of bulbouts/curb extensions, the Sturcon intersection would achieve the minimally desired sight distance for a private drive entering on to a public street with a 25 mph design speed (Ellis) while, with the same improvement, Martin would not. In order to achieve minimally desired sight distance at the Martin Way/Ellis Street intersection, in addition to the bulb outs, two parking spaces to the right and three parking spaces to the left of Martin Way on Ellis Street would need to be eliminated and stripped as no -parking. Additionally, use of the Martin Way easement for project access would result in the loss of 4 parking spaces on Eden's Washington Creek Apartment site. In order to mitigate the loss of these City required parking spaces, any lost spaces at the Washington Creek Apartments must be replaced, a mitigation measure has been added to ensure this. Then, either Martin Way or Sturcon Way could be utilized to provide adequate access for the proposed project. Pedestrian Access Originally, pedestrian access was proposed via the access easement to Sturcon Way and via the access casement on Martin Way. Regarding the Sturcon Way access, a 5 foot wide pavement treatment with distinctive/contrasting color would be constructed on the southerly portion of the paved Sturcon access to give guidance to pedestrians and motorists and speed tables were also proposed to ensure slow vehicular traffic. The revised proposal includes a sidewalk via the project's Martin Way access easement to the public right-of-way at Ellis Street and to the southwest along East Washington Street. However, regarding the East Washington access, no sidewalk or pedestrian easement currently exists from the shared property line with the Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center to their East Washington Street drive entrance. Therefore, if the shopping center owners do not voluntarily consent to a sidewalk being added in their landscape strip, this pedestrian access will not be possible. Should access along East Washington Street prove impossible, the applicant proposed pedestrian access along the Sturcon Way easement to Ellis Street as shown on the September 24, 2004 plans in addition to the Martin Way sidewalk. Thus, between these alternatives, pedestrian access is found to be adequately provided. Parking As the Martin property is a Planned Unit District, the required parking standard is that proposed/approved by the PUD guidelines. As a means of comparison, the Zoning Ordinance parking standard would require 3 parking spaces per single-family house, 2 per duplex, I per accessory dwelling, and 1 per each 300 square feet of office. Thus, 52 to 62 total spaces would be required for this project, depending upon whether the 10 attached units are considered duplexes or single family dwellings. The applicant proposes Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 17 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures three more parking spaces than the maximum minimum that the Zoning Ordinance would require — for a total of 65 on-site spaces: one covered and one driveway parking space for each residence (36) with six units being designated a second driveway space (+6), one space for the water tower/accessory dwelling unit on lot 14 (+l), and 24 spaces to be shared by the office users and residential visitors (+24) with thirteen of those spaces located on the street parcel A near the residences (labeled as Visitor on sheet A1.0), and eleven parking spaces around the Martin house to serve the 2,750 square feet of office. Even if site plan refinement results in the lost of three spaces, the proposal would comply with the total number of spaces that would be required by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the designation of spaces per use complies with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Planning Handbook which identifies a parking space requirement of 2 spaces per single-family residential unit. Furthermore, the traffic impact study projects that the residential and visitor parking need is greatest during evening and night hours and during weekends when office uses are expected be minimal or nonexistent, thus, based on the shared parking concept, the proposed parking arrangement is expected to be adequate and functional. Offsite, the Martin Way access alternative would necessitate the loss of 4 parking spaces on Eden's Washington Creek Apartment site. As stated above, if access occurs via the Martin Way easement, any lost spaces at the Washington Creek Apartments must be recreated and a mitigation measure has been added to ensure this. The Martin Way alternative also appears to require the loss of 5 diagonal public parking spaces on Ellis Street in order to ensure minimally desired intersection sight distance. These spaces are in the public right-of-way and were not counted by any adjacent use to comply with the parking requirement in effect at the time of the use's construction. Thus, while the loss of these public spaces will likely be noticed, the spaces belong to the City and the Council may eliminate them if they find that this would be for the public good. Additionally, the Martin Way alternative includes a proposed Lot Line Adjustment whereby the subject property gains the last 13 feet of the Sturcon Way easement from the Petaluma Plaza shopping center. This LLA would result in the loss of one of the center's parking spaces; however, as the Plaza has approximately 18 parking spaces more than required (and as these last spaces appear to be under utilized), this loss has no impact. Additional Evaluation • The need for a right -turn deceleration lane was evaluated and will not be needed for the proposed site uses due to the minimal trips expected per hour. • The proximity of the transit transfer site at the Petaluma Library across East Washington Street, served by Petaluma Transit Service and Golden Gate Transit, provides increased freedom to residences that do not drive as well as alternatives to residences that do. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. The internal private streets have been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project shall be subject to the City's Special Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at time of a building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed the proposed project and provided specific recommendations. These were that the applicant shall: provide enclosed and visitor bike parking at the office and install a bike hook or stage devices within each residential garage, utilize only glare free lighting, provide a bench in front of the office and where Sturcon Way enters the site, make applicant proposed intersection improvements, construct a path to the informal creek side path, contribute to a bicycle/pedestrian impact fund, stripe Class II lanes on East Washington Street along the project's frontage and on Ellis Street, ensure that Sturcon Way is a Class III bikeway, provide directional signs, ensure the office provide a written statement of incentives to its users to reduce vehicular trips, and use pesticides/herbicides only utilizing Best Management Practices. Staff will include these and other recommendations as possible conditions of approval for review and approval by the Planning Commission/City Council/Site Plan and Architectural Committee. Thus, the project would comply with the adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: a. Any Washington Creek Apartment parking space(s) lost due to the construction of Martin Way must be recreated at the applicant's expense. The replacement spaces must be recreated on the Washington Creek Apartment parcel and/or by dedication of proximal extra spaces on the Martin Farm property or other abutting property, subject to evaluation 53 by staff and review and approval by the City Council. Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR 11. Public Services. Would the project: a. 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Page 18 Potentially Less than Less Ilian No Significant Significant Sign Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures X X X X X Discussion: The development is proposed to occur in an area that is urbanized, developed, and served by a variety of public services. Additional fire and police service calls may occur as a result of this proposal, but no more so than would be expected based on the General Plan designation. Neither the fire marshal, police department, school district, nor parks director indicated concern that existing facilities/services could not meet the incremental needs of these 17 residential units or the continue use of the historic structure for office purposes. Furthermore, the impact to other governmental services and public facilities would be minimal as a result of this proposal. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable development fees that are assigned to all other proposals prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to address the incremental impact that the proposal presents to all public services. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 12. Recreation. a. Would the project increase the use of existing X 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 X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The subject property has never been used for recreational purposes. The proposal includes a small play area and a lawn area, both of which are for the shared use of the residents and office users. The proposed residents and office users are expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks; however, it is not expected that this use will physically deteriorate these facilities or require new or expanded facilities. Therefore, no recreation impacts will occur as a result of this proposal. Also, the applicant will be required to pay the applicable park fees that are assigned to all proposals prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to address the incremental impact to park usage. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 13. Utilities Infrastructure. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or I I I X 54 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04 -TSM -0379 -CR potentially Significant Impact 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? it. Have sufficientwater supplies available to serve the project from existing 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? L Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Page 14 1 Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures X X X X ON Discussion: The subject property is within a largely developed area and is anticipate by the Petaluma General Plan. For this reason, it is expected that no impacts to the utility infrastructure will occur as a result of this proposal. Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the RWQCB. The site is already served by Pacific Gas & Electric and will have adequate water and sewer service. The City's treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow anticipated from the proposed development. The proposed project is an infill site and would require extensions of existing service lines to provide water, sewer, natural gas, electric, and storm drain utilities to the new residences. This extension is consistent with the service needs expected by the General Plan. The proposed development will comply with all federal, state, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Empire Waste Management, Inc. will provide solid waste disposal services to the proposed project site. Solid waste from the general area is transported to the Sonoma County Central Landfill, which has sufficient capacity to adequately handle all solid waste generation projections in the City of Petaluma until the year 2014. To minimize impacts on landfill capacity, the project will recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent feasible. All new development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The applicant or subsequent ownerlbuilder shall be responsible for the payment of Sewer and Water Connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities. Water and sewer connections fees are calculated at time of building permit issuance, and are due and payable prior to final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system. Mitleation Measures/Monitorinp.: N/A 14. Mineral Resources. Would the project a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents or the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important X mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: There is no information about this site from the General Plan or additional studies, which indicates that this site has ��never been known to be a mineral resource. Mitieation Mensures/,Monitorinq: NIA Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379-CR Potentially Significant Impact 15. Cultural Resources. 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? Page 20 Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures U X X X Discussion: The City hired Carey & Co., as an extension of staff services, to prepare a Historical Evaluation and to evaluate the proposed development for compliance with existing historic regulations. The site is presently developed with a single- family residence, a water tower/pump house, barn, tack house, and chicken coop. The two-story residence, referred to as the Martin Farm House, was built in c.1910 and is a good example of the Colonial Revival style with elements of Arts and Crafts style. This property was historically associated with a much larger walnut orchard, which has since been subdivided and is no longer extant. The property was designated a historic landmark by the Petaluma City Council in April 1999, through the establishment of Historic District Overlay Zone (Ordinance 2088). The overlay zone formally signifies that the structures in this location are prominent City landmarks and are subject historic preservation guidelines. The property has previously been included in three historic resource surveys and evaluations; 1) the Petaluma Historic Building Survey (Peterson, 1976), and 2) the Historical Evaluation of the Property at 1197 E. Washington Street, Petaluma (Tom Origer & Associates, 1998) and 3) the Evaluation of the Martin Property at 1197 E. Washington Street, Petaluma (Archaeological Resource Service, 1999). The Origer survey and evaluation of the property concluded that: "Within the context of rural subdivisions, this property with the house and intact outbuildings is a good example of the small farms that appeared throughout the region during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Moreover, the house was undoubtedly designed by Brainerd Jones, whose noted architectural accomplishments, and personal and professional ties to the area make him a significant person in Petaluma's past, The house at 1197 E. Washington Street is a very good example of Jones's work and, while the parcel is much smaller than it was originally, it retains a high degree of integrity in all other aspects. This property appears eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places [at the local level] under Criteria A, B, and C" According to Origer & Associate's report, the outbuildings, with the exception of the chicken coop which is a more recent addition, were likely built at the same time as the house (c. 1910) or soon thereafter. As such, it appears that the tank/pump house, bam, and tack house contribute to the historic significance of the property. There is sonic dispute about the exact date of construction of the outbuildings, as the evaluation by Archaeological Resource Service states, "The farm buildings date from an earlier period of construction [than the farm house] and seem to be related to an earlier farm house, now gone." Regardless of the age of the outbuildings in question, it is Carey & Co.'s professional opinion that they contribute to the historic significance of the property. A previous planned unit development (PUD) on the project site, known as the Martin Historic Plaza, was proposed in 1998-99. The Martin Historic Plaza would have been a new business park consisting of four new two-story buildings. That project would have retained the farm house and water tank, but demolished the barn, tack house and chicken coop. The four new two-story office buildings on the site would have referred stylistically to the Martin Farm House. In approving this project, the Council established the property as a historic landmark and at the same time approved the associated development proposal that included the demolition of the barn and tack house. The currently proposed project would retain and preserve the Martin Farm House, relocate the water tower approximately 20 feet south toward the famt house and reuse it as a 3 -story accessorytgranny unit, and demolish the burn, tack house, and chicken coop. The duplex most adjacent to the existing house would be designed to reflect elements of the existing barn using salvaged board and batten siding from the demolished barn and tack house. The other new two-story townhouse units, to be located on the periphery of the property, would echo the Martin Farm House stylistically by employing hip and gable roof forms, board and batten and/or shingle siding, wood knee braces and cave brackets, double hung windows, front porches with wood picket railings, and gabled dormer windows on some unit types. Carey & Co. found that this project was somewhat mare appropriate than the previously approved project. Specifically they found that although it is likely a denser development, the current proposal lends itself more easily to the application of compatible styles, given its residential characteristics and the smaller scale of the individual units and that this project primarily locates the new structures behind the Martin FarmHouse and along the property's peripheral boundaries, providing greater visual prominence of the retained historic structures. 6 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 21 Potentially Less than Loss Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures Establishment of the Historic District Overlay Zone formally signifies that the property at 1197 E. Washington Street (with the exception of the chicken coop) has historic significance, contributes to Petaluma's heritage and enhances its character. In addition, the PUD guidelines ensure that any exterior or interior modifications are regulated by Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. In Carey & Co. Ine.'s professional opinion, the proposed project is generally consistent with this section of Article 17, as it would avoid adverse affects to the exterior architectural characteristics of the Martin Farm House and the water tank/pump house; the two most visually prominent structures on the property. Moving the water tank/pump house approximately 20 feet would keep this structure on the original property, only minimally altering the historic relationship between the house and the water tank. The proposed loss of the bam and tack house could potentially be an adverse effect on the historic resource, in this case the complex of four buildings on what remains of a larger walnut orchard. However, in Carey & Co.'s professional opinion, the removal of these two accessory structures, with mitigation, would constitute a less than significant effect - as the historic resource would continue to retain its historic significance by keeping and rehabilitating the most significant contributor, the main house, and the most visibly prominent structure, the water tower. Retention of these two structures would be sufficient for the historic resource to continue to be considered historically significance for CEQA purposes as it would continue to appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register or as a City landmark. Mitigation measures available to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level have been proposed below. Carey & Co. continues that the loss of these two structures with mitigation measures in place can also be viewed as an acceptable trade-off, because without an appropriate reuse pian the property would continue to deteriorate, potentially affecting its historic significance. Lastly, Carey & Co. finds that the new construction proposed within the property (which will undergo review by the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee/SPARC) would be generally compatible with the existing structures, and would not substantially affect the character, or the historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the property. Carey & Co. finds that implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the previous development proposal (Martin Historic Plaza), and those they recommend for the current project (Martin Farm Subdivision), would mitigate potential impacts to the historic resource. These proposed mitigation measures have been required, see a through h below. No prehistoric, archaeological, or paleontological resource or human remains or cemeteries are known to exist or have been found by any of the historical evaluations and work preformed by the three archaeology/historical research/preservations firms that have been involved with the site over the last seven years. Therefore, no impacts are expected in this area. A standard condition of approval states that should any archeologicanistorical remains be encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action. The project will not cause changes, which would affect ethnic or cultural values, affect religious uses, or result in adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a historic archaeological resource. Mitination Measures/Monitoring: a. The applicant shall make all attempts to preserve the exterior materials from demolished structures and shall use these on the new "barn duplex" (on lots 13 and 14 adjacent to the existing house) that will be constructed. b. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, measured drawings of the barn shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division. c. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, photodocumentation of construction details of the barn and tack house shall be submitted to the Planning Division. d. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, aerial oblique photographs showing the barn and tack house in context with the other buildings shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Prior to subdivision acceptance, these photographs shall be displaced on site in the office building. c, The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee shall review the formal plans regarding the proposed architecture of proposed new buildings. This Committee must review and approve the architecture prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1'. Rehabilitation of the water tower/pump house shall comply with the Secretary's Standards. Rehabilitation plans shall be prepared or peer reviewed by a professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for archeology and Historic Preservation Planning, Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture (see below). g, Moving the water tower/pump house shall only take place following preparation of moving plans that will include the following: i. Measured drawings and photodocumentation of the structure. ii. Inspection by a structural engineer. The engineer shall prepare a report of existing conditions and recommendations for stabilization or other work required so that the structure could be moved with minimal damage. iii. Qualifications for a moving contractor. The moving contractor shall have a minimum of five years of 51 experience in moving wood framed structures. Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 22 Potentially Less than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures It. Rehabilitation of the main house shall comply with the Secretary's Standards. Rehabilitation plans shall be prepared or peer reviewed by a professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation Planning, Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture. The minimum professional qualifications in historic architecture are a professional degree in architecture or a State license to practice architecture, plus one of the following: i. At least one year of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or ii. At least one year of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects. Such graduate study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. 16. Aadcultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Famdand), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? M b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? `7 Discussion: The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project area is an infill site which has been within the City limits since 1959. The site is geographically in the center of town and not near any farmland. Thus, its development will not result in the conversion of nearby farmland. Mitieafion Measures/Monitorine: N/A 17. Mandatory Findinas of Sianifieanee. Yes No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, X substantially reduce the habitat of 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 X 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 X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 58 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File No. 04- TSM- 0379 -CR Page 23 Potentially Less than Less Than IJo Significant Significant Significant impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures Discussion: The project with mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment, achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Mifieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A IMPLEMENTATION: The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading or building perrtuts. 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. The applicant shall notify all assigns and transfers of the same. MONITORING: The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions, and the Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading, or building permits. 2. Mitigation Measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. CONSTRUCTION: ]. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide a statement of his/her name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The applicant's statement appointing a project manager shall be signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. POST -CONSTRUCTION: The City shall retain a qualified professional to monitor completion of restoration plans or mitigation plans and reports on the success criteria and management needs. I, — �% 1�1lYr� — `• 4N the project applicant, have reviewed this Initial Study and hereby agree to incorporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project. q 5 l Signa of Applicant Dat s:\pcVsWaninHistoricl.&3 awsOg City ofPetalu/na, California Community Development Department Planning Division sass 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: Martin Farm Subdivision File Number: 04 -TSM -0379 -CR Address/Location: 1197 East Washington Street Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. Bioloaicol Resources% Mitigation Measures a. Prior to SPARC approval, the Biologist team will conduct a floral survey to supplement their previous survey. Any recommendations that the biologist makes at this time will become additional mitigation measures. — b. Prior to any grading or construction work on the SCWA's property, the applicant shall obtain permits with required mitigation for the impact associated with the outfall structure from US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the Water Quality Control Board. Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division C. Prior to SPARC approval, a licensed arborist shall reevaluate the trees 2 — 4 (oaks), 5 (magnolia), and 15 (pepper); the two additional small oaks (one in the play area and one on the northwestern rear fence of lot 11), and the off-site trees whose canopies reach into the Martin project (including eucalyptus trees 29, 30, 42, 43, 46, and 48 and a number of oak trees particularly the one near the East Washington drive aisle and those at lots 4, 11 and 12) and recommend conditions to ensure their preservation. These conditions shall become HCP/SPARC conditions. d. Conduct tree removal during the fall when raptors are not actively nesting. If grading or construction must begin during the spring or early summer months, prior to commencement of grading or construction beginning a qualified biologist shall check the larger trees to ensure that no active raptor nest will be disturbed. If active nests are observed, appropriate setbacks from the trees or modified scheduling shall be established. Reauested By or Due Date Page 1 FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy / O SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 1� LTM Long -Term Monitorin Marin Farms Subdivision City of Petalwna, California Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval Noise. Mitigation Measures a. Prior to HCP/SPARC approval, the plans shall include a noise barrier wall or fence for the benefit of the two units in the eastern comer of the site (lots 11 - 12). The noise barrier height shall be 8 feet, as shown on the Noise Study Figure 1. Prior to HCP/SPARC approval, the plans shall include a 6 -foot high solid noise barrier fence for the duplex adjacent to the historic structure (lots 13 — 14), as shown on the Noise Study Figure 1. Wall heights are as measured above the final grade of the backyards of the units. The barriers must be constructed airtight over the surface and where it meets the ground and must have a minimum surface weight of at least 3-4 pounds per square foot. Suitable materials include wood, if properly detailed, precast masonry or concrete panels, or masonry or concrete blocks. b. Prior to building permit issuance, the duplexes on southeastern lots 11 —14 shall include adequate forced air mechanical ventilation or air conditioning as necessary to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed, so that the occupants may close their windows at their discretion in order to control traffic noise intrusion. Transoortotion/Traffic Mitigation Measures a. Any Washington Creek Apartment parking space(s) lost due to the construction of Martin Way must be recreated at the applicant's expense. The replacement spaces must be recreated on the Washington Creek Apartment parcel and/or by dedication of proximal extra spaces on the Martin Farm property or other abutting property, subject to evaluation by staff and review and approval by the City Council. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures a. The applicant shall make all attempts to preserve the exterior materials from demolished structures and shall use these on the new "barn duplex" (on lots 13 and 14 adjacent to the existing house) that will be constructed. b. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, measured drawings of the barn shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division. c. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, photodocumentation of construction details of the barn and tack house shall be submitted to the Planning Division. d. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, aerial oblique photographs showing the barn and tack house in context with the other buildings shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Prior to subdivision acceptance, these photographs shall be displaced on site in the office building. Department Requested By or Due Date Page 2 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee r I LTM Long -Term Monitoring CJ Marin Farms Subdivision Reporting/Monitoring Record • Mitigation Measures for Approval 001 of Petaluma, California — e. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee shall review the formal plans regarding the proposed architecture of proposed new buildings. This Committee must review and approve the architecture prior to the issuance of a building permit. f Rehabilitation of the water tower/pump house shall comply with the Secretary's Standards. Rehabilitation plans shall be prepared or peer reviewed by a professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for archeology and Historic Preservation Planning, Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture (see below). g. Moving the water tower/pump house shall only take place following preparation of moving plans that will include the following: i. Measured drawings and photodocumentation of the structure. ii. Inspection by a structural engineer. The engineer shall prepare a report of existing conditions and recommendations for stabilization or other work required so that the structure could be moved with minimal damage. iii. Qualifications for a moving contractor. The moving contractor shall have a minimum of five years of experience in moving wood framed structures. h. Rehabilitation of the main house shall comply with the Secretary's Standards. Rehabilitation plans shall be prepared or peer reviewed by a professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation Planning, Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture. The minimum professional qualifications in historic architecture are a professional degree in architecture or a State license to practice architecture, plus one of the following: — i. At least one year of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or ii. At least one year of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects. Such graduate study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division 01PLE11lENTATION: 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Requested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Page 3 62 Marin Fanns Subdivision Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division City ofPetalzana, California 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. The applicant shall notify all assigns and transfers of the same. MONITORING: 1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions, and the Fire Department shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading, or building permits. 2. Mitigation Measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. CONSTRUCTION: I. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide a statement of his/her name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The applicant's statement appointing a project manager shall be signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. POST -CONSTRUCTION: 1. The City shall retain a qualified professional to monitor completion of restoration plans or mitigation plans and reports on the success criteria and management needs. Requested By or Due Date Page 4 FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 1� LTM Long -Term Monitoring iw:Y • ��YGK.Eu"�.XL.A.t�_.�.,`�'�#''.IY �.t'�' �.i`e: UNE TABLE ) I CURVE TABLE LINE LENGTH 1BEARING J 1 CURVE LENGTH DELTA RADIUS Li ( 4.93 lfr6 11 572'S724"W J CI 131.45 13'34'12" I 555.00 1 L2 5.32 567'4000W J C2 64.20 7.47'37^ 1 472.00 L3 10.59 567'40'00"W C3 101.45 759'04" 728.00 1 I L4 39.37 1 014'21'27"W ( C4 200.69 43'23'32" 265.00 ) I L5 58.37 1 N00'4715"W I C5 51.46 17'33'46" 255.00 jL6 12.94 NDD'59'42"W I I C6 37.06 8'19'40" 255.00 L7 12.84 N67'04'58"E ) ! C7 217.55 22'39147" 550.00 LB 2.82 N00'58'42"W I CB 113.86 13'02'51" 500.00 f L9 17.56 N44'22'14"W I C9 78.42 20'25'23" 220.00 L10 261.61 N24'28'48"W i CIO 145.26 16'38'43" 500.00 1 LIi 12773 N24'28'48"W I CII 108.37 14.06'41" 440.00 f L12 139.95 N01'49'02"W I C12 99.81 20'25'23" 280.00 L13 63,48 N89'12105"E C13 127.53 13'02'51" 560.00 L14 139.95 501'49'02"E CI4 193.82 22'39'47" 490.00 L15 169,19 524'28'48"E C15 37.16 10'55'04" 195.00 '. L16 220.16 524'28'46"E C16 30.54 8.58'22" 195.00 L17 17.56 544'22'14"E f C17 246.14 43'23'32" 325.00 LIB 20.69SOO'58'42"E ! CIB 111.48 7.59'04" 800A0 719 95.28 SO 7715-E C19 I 54.41 1 7.47'37' 400.00 L20 1 65.47 511'04'28"E I 721 42.17 510'26'39"E I REVISIONS A 5/25/05 STREET NAMES ADDED, ETC 5/06/05 SUBMITTED FOP. CITY REVIEW (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) NO I DATE j DESC. 1' - I:. Er�"' II . IN , I v ] CQW,,'STUBER-STROEH ENGI1\1EERING i IJP, INC. CONSULTII\IG Et\IGINEEP,S 1310 P,edwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SAS TEL (707 795-4764 G_ BY FAX (707; ,9� 0576 I 0 2005 PREPARED U14DER THE DIRECTION OF DATE: 5/06!05 SCALE: "=120' WATER STREET PRECISE PLAN LINE BOUNDARY PHOTO EXHIBIT PETA.LUMA SONOMA CAL'FORNIA d' �4te - ii �'a lfr6 11 ; ..._ 1 � SK '1S 1' - I:. Er�"' II . IN , I v ] CQW,,'STUBER-STROEH ENGI1\1EERING i IJP, INC. CONSULTII\IG Et\IGINEEP,S 1310 P,edwood Way, Suite 200, Petaluma, CA 94954 SAS TEL (707 795-4764 G_ BY FAX (707; ,9� 0576 I 0 2005 PREPARED U14DER THE DIRECTION OF DATE: 5/06!05 SCALE: "=120' WATER STREET PRECISE PLAN LINE BOUNDARY PHOTO EXHIBIT PETA.LUMA SONOMA CAL'FORNIA