Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 07/06/2009MV CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA July 6, 2009 AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Discussion and Possible Action to Rezone the 2.2 -acre Meetine. Date: July 6, 2009 Vacant Property at 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. to a Planned Unit District, Approve the Tentative Parcel Map, and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Meeting Time: 7:00 PM The Birches, a 21 -unit Single -Family Residential Subdivision. Cate2orv: ❑ Presentation ❑ Appointments ❑ Consent ® Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ® New Business Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: City Manager John Brown Tiffany Robbc, Planner?— (707) 778-4318 VS Total Cost of Proposal or Proiect: NIA Name of Fund: NIA Amount Budgeted: NIA Account Number: NIA Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council tape the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Introduce an Ordinance to Authorize a Rezoning from Planned Community District (PCD) to Planned Unit District (PUD) 3. Consider a Resolution to Approve the Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards 4. Consider a Resolution to Approve a Tentative Subdivision Map 1. ❑ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous vote to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ❑ First reading or Ordinance approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has been published/posted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ® Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment 3 Summary Statement: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on March 24" and May 12t", 2009. After deliberating and taking public testimony, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve with conditions the request to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to Approve a Rezoning to Planned Unit District, to Approve the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards, and to Approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for The Birches, a 21 -unit Single -Family Residential Subdivision located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, APN 137-061-022, File # 05 -TSM -0369 -CR. Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Ordinance Authorizing a Rezoning to Planned Unit District Draft Resolution Approving the Unit Development Plan and Development Standards Draft Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated March 24 and May 12, 2009 with associated attachments, but excluding plans 3. Public Notice Planning Commission; and Public Notice ---- City Council 4. Half -sized plans date stamped June 1, 2009 Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attornev: ADnro°v�by-City Manager: at 6!`�7 Date: Date. Cr7 /—G 7 Rev. # 0 f, r�i 1 �� Date Last Revised: 6/11/09 File: s:/planning/city council/reports/Birches Agenda Bill Rev 0 4 CITY OF PEITALUNIA, CALIFORNIA JULY 6, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR THE BIRCHES SUBDIVISION DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO REZONE THE 2.2 -ACRE VACANT PROPERTY AT 870 WOOD SORRELL TO A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT, TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AND TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BIRCHES, A 21 -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION 1. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, introduce an Ordinance to Approve a Rezoning to Planned Unit District, and hear public comment and consider a Resolution to Approve a Unit Development Plan and Development Standards and a Resolution to Approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for The Birches, a 21 -unit single-family subdivision on the vacant 2.2 -acre parcel at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive (see Attachment 1 for Draft Resolutions and Ordinance). If the Council decides to move the Project forward, the ordinance will be adopted after second reading at a subsequent meeting, at which time the Resolutions to approve a Unit Development Plan and Development Standards and to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map would also be adopted. 2. BACKGROUND: Project Description The proposed project is a 21 lot tentative subdivision map consisting of 21 single-family homes located on the 2.2 -acre vacant lot at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, between Yarberry and Morning Glory Drives. The average proposed lot size is approximately 3,564 square feet. The project is comprised of four two-story house plans ranging from 1,750 to 2,127 square feet; each has a two -car (400 square foot) garage and two parking spaces in the driveway. Each lot has usable open space (comprised of the usable front and rear yard areas, see Sheet TM -5 for useable area depiction, shown outlined in gray) ranging from 876 to 1,502 square feet. The garage in every other lot is deeply recessed, while the garages of the other plans are forward, thus forming a "two -pack" concept and ensuring that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. The proposed access to the site is via a private street that intersects with both Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives. The private street will be 20 feet wide with 8 on -street parking pullouts. A 4 -foot wide private sidewalk is proposed for both sides of the private street. The project density is 12.5 dwelling units to the net acre; within the 8.1 to 18 dwelling units to the net acre range specified by the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation. The subject parcel is surrounded to the northwest by the McDowell Meadows PUD subdivision, to the northeast and southeast by the Meadow Park PUD subdivision, and to the southwest (across Wood Sorrel Drive) by a vacant parcel owned by Petaluma Ecumenical Properties (PEP). The abutting McDowell Meadows houses on Morning Glory Drive are one-story. The house behind proposed lot 11 is a quad lot design set back 5 feet from the 2 shared property line, all the other abutting Morning Glory homes are set back between 10 to 28 feet (see Attachment 2, page 2-132). Of the four abutting Meadow Park homes on Allegheny Court that abut lots 11 and 12, three are two-story; the house labeled as Bruton on Sheet TM -5 is the one-story home. The PUD has a minim -um setback requirement of 20 feet; the 4 homes appear to be set back between 20 feet (Derby) and 58 feet (Conroy) from the shared property line (see Attachment 2, page 2-133). The Meadow Park PUD homes across Yarberry also comprise both one and two-story homes, but here the split is roughly equal. Two small public parcels that were dedicated to the City of Petaluma with the filing of the Meadow Park subdivision are located adjacent to the site at the northeasterly and southeasterly corners; they provide street -side landscaping and include redwood trees and sycamores. The subject parcel is currently vacant. The project is before the Council because the applicant is requesting Rezoning and a Tentative Subdivision Map. If the Rezoning is approved, the project will then be subject to SPARC review and approval. Rezoning Proposal The zoning designation for the subject property has been Planned Community District (PCD) since it was annexed into the City in 1980, part of a 107 acre annexation. This parcel and the vacant parcel across Wood Sorrel are the only remaining with the PCD designation; all others have been rezoned as they developed, most to residential PUDs. During this era of large annexation areas, the PCD designation was commonly assigned to the whole area and ftmctioned as a general "preplanning" designation; then as individual parcels developed they were rezoned to subdivision -specific Planned Unit Districts. This is the route that the Birches Subdivision proposes; a Rezoning to a Planned Unit District specific to their proposed subdivision. The Birches PUD will establish development parameters and specifications. It will dictate how the subdivision is constructed and dictate what modification can occur over time. The Planned Unit Development Plan (see TM -5) depicting the project layout and the associated plans represent the proposed PUD. The written Development Standards will specify the regulations of the subdivision, see Attachment 1, pages 26-34. The other route would have been to propose rezoning the parcel to that standard zoning district most closely associated with the General Plan density range, in this case, R3 or R4. The Birches proposal is generally consistent with the regulations of one or both of these zoning districts, including parking, lot size, and most building setbacks. The applicant choose to propose rezoning the parcel to a PUD rather than the standard R4 to allow the reduced street section (a reduced -width street and sidewalk with no planter strip) and to enable the project to deviate from the R4 standards in small ways, such as allowing the 8.4 foot rear setback at Lot 4 (where R4 requires a 10 foot rear setback) and allowing the front property line to occasionally be less than 10 feet. By choosing to apply for the PUD, the applicant must present the whole nature of the subdivision to the Planning Commission and City Council rather than just the lot arrangement. Also, the PUD Development Standards provide more regulation to change over time than would the subdivision developed under the R4 standards. For example, under the R4 standards, a two-story addition to within 10 feet of the rear yard setback could be approved at any lot via a building permit. Under the proposed Birches PUD, such 3 residential additions would not be allowed (only small modifications would be allowed, see Attachment 1, pages 29-30, Section WII D); at least not before the application and approval of a PUD Amendment, which is a public process that includes noticing to neighbors within 500 feet. Thus, the PUD gives the City and the neighborhood more information regarding what the subdivision will look like both at the time of construction as well as over time. The City Council may approve a PUD only after making the finding that the Plan "clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district" (Zoning section 19.030). The additional project details and the additional regulation about future modifications that are the hallmark of a modern day PUD, may represent - to the City and specifically to the nearest neighbors - cause for finding that development of this land under the Birches PUD is more desirable than development under standard R4 zoning. In summary, this project or a project very similar could be developed under either the proposed PUD or R4. Development under the PUD will result, both now and in the future, in a project with larger setbacks abutting the existing residents than required by R4 (except at Lot 4), and therefore development under the PUD appears more compatible with the existing neighborhood. That may represent cause for the required finding that the PUD results in a better physical environment than if developed sunder a standard zoning designation. Plannina Commission Meeting of March 24, 2009 At the March 24, 2009 Planning Commission hearing (see Attachment 2, PC Staff Report and associated attachments pages 2-1 to 2-136), the Commission acted to continue the project to a date certain directing the applicant to improve the circulation where the roadway dead ends. They were dissatisfied that the proposed roadway in the area of lots 9 - 14 was not designed to accommodate delivery and garbage trucks (larger than passenger vehicles were to back out to lot 16 before proceeding forward to Yarberry). Between Planning Commission Hearings After coordinating with Green Waste Recovery, the applicant redesigned the turnaround to accommodate delivery type trucks and the largest of Green Waste's garbage trucks. Lots I 1 — 13 were adjusted to accommodate the larger turnaround. Other modifications to address concerns and recommendations expressed by more than one Commissioner or by the two neighbors who spoke during the public hearing (whose homes back to lots 11 and 12) were made including: ® Coordinating with the Post Office on placement of two gang type mailboxes at the project entrance off Yarberry Drive; o Providing an Architecture Solar Exhibit (last sheet of Architect Plan set Attachment E) showing a southwest -facing roof area adequate to contain 200 to 300 square feet of solar panels per house and noting that this size can typically produce approximately 50% of the energy needed by the house; ® Proposing to replacing the proposed birch tree clusters (which have high water needs and are not recommended in our area) with another tree from the accent tree list and eliminate turf prior to SPARC review (condition 12 requires this, the landscape plan with be updated prior to the SPARC hearing); ® Agreeing to the 50 GreenPoints (green building) condition; 4 ® Increasing the number of on -street parking spaces from 4 to 9; ® Adding bollards along the Derby/Conroy fence at the dead end; m Replacing the previously proposed rolled curb with vertical curb; and ® Increasing the curb returns at the roadway entries from Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives to provide the clearance needed for the ladder fire truck, pursuant to Fire condition 30, Planning Commission Meeting of Mav 12, 2009 At the May 12`h Planning Commission hearing, (see Attachment 2, PC Staff Report and associated attachments pages 2-137 to 2-161), the Commission held a second public hearing. One abutting neighbor, Mr. Derby, spoke during public comment expressing that so much asphalt and activity so near his rear yard seemed an unfair condition. The Planning Commission then deliberated on the project and, in a 5 to 2 vote, recommended the project to the City Council with added conditions, including a condition requiring that the treatment between the turn -around and the Derby property line be modified to enhance privacy for the Allegheny Court residences subject to SPARC approval and a condition specifically granting the applicant flexibility to improve the turn -around area by eliminating one of the shared parking spaces at the turn -around, flipping the house plan at lot 11 to reduce pavement abutting the Derby property line, and/or increasing the planting area between the turn -around and the Derby property line (conditions 13 & 15). Other recommended conditions were that drainage be maintained by the HOA, that the storm drain inlets within Parcel A be stenciled "Drains to Creek", that the location of the public utilities at the Lots 1 and 21 PUE be confirmed (engineering conditions 28, 25h, 27e respectively), that green building condition 7 includes language about special attention to water reduction and hot water distribution efficiency, that condition 9 be expanded to include any other sycamores lost due to the increased curb returns required by Fire, that condition 11 be reworded, and that use of "CDD" and "Planning Division" in the PUD Standards be revised (condition 14). They also advised that a purple pipe requirement be considered prior to City Council review. 3. DISCUSSION: For fiirther discussion and information (including more regarding General Plan consistency, Green Building, use of a PUD,, demolition of former structures in 2006, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee recommendations) staff refers the Council to the Planning Commission report of May 12 and especially March 24«' and the associated attachments (Attachment 2). The Initial Study analyzing the Project's environmental effects is provided as Attachment D of the March 24th Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2, see page 2-18 to 2-113) and is dated February 17, 2009. Since the May 121h Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has been working on modifications to the plan to decrease the amount of pavement abutting the Dcrby/Conroy property lines and to increase privacy between the turn -around area and the Derby/Conroy properties. The civil sheets have been modified to show these proposed improvements. The distance between the turn -around and the property line has been increased from 3 feet to 10 feet by flipping the house orientation on Lot 11 (so that the garage sits next to Lot 10) and by eliminating a second parking space which had been shown in front of Lot 12. The amount of paving has also been reduced near the pertinent property line with the elimination of that second parking space. Four trees are also depicted in the ten feet between the turn- around and the Derby/Conroy property lines; specific landscaping improvements for this area have not yet been specified, but will be prior to SPARC review, pursuant to drafted condition 12. Staff reviewed the Water Resource and Conservation Department's Recycled Water Master Plan which shows the planned purple pipe route around the City. The map was designed to get reclaimed waste water to large irrigation areas such as parks, schools, and golf courses in order to reduce draws on drinking water. The planned route does not go near this project; the two nearest planned runs are each more than 1,100 feet (115 mile) from the subject parcel. Additionally, the Water Resource and Conservation Department does not intend to provide reclaimed water to individual lots at this time. They are focusing their efforts on building the basic framework of pipelines and distribution facilities to connect large irrigation users. Furthermore, as the Birches is a small subdivision of small lots, use of the Water Resource and Conservation Department's Water Conservation Ordinance (see conditions 33 & 34) seems a more appropriate means of reducing use of potable water. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is a cost recovery project; the applicant will pay for the cost of processing the application. As of May, the applicant has paid $19,557.00 in cost recovery development review fees. The project is also subject to development impact fees and water and wastewater capacity charges. 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE BIRCHES SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 870 WOOD SORREL, APN 019-020-013 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to rezone the property to a Planned Unit District (PUD) and has proposed the associated Development Plan and PUD Standards ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma ("City") prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064(0(2), and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required to analyze the potential significant environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply, and traffic, the City relied on the program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified with appropriate findings of fact on April 7, 2008 with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S.; and WHEREAS, the Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that with the specified mitigation measures relating to potential air quality and noise, Project impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance, other than effects on climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions from the Project; and WHEREAS, as to the incremental contribution of this Project to cumulative climate change, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed additional information regarding this Project and determined that The Birches is consistent with all current State measures and General Plan 2025 policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction, but also that after careful investigation, because of the difficulty of determining individual contributions to climate change from projects as small as The Birches, the Project's direct and/or incremental contribution to cumulative climate change is too speculative to determine; and WHEREAS, on or before February 26, 2009, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a twenty -day public comment period commencing February 19, 2009 and ending March 24, 2009 and a Notice of Public Hearing to be held on March 24, 2009 before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission was published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated March 24, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including its supporting technical studies and reports; and 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24, 2009, during which the Commission considered the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and received and considered all written and oral public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the Planning Commission expressed their dissatisfaction that the proposed roadway in the area of lots 9 - 14 was not designed to accommodate delivery and garbage trucks and acted to continue the project to a date certain, May 12, 2009, to allow the applicant time to make improvements; and WHEREAS, a further staff report dated May 12, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, summarized the proposed roadway modifications and the other changes which the applicant made in response to concerns expressed by more than one Planning Commissioner and the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on May 12, 2009, during which the Commission again considered the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and received and considered all written and oral public continents on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the Planning Commission completed its review of the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, based in part on its recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of other Project entitlements; and WHEREAS, an Agenda Bill, dated July 6, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all supporting documents, including but not limited to the Initial Shady, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff reports and related materials, public cormnents and all evidence presented at or before a noticed public hearing on July 6, 2009, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies mitigation measures applicable to the Project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study, its reports and supporting documents and all information and documents referred to and incorporated herein by reference constitute the Mitigated 8 Negative Declaration for the Project and reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 659625 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Project and environmental documents, including the Initial Study, its supporting documents and all information and documents incorporated herein by reference are available for review at Petaluma City Hall, File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, Attention: Tiffany Robbe. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: I . The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, its supporting studies and documents, and all information referred to and/or incorporated herein adequately describes the impacts of the Project. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment nor is there a fair argument that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, its supporting studies and documents, all comments and evidence relating to environmental effects of the Project and all materials referred to and/or incorporated herein before approving the Project and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines. 4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference as conditions of approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project. 5. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit B hereto as a requirement of approval of the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6h day of July, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: E ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 10 Exhibit A Mitigation Measures MITIGATION MEASURES: Air Oualitv AQ -1: The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicates these provisions in the specifications. Additional measures may be required by the City's Engineering Division. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 _ Basic Control Measures — The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all tricks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Noise N-1: To reduce outdoor noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less within the rear yards of the proposed homes that would otherwise be impacted by road noise, construct solid walls or an earth berm with a wall above as the rear fence at lots 16 to 21 and the street side fence at lots 1, 16, and 21. The sound wall shall have a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades (see noise study). To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA. A wood fence built with a double layer of V nominal thickness Fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block and concrete panel walls. N-2: To reduce indoor noise during train fixture train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum level of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. The following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site: • Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line; • Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); • Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); and 11 • Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 — which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 7/8" three coat stucco finish). N-3: Because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, construction activities shall be restricted as follows: These restrictions shall be noted in all related construction contracts: • Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma; b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday; and c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non -holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. • Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences. • Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) • Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 12 Exhibit S MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR'T'ING PROGRAM 13 w�AL City of Petaluina, California a Community Development Department Planning Division 185a 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: The Birches Subdivision File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR AddresslLocation: 870 Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.091.6 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. Air Quality: Mitigation Measures ENG FM AQ -1 The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicates these provisions in the specifications. Additional measures may be required by the City's Engineering Division. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 Basic Control Measures — The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. ■ Water aI1 active construction areas at least twice daily. ■ Cover al trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ■ Pave, apply water three titres daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and stating areas at construction sites. ■ Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. ■ Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Noise: Mitigation Measures PD BP N-1 To reduce outdoor noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less within the rear yards of the proposed homes that would otherwise be impacted by road noise, construct solid walls or an earth berm with a wall above as the rear fence at lots 16 to 21 and the street side fence at lots 1, 16, and 21. The sound wall shall have a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades (see noise study). To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA. A wood fence built with a double layer of 1" nominal thickness DeUartment Requested By or Due Date PD Planning Division FM Final Map 1!1 FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lang -Term Monitorin The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval H[1IIN IIIQ II!' 01 41 1 - City of Petaluma, California fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block and concrete panel wails. PD BP N-2 To reduce indoor noise during train future train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum level of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. The following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site: • Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line; • Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); • Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); and • Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 -- which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 718" three coat stucco finish). Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division 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 IS The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval `.ht�1t11 hl�'11 ILEI t Ultpl'.,. Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division City of Petaluma; California N-3 Because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, construction activities shall be restricted as follows: These restrictions shall be noted in all related construction contracts: • Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma; b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday; and c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non -holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. • Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences. • Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) • Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regardirig the construction schedule. 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 46 The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval EMPLEM ENTATION: City of Petaluma, California ENG/ BP 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible PD agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans. ENG/ BP 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required PD mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the project. ENG/ BP 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the PD project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant shall notify all assigns and transfers of the same. ENG/ BP PD Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division 4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements, such as archaeological resources, etc. Rea uested 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 17 The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel Drive Report! ng/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval p P• L. t...;' , -_ - tilt Ill`F 15,1"FI•: MONITORING: City of Petaluma, California ENG/ FM 1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Engineering Section and Fire PD/ IBP Departments shall review the improvement and construction plans for FM conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits. ENG/ BP 2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable PD required permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. ENG/ CO 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all PD improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans. CONSTRUCTION MEASURES: ENG/ BP 1. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all PD mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. PD BP 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. ENG/ CO 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved PD plans and conditions of approval. ENG/ BP 4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall arrange a pre -construction PD conference with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. S:1PlanninglCEQA Docs (all)IMitigation Monitoring1870 Wood Sorrel -The Birebes.doc Deuartment Requested By or Due Date PD Planning Division FM Final Map 1 FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit ENG Engineering Div of PW CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring ORDINANCE NO. Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember APPROVAL OF REZONING TO A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) FOR THE BIRCHES SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE, APN 137-061-022 PROJECT FILE NO. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to rezone property located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, APN 137-061-022 ("the Property") to a PIanned Unit District (PUD) and has proposed the associated Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on March 24 and May 12, 2009 after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in its minutes of May 12, 2009 recommending the adoption of a Rezoning from Planned Community District (PCD) to Planned Unit District (PUD) along with the adoption of the associated Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards to allow for a 21 -unit single-family subdivision on the vacant 2.2 -acre parcel at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, Assessor's Parcel No. 137-061-022; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2009, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines) and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009- , N.C.S., adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Project; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PUD Findings The Citv Council finds as follows in savoort of the Rezoning to Planned Unit District for The Birches, a 21 -Unit Sinile-Familv Subdivision. at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive (the Proiect): A. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., to amend the Planned Community District (PCD) zoning district to a Planned Unit District (The Birches PUD) to develop the site as a 21 -unit single-family subdivision is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan 2025. The proposed 21 residences comply with the 2025 General Plan land use designation of the site as Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows 19 a variety of residential types at a density of 8.1 to 18 dwelling units to the net acre. The proposed density is compatible with that range, as 12.5 dwelling units to the net acre are proposed. As the subject 2.2 -acre parcel is essentially flat, without native/protected trees, accessible from two public streets, and immediately abutting other single-family subdivisions, development at this density is appropriate. B. The proposed rezoning to PUD is consistent with the Petaluma Interim Zoning Ordinance in that it incorporates the policies and guidelines of the Planned Unit District Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is planned on a property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives), and said thoroughfare with the improvements required, is adequate to carry the traffic generated by the development. The Project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance because it clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district. In summary, this project is similar to a project that could be developed under the single zoning district R4. Development under the PUD will result, both now and in the future, in a project with larger setbacks abutting the existing residents than required by R4 (except at Lot 4), and therefore development under the PUD appears more compatible with the existing neighborhood. For the neighborhood, this will result in a better physical environment than if the parcel were developed tinder a standard zoning designation. Furthermore, the additional project details and the additional regulation about Future modifications represent - to the City and specifically to the nearest neighbors - cause for finding that development of this land under the Birches PUD is more desirable than development under standard R4 zoning. C. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the proposed PUD zoning in that the amended zoning designation will result in single-family housing, a use that is appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project plans present a unified and organized arrangement of lots and private streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. D. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential air quality and noise impacts generated by the proposed project. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared for the PUD rezoning of the property. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would result. A copy of this notice was published in the Arcus Courier and provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements. Section 2. Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and 20 effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. Section 3. Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City Council. Section 4. Publication The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the City Charter. INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this day of ADOPTED this day of , 2009, by the following vote; AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STAIN: 21 RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE BIRCHES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, APN 137-061-022 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in its minutes of March 24 and May 12, 2009, recommending approval of a Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for the Birches Planned Unit Development ("the Project"); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on said Unit Development Plan and Development Standards on July 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2009, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines) and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009- , N.C.S., adopting a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find: 1. The Plait clearly results in a more desirable use of land and in a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district. In summary, this project is similar to a project that could be developed under the single zoning district R4. Development under the PUD will result, both now and in the future, in a project with larger setbacks abutting the existing residents than required by R4 (except at Lot 4), and therefore development under the PUD appears more compatible with the existing neighborhood. For the neighborhood, this will result in a better physical environment than if developed under a standard zoning designation. Furthermore, the additional project details and the additional regulation about fiiture modifications represent - to the City and specifically to the nearest neighbors - cause for finding that development of this land under the Birches PUD is more desirable than development under standard R4 zoning. 2. The PUD District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares, and said thoroughfare is adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development. The Project sits directly on Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives and access to the 21 single- family homes will be via a private street that connects between these existing public streets. The traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project concluded that the levels of service (LOS) at the three studied intersections of North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard, Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Boulevard, and Wood Sorrel DriveiYarberry Drive would be unchanged at LOS A or B, in the existing condition, if project traffic were to be added. The study also concluded that the three intersections would be at LOS A or B (Table 5 — Traffic Analysis) under both the future conditions 22 scenario and the future plus project conditions scenario. In conclusion, when the subject site is fully developed as proposed, the study intersections are expected to operate at the same levels of service in both the existing and the projected future condition with or without the project, and with only an incremental increase in delay due to these added project trips. The traffic study also evaluated the proposed circulation and determined that the sight distances from each proposed street connection is equal to or great than the Caltrans standard of 275 feet. 3. The plait for the proposed development pi-esents a unified and organizer) arrangeinent of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties and adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessaiy to insitre coinpatibil i ty. The rear yard setbacks of the proposed single-family units are similar to adjacent residential subdivisions which were also developed as Planned Unit Districts. Care has been taken (and conditions adopted) to ensure privacy between the turn -around area and the nearest property line so that privacy to those back yards is not unduly impacted. Site Plan and Architectural Review of house and landscaping design will further ensure that the development arrangement is appropriate to the neighborhood. The PUD Development Standards will fiurther ensure that the impact of later additions/ modifications is minimized. 4. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Developinew Plait. The project site lacks any significant natural or scenic qualities; it is vacant, flat, and without native or protected trees. Some of the off-site redwood trees are large enough to be considered protected trees and extra precautions and bonding is required for these. Each residential lot has between 876 to 1,502 square feet of usable open space, far more than would be required by R4. 5. The development of the subject property, in the inanner proposed by the applicant, will not be detriniental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaliirna, with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plaits adopted by the City. An Initial Study that evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with the project determined that no significant unmitigated environmental effects would result from this proposal. The project utilizes land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses, while preserving the overall scale and character of the established residential neighborhoods. On site, narrow streets with a sidewalk on each side have been utilized with the aim of creating a pedestrian - scaled street environment. Extensive street trees are proposed to improve air quality and aesthetics. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 23 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. N.C.S., Approval of Rezoning to a Planned Unit District (PUD) for The Birches Subdivision, which is thirty (30) days after the date of the adoption of said ordinance by the Petaluma City Council. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve, pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S. and based upon the evidence contained in the record of proceedings and/or received at or before the hearing of this matter, The Birches Unit Development Plan set forth in Exhibit A and the Development Standards for The Birches Planned Unit District set forth in Exhibit B, subject to the conditions set forth in Resolution No. 2009- , N.C.S., approving the Tentative Subdivision Map. 24 J.LSegUDi9Blrches�dwg1TM1040941TM5.dwg, 611112009 8:19:48 AM Brir, l � I EXHIBIT A r I :-R ! ' E::-11.3 �) p. _ _ — = tib _ ��— -'� ITh.%'.=.�� ' ,..;rl- ••'�"' ,. — t ro©oaa®@©�,Qago aefla e e © g a 3 C 6 S S S S E� IC 6 3dE §Y SGS F L G s L F Ni € s � 3<FNFLFiS3yFSl. SS',i i:Ft i'. i.�� {I " aaS7Sa;uaa Ru"a5a� ISC �.c4cGlL it"Clr',Y�i:C1: C; n "1 :7I u � ju 17 � 1 U . ricrta tl� -t G n I I I 1• io F F IB pYp� d 1 I I STEVEN J. LAFRANCNt 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. 'o ^} YN CIVIL ENG1xEEN[4-lAxtl 6uxVsed[S.eAxo py/IxxpL1 �Y lorpo-nie .slluq:wm ba 4� . ricrta tl� -t G 7� .yY I I I 1• io F F IB pYp� d 1 I I STEVEN J. LAFRANCNt 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. 'o ^} YN CIVIL ENG1xEEN[4-lAxtl 6uxVsed[S.eAxo py/IxxpL1 �Y lorpo-nie .slluq:wm 701yos COCAf PUD PLAN THE BIRCHES -A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 970 WOOD SORREL DRIVE APN 137401 �022 PETALUMA CALIFORNIA G I I I 1• io F F IB pYp� G v I pYp� d 1 I I Se I ba I I 1 �.•II 1 3 EXHIBIT B 4. Temporary construction offices in a construction trailer or building on the site until completion of construction. There may also be a temporary workshop and storage facility. Said offices, workshops and/or storage facilities shall be located no closer than 10 feet from a property line shared with an existing adjacent residence. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Private garages and off street temporary parking areas. 2. Private swimming pools and spas consistent with Residential 4 Zoning District Standards as stated within the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, section 7.080. 3. Decks, arbors, sheds, etc.: see VII.D. below. 4. Home occupations consistent with Implementing Zoning Ordinance requirements. 5. Other accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to permitted uses, in accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. All prohibited uses shall be in accordance with Residential 4 Zoning District Standards as stated within the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 2. Conversion of garage spaces to living or storage space. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit 4. Building additions (see Wil D for minor modifications allowed). An owner seeking a building addition would need a PUD amendment approval (typically minor), per the requirements of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 111. PROCEDURES A. The City of Petaluma shall review the design, site layout and landscaping plans prior to issuance of a building permit. B. Minor modifications to the PUD Development Standards may be approved in accordance with Section 19.070 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. PUD DEV STDS Finui 05019.DQC - 2 - 2, 6 IV. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A. All grading activities shall be completed prior to October 15th unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Erosion Control Measures shall be installed per the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to said date. B. All grading and excavation shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report prepared for this project by Bauer Associates. The project's geotechnical engineer and the City of Petaluma shall approve the grading plans. V. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN A. The architectural design objectives for The Birches are to create a community following the Traditional Neighborhood Design concept. The most important aspect in the TND concept is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. The architecture achieves this by pairing homes according to garage location. The garage in one plan in the pair is forward, while the garage of the other plan is deeply recessed, thus forming a "two -pack" concept. The "two -pack" concept ensures that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. Additionally, all plans include functional front porches to further promote a pedestrian friendly streetscape. These porches further promote TND by creating a softer street edge for every house. Also, all "garage forward" plans will have architectural elements pulled in front of the garage for varied articulations and massing. The architectural themes, Craftsman, Bungalow and Cottage, were chosen to reflect the context of the City of Petaluma. Materials and colors true to each style are used for each elevation. In the Craftsman theme, shallow pitched roofs, long overhangs, exposed rafter tails, tapered wood columns, enhanced gable -end details, out lookers, roof brackets, lapped sidings, stone veneers, decorative porch railings and other authentic details are incorporated to further enrich the characteristics of this style. The Bungalow theme, utilized shallow pitched roofs, extended fascia details at gable -end roofs, enhanced gable -end trusses, detailed out lookers, tapered stone veneer columns with wood posts, tongue and groove sidings, stone veneers, pot shelf brackets, decorative porch railings and various trims to further enhance the theme. In the Cottage theme, steeper roof pitches are used, as well as, wood posts with brick veneer bases, decorative porch railings, enhanced gable -end lowered details, Cottage style shutters, mixture of lapped sidings and shingles, brick veneers and authentic trims. Trellises are added to some of the `Tgarage forward" plans to further enhance the elevations. Porte- Cocheres with gates are included in some deep recessed garage plans to promote privacy and safety for the homeowners. Careful details and expressive styling will ensure that The Birches will be an attractive and a valuable addition to the Petaluma. PUD DEV SIDS Finns 05019.QOC - 3 - Z5 B. Roofing material shall be class "A" rated or better high definition composition shingles. Built-up tar and gravel, cap sheet, single -ply, and similar roofs are only acceptable if not visible from any surrounding property. C. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject�a�nt� to the approval of the Getttttity 8evelepttent Bepatet" Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or landscape plans. D. Solar equipment, panels, or other collectors should give the appearance of being built-in to the structure. Exposed supports, excessive lengths of exposed piping, etc., are strongly discouraged. E. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet in height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture. VII. LOT SITING AND SETBACKS A. Minimum Lot size shall be 3,000 square feet. No further subdivision shall be permitted. B. Building setbacks shall be as shown on the approved PUD Development Plan. C. No structure shall encroach into any easement shown on the approved PUD Development Plans. D. The following improvements are permitted within the designated setback areas (where outside of any easement, such as the storm drain easement at the rear of most lots): On -grade patios into the rear yard usable area (see PUD plan). Decks not more than 18 inches above grade and steps from the first floor are permitted into the rear yard usable area (see PUD plan) provided they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line. Cover for decks and patios (arborstgazebos and the like — either attached to or deattached from the house) and trellises are permitted in the rear yard usable area so long as they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line, do not exceed 10 feet in height, do not exceed 950 square feet in area, reflect the design theme and use compatible materials and finishes on the exterior to match the existing residence. PUD DEV STDs Fina105019.DOC W Sheds not more than 9 feet in height provided they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line and do not exceed 50„feet. Pools; see section II.13.2 ' sj,u.&re. A.C. units within the rear yard usable area and at least 5 feet to any property line. Bay windows on the lower level rear elevation of a depth not greater than 3 feet provided that they do not comprise more than 113 the length of that building wall. Roof overhangs for a distance not greater than 3 ft provided the projection shall not exceed "/2 the width of the required setback. Landscaping, including planters. VIII. LANDSCAPE AND FENCING A. Landscaping and fencing for The Birches shall be as shown on the approved PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan. S. The developers shall be responsible for installing front yard and street - side landscaping, irrigation, and project fencing and the maintenance of all items until takeover by HOA. C. Future replacement of plants as shown on the PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan may be allowed if plants used are from the proposed plant lists as shown on said plan. Getnmttnity-De�'opi event Director must approve modifications to the approved plant list. D. All fence replacement must comply with the PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan. Modifications to the approved fence design must be approved by Staff or SPARC. E. All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size unless otherwise specified; smaller (5 gallon) may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian access or based on site specific and design purposes. All trees shall be installed to City planting and staking standards. All shrubs shall be a minimum five -gallon size. All planted areas not improved with lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with a three-inch deep bark mulch as a temporary measure until the groundcover is established. F. All plant material shall be served by an automatic underground spray or stream bubbler irrigation system. G. All planting on each lot shall be maintained in good growing condition by the property owner. Maintenance of the "common” area will be addressed through the CC&R's for the project. Such maintenance shall include, PUD DEV SIDS Final 05D19.DOC - 5 - where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas and the health and vitality of landscape materials. H. A master landscape plan of the street front areas shall be provided to Staff for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Front yard and streetscape landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a bond shall be obtained guaranteeing the installation of the landscaping at a more weather -permitting time. 1. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets, driveways or walkways as needed, subject to City standards. J. All turf, groundcovers and shrubs shall be kept a minimum of 2' from the base of all newly planted trees. K. Landscape construction drawings shall contain detailed planting and irrigation plans for all public area landscaping, subject to City standards. Plans shall identify all proposed species and plant spacing and shall include planting details consistent with City standards. Plant quality specifications shall be provided to the landscape contractor for all public area street trees and submitted for staff review prior to approval of construction permits/public improvements. L. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed to avoid conflict with street tree planting locations within the street right-of-way. Transformer vaults, fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project without compromising public safety. M. All work within a public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works. IX. CONSTRUCTION A. All grading and major dust generating activities, when practical, shall be conducted in a manner that contains the dust within the immediate boundaries of the construction site. B. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). PUD DEV STDS Finn105019.DQC -6- 3t C. Prior to any construction activity on the site, protective fencing shall be installed at the drip line of existing trees located within the immediate vicinity of proposed construction activity. These trees are identified for preservation per the arborist report prepared for the project, City Staff shall be notified by the project proponents prior to commencement of any work proposed closer than the driplines of trees recommended for preservation. All such activity, including excavation, pruning and root work shall be conducted under the supervision of the consulting arborist who will report to staff, with costs borne by the project proponents. D. High- or moderate -value trees in good condition (as identified under the arborist report for the subdivision) proposed for retention but subsequently damaged or removed during the course of construction shall be replaced by the developer at the rate of three -15- gallon size trees for each six inches of trunk diameter removed or damaged, as recommended by the consulting arborist. Species and location of the replacement trees shall be from the approved landscape plan. E. All City -authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 800 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and Saturday between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, provided noise levels generated are within the limits of the City of Petaluma noise limits. No construction work shall be permitted on recognized holidays and Sundays. The developer shall designate a construction management person responsible for responding to any complaints generated regarding excessive noise during construction. A telephone number for contacting the designated individual shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The responsible authority shall determine the cause of noise complaints received and implement reasonable measure to resolve the issues. City staff shall monitor complaints received and take reasonable steps to resolve issues in a timely manner as they arise, including enforcement of abatement procedures to bring violations into conformance with the City General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance Performance standards. X. UNACCEPTABLE USES AND PRACTICES A. The following uses and practices are deemed to be nuisances. No use or practice shall be permitted to exist or operate within this property so as to be offensive or detrimental to any adjacent use, property, or its occupants, including residential inhabitants of adjacent property. S. Visible storage of junk, trash, mechanical equipment or non -operational vehicles; unpermitted storage of prohibited materials such as petroleum, oil, pesticides, paints, medical wastes and other hazardous materials. PUD DEV STDS Fina[ 0501 MOC S2- C. Any use, excluding reasonable construction activity, which emits particulate or gaseous matter, emits dust, sweepings, dirt or cinders into the atmospheres, or discharges liquid, solid wastes, or other matter into any stream, water course, river or other waterway, any of which activities may adversely affect the health or safety of persons, or vegetation, or comfort of or intended reasonable use of property by persons within the area. D. The discharge of any fumes, odor, gases, vapors, steam, acids or other substance into the atmosphere which in the opinion of the City may be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of any person, or may interfere with the comfort of persons within the area, or which may be harmful to property or vegetation. E. The radiation or discharge of intense glare or heat, or atomic, electromagnetic, microwave, ultrasonic, laser or other radiation. F. Any use which has the potential to create public health, fire or explosion hazard in the opinion of the City Fire Marshal. G. Excessive noise defined as that exceeding the decibel levels established in the City of Petaluma General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. H. Excessive emissions of smoke, stream, or particular matter, defined as exceeding the standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. I. Car repair. XI. EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARDS A. Whenever the standards contained in the PUD program do not address an aspect of physical development or use within the development, the Planning Director may regulate this development by interpreting the most comparable sections of other City Zoning Districts. The Director may also refer such questions of development standards or uses to either SPARC or Planning Commission for a decision. Any decision by the Director, SPARC, or Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council through standard appeal procedures contained in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. B. Exceptions to specific PUD Standards may be approved by Staff or PUD DEV STDS Fina105019.DOC - 8 - SPARC provided that the overall design concept and desired quality is not compromised by the particular exception. X11. PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS PUD DEV STDS Fina! 0501900C - 9 - COVERED UNCOVERED LOT PARKING PARKING SPACES SPACES 1 2 2 Z 2 2 3 2 2 4 Z 2 5 2 2 _.. 6 2 2 7 2 2 8 Z 2 9 2 2 1 10 2 Z 11 2 2 j 12 2 2 13 2 2 14 2 2 15 2 2 16 2 2 17 2 2 18 2 3 19 2 2 20 2 2 1 21 2 2 PUD DEV STDS Fina! 0501900C - 9 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE BIRCHES, A 21 -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE APN 137-061-022, PROJECT FILE NO. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to subdivide a 2.2 acre parcel at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive into a 21 -unit single-family subdivision ("the Project"), and rezone the property to a Planned Unit District ("PUD") with the associated Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed amendment on March 24 and May 12, 2009 after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in its minutes of March 24 and May 12, 2009 recommending the approval of the proposed tentative subdivision map subject to conditions of development for the Project to allow for 21 single-family residential units to be constructed on Assessor's Parcel No. 137-061-022; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2009, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009- , N.C.S., approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Proj ect; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings and approves the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 2.2 acre parcel at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive into a 21 -unit single-family subdivision for The Birches ("the Project"), subject to the following conditions of approval: FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP: 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 3. The site is physically suitable for the density (12.5 dwelling units to the net acre) and the type of development proposed, as the subject 2.2 -acre parcel is essentially flat, is without native/protected trees, is accessible from two public streets, and is immediately abutting other single-family subdivisions. 35 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no significant, environmental impacts that could not be mitigated. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE BIRCHES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE, APN 137.061-022 PROJECT 05 -TSM -0369 -CR From the Planniniz Division (778-4301) 1. Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures as notes. 2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the Unit Development Plan and the Tentative Map date stamped June 1, 2009. 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Birches are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to the project Planner. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk (as of May 2009 the fee is $50). Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5) days of receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has eliminated the fee exemption for projects determined that have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife and requires that an environmental filing fee be paid, (as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (as of May 2009, the fee is $1,993, contact them at 944-5500 to confirm). 5. Prior to building permit approval, the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heatinglf Lmaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 or less) in compliance with policy 4 -P -15D (reducing emissions in residential units). All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1881 N.C.S. for clean -burning fuels. 6. Prior to building, grading, or demolition permit approval, all plans shall note the following and all construction contracts shall include the same requirements (or measures shown to be equally effective, as approved by Community Development Department), in compliance with General Plan policy 4-P-16: • Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper time per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; • Minimize idling time of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; 36 • Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase construction of the project; and • Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. 7. Prior to SPARC review, the applicant shall submit the GreenPoints Checklist showing that the project is designed to achieve at least 50 GreenPoints under that cycle's residential Build It Green program; the applicant is hereby required to committee to measures that result in water reduction and hot water distribution efficiency. Prior to building permit issuance, the Checklist shall be submitted and the building permit plans shall depict/note the relevant measures. Prior to building permit final, each house shall be GreenPoint Rated. S. Prior to building permit approval, plans for each house shall include prc-wiring for solar facilities, in accordance with Council Resolution 2005-151, and subject to staff review and approval. 9. Prior to SPARC review, the arborist shall review the current plan set showing widened curb returns (required by Fire) and evaluate how many of the Yarberry Drive sycamore street trees are not preservable and shall indentify the replacement location for an equal number of at least 24 -inch box size sycamores (Platanus acerifolia Bloodgood). The replacement location shall be as neighborhood street trees, with priority to continued placement at Parcels C and D of Meadow Park Unit 1, such as where space is available near the Lots 16 and 17 shared property line and behind lot 14. Planting conditions shall also be specified by the arborist and incorporated as conditions of approval (method of hole digging, type of soil amendment, method of staking, depth of mulching, use of water bags, etc). 10. Prior to Final Map and Improvement Plan approval, the plans shall be modified to show protective construction fencing at the drip line of the offsite redwood trees along Yarberry Drive (where the dripline is within the project site or adjacent to right of way modifications) and the plans shall note that the existing grade shall be maintained within that fenced area. Drainage swales and all underground work shall be routed outside the dripline where possible. Contractors and subcontractors shall direct all equipment and personnel to remain outside the fenced area at all times until project is complete. The drainage swale proposed at the rear of lots 12 through 21 shall not exceed G inches in depth and the tree -side edge of the trench shall be offset from the rear property line by at least 5 feet, per the arborist letter dated November 9, 2005 and the Horticultural Associates Tree Preservation Guidelines. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, this construction -phase protective fencing shall be erected. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height and shall be cyclone secured with in -ground posts. Proof that the fencing has been installed shall be made to Planning staff by photographs. 11. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, 37 a. The arborist shall visit the site and confirm in writing which redwoods have an 18 -inch or greater trunk diameter. (Redwood trees of this size are "protected" trees pursuant to Chapter 17 of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance.) b. A security deposit shall be posted to cover the value of any off-site redwood (such as number 9) which has an 18 -inch or great trunk diameter. See section 17.06017 for further details. 12. Prior to SPARC approval, the landscape plan shall be further detailed to reflect which listed tree is proposed at which location. Furthermore, it shall be modified so that the birch trees shown are replaced with another accent tree and that the sod lawn shown is eliminated (Mow Free grasses, a tall, low water use grassy groundcover which can be left unimowed or mowed a couple of times a year may be considered). 13. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall review and approve the house designs, the PUD Development Standards, the colors and materials, the landscaping plan, any signage, and lighting. Specifically, SPARC shall: ® Ensure adequate treatment to enhance privacy for Allegheny Court residences between the turn -around and the Derby property line. 14. Prior to SPARC approval, the PUD Development Standards shall be revised to read Planning Staff instead of Community Development Department and Planning Director instead of CDD Director. The second line on page 5 shall state 50 square feet. 15. The Planning Commission's positive recommendation included the flexibility to eliminate one of the shared parking space at the turn -around, mirror image the house plan at lot 11 to reduce pavement abutting the Derby property line, and increase the planting area between the turn -around and the Derby property line. 16. All grading and construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and Saturday between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. No construction work shall be permitted on City recognized holidays or Sundays. Delivery of material or equipment to the site and truck traffic to the site for any purpose shall be limited to non -holiday weekdays between the hours of 7:30 am and 7:00 pm. Any necessary on- site cleaning or servicing of machinery shall be limited to non -holiday weekdays between 7:15 am and 7:45 pm. See also Noise Mitigation Measure 3 for further restriction, inchiding the designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. 17. Herbicides/pesticides shall not be applied in areas used by pedestrians/bicyclists within the project without first providing appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals. The project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and firlly commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of bicyclists and pedestrians. 18. All lighting shall be glare -free, hooded and downcast in order to prevent glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes. 38 19. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall review and approve site plan design, building design, PUD Development Standards, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. 20. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend f iture action. The local Native American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. 21. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. To the extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. From the Enaineerina Division (77$-4301): The following conditions shall be addressed at final map and improvement plan application. 22. Frontage Improvements a. Remove and replace any broken or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, vaults and curb inlets. b. Remove and replace all existing driveway approaches with City standard curb and gutter. C. Retrofit the existing pedestrian ramp the corner of Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drive to be ADA compliant. Install a crosswalk across Wood Sorrel at Yarberry Drive. d. Provide painting, striping and traffic sings as indicated and as necessary. 23. Grading a. Grading shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report specific to this development. b. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement plans. All measures shall be employed per the City Storm Water/Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. C. The developer shall be responsible for funding, through the project cost recovery account, all City required storm water quality inspections. 24. Private Street a. The minimum private street pavement section shall be 4 -inches of asphalt concrete over 12-inchcs of class 2 aggregate base. 39 b. The project driveway approach on Yarberry Drive shall be revised to match the proposed Wood Sorrel entrance. C. Provide ADA accessibility within Parcel A (sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, etc.). d. Provide a private street light system within Parcel A which will be maintained by the homeowners association. e. The private street configuration, widths, parking and curb painting shall be constructed as proposed on the tentative map and incorporating the changes in these conditions of approval. f. Install no parking signs and paint curbs as necessary, including the turnaround area, and as indicated on the tentative map. 25. Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Systems a. The storm drain system and sanitary sewer system shall be private and privately maintained. Maintenance responsibility shall extend to the connection point with the public storm drain or sanitary sewer system. b. Abandon any existing unused water and sewer services along both street frontages. C. The water main system shall be public and capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as required by the Fire Marshal. d. The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. e. All new services shall be 1.5 -inches in diameter with 1 -inch meters. f. The project shall comply with the City landscape/irrigation efficiency requirements. g. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase 11 Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. The homeowners association shall be responsible for providing a yearly inspection and maintenance report for the proposed storm drain separator. h. The applicant shall install "No dumping, drains to river" placards on all new public and private catch basins per City storm water program requirements. 26. Easements a. All necessary easements shall be dedicated on the final map. b. Parcel A shall include private access, emergency vehicle access, private storm drain, private sanitary sewer, private surface drainage and public water main easements. 27. Miscellaneous a. Maintenance agreements shall be required for any shared utilities or facilities and shall be recorded with the final map. Agreements shall identify the utility or facility to be maintained, the parties responsible for maintenance and the funding mechanism for maintenance, replacement and repair. All agreements shall be reviewed and approved prior to recordation. b. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes, resolutions and ordinances. Final map fees and technical review deposits shall be required at the time of the application submittal. C. The developer shall submit a 1:1 to scale digital file of the record subdivision improvement plans and final map prior to acceptance of the subdivision. d. A subdivision agreement and the necessary surety are required prior to final map approval. 40 e. The developer shall submit joint trench plans for the proposed public utility design including relocation of any existing conduits and vaults. The joint trench plans are subject to the approval by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 28. A homeowner's association (HOA) and conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&R'S) shall be required for any shared utilities or facilities, including but not limited to storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and access. The CC&R'S shall identify the utility or facility to be maintained, the parties responsible for maintenance and the funding mechanism for maintenance, replacement and repair. The CC&R'S shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. From the Fire Marshal (778-4398) 29. The Fire Prevention Bureau conditionally approves TM -5 design for fire truck access. Prior to approval of final map, the red curbs shown on this sheet shall be adjusted to include all curbs except those portions in front of each driveway and for the turnouts. This will include the curb at Lots 20, 19, 18, 14, 13, and 9. 30. Prior to approval of final map, for the turnout parking, radius the curb approach and departure so vehicle would avoid striking the 90° curb angle. 31. A fire sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with NFPA13-D is required for Lots 10 to 13 in this project proposal. Due to the lack of a standard turnaround, the sprinkler systems must be upgraded to meet the requirements of a FULLY SPR.INKLERED system. This includes sprinkler protection of the attic, garage, attached carports, bathrooms over 55 sq. ft., closets over 24 sq. ft. or 3 ft. deep, and/or other attached structural elements of the building. The system shall be calculated for a two -head activation in the attic. 32. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-D are required in residential structures; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. These systems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. From the Water Resources and Conservation Department (778-4699) 33. Prior to SPARC review, the landscape plans shall be submitted to the Department for Water Conservation Ordinance review and direction. 34. Prior to building permit issuance, the landscape plans shall be submitted to the Department for Water Conservation Ordinance review and approval. 41 Attachment 2 CITY OF PETALUIIMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petahunna, CA 99952 (707) 778-4301 Fm -v (707) 7784498 E-mail: plannintg@ci petalnrma.ca.us DATE: March 24, 2009 AGENDA ITEM NO. I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Project Planner --F " SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE THE 2.2 -ACRE VACANT PROPERTY AT 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE INTO 21 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO AMEND THE ZONING TO A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT AND TO ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. 2. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve: a. A Rezoning from Planned Community District (PCD) to Planned Unit District (PUD) and a Unit Development Plan and Development Standards; and b. A Tentative Subdivision Map PROJECT SUMMARY. Project: The Birches Subdivision 870 Wood Sorrel Drive between Yarberry and Morning Glory Drives APN 137-061-022 City File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Project Planner: Tiffany Robbe, Project Planner Project Applicant: Sequoia Land Investment 1 -C Gate Five Road Sausalito CA 94965 (415) 331-3373 Property Owner: same Property Size: 2.2 acres Site Characteristics: The 2.21 acre site is located in northeast quadrant of Petaluma. The property is one of the last remaining undeveloped sites that were annexed into the City of Petaluma with the North Petaluma Reorganization No. 8 on October 27, 1980. Since that time, Page l the annexation area has been developed with single-family residential Planned Unit Districts (PVDs) and professional offices. The subject parcel is surrounded to the northwest by the McDowell Meadows Subdivision, to the northeast and southeast by the Meadow Park Subdivision, and to the southwest (across Wood Sorrel Drive) by a vacant 0.54 -acre parcel. The vacant parcel is under the same ownership as the subject parcel, but is not a part of this application. The site is also immediately surrounded by Wood Sorrel Drive to the southwest and Yarberry Drive to the southeast. Two small public parcels that were dedicated to the City of Petaluma with the filing of the Meadow Park Subdivision are located adjacent to the site at the northeasterly and southeasterly corners; they provide street -side landscaping and include redwood trees and sycamores. The subject parcel is currently vacant. A significant amount of concrete and asphalt surfacing is on site. Two single-family residences, a work=shop, two barns, and some small sheds were not found eligible for individual listing on a local, state, or federal historic resource list by the City's Historical and Cultural Review Committee on April 27, 2006. Therefore, the Committee pennitted demolition of the structures. This action was based upon the Historical Evaluation Report prepared by Carey & Company Inc. (2006). The structures were removed in 2007. The site is essentially flat (1% to 3% slope) with a maximum elevation change of approximately 2 feet. Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Single-family residential subdivision of 21 units. Current Zoning: Planned Community District (The PCD dates back to 1980 when 107 acres where annexed into the City. This parcel and the vacant parcel across Wood Sorrel are the only remaining with the PCD designation; all others have been rezoned as they developed, most to a PUD.) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit District (PUD) Current General Plan Land Use: Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre; 12.2 are proposed Proposed General Plan Land Use: No change Subsequent Actions Required: ® City Council Review and Approval • Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Review and Approval ■ Improvements Plans/Final Map ® Building Permits PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests Rezoning to a Planned Unit District (PUD), approval of the Unit Development Plan and the Development Standards, and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for construction of 21 single-family homes on a 2.2 acre site at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive. Page 2 The Rezoning and the Tentative Map require review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The proposed project is a 21 Iot tentative subdivision map consisting of 21 single-family homes located on the vacant lot at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive. The total project site is 2.21 gross acres (96,155 square feet) and 1.72 net acres (74,828 square feet). The private street and sidewalk will encompass 19,936 square feet (Parcel A). The average proposed lot size is 3,563 square feet with the smallest lot being Lot 4 at 3,122 square feet and the largest lot being Lot 21 at 4,066 square feet. The project is comprised of four two-story house plans ranging from 1,750 to 2,127 square feet; each has a two -car (400 square foot) garage and two parking spaces in the driveway. Each lot has usable open space (comprised of the usable front and rear yard areas, see Sheet TM - 5 for useable area depiction, shown outlined in gray) ranging from 887 to 1,641 square feet. The garage in every other lot is deeply recessed, while the garages of the other plans are forward, thus forming a "two -pack" concept and ensuring that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. The density of the project is 12.2 dwelling units to the net acre; within the 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre range specified by the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation. The proposed vehicular access to the site will be from two locations. A private street will intersect at Wood Sorrel Drive to the southwest and Yarberry Drive to the southeast. The private street will be 20 feet in width with four on -street parallel parking pullouts and will accommodate two-way traffic. Pedestrian access to the site will be from the public sidewalks on Yarberry and Wood Sorrel Drives. A 4 -foot wide private sidewalk is proposed for both sides of the private street. Street trees are proposed. BACKGROUND This property was annexed into the City in 1980 as part of the 107 acre North Petaluma Reorganization No. 8. When this area was annexed into the City it was given the designation of Planned Community District. This was common at the time, as the PCD designation was created for use at the developing urban fringe as a "preplanning" designation for the "development of large tracts of land". This parcel and the vacant parcel across Wood Sorrel are the only two lots remaining with the PCD designation; as the others developed, they were rezoned, most to a PUD. In October and December of 2004, the applicant brought the project before preliminary SPARC (Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee) for direction (see Attachment G for Excerpt Minutes; during the time of the first review, the project included the vacant parcel across Wood Sorrel Drive). In 2005 and 2006, the project was formally submitted to the City for review. In March of 2006 the applicant submitted an application to demolish the existing farmstead structures: two single-family residences, a workshop, two barns, and some small sheds. A Historical Evaluation Report was prepared by Carey & Company Inc. (2006). The City's Historical and Cultural Review Committee, at a public hearing on April 27, 2006 found the structures ineligible for individual listing on a local, state, or federal historic resource list and permitted demolition of the structures. Because of reoccurring vandalism to the vacant structures, the Police Department deemed the property a hazard and requested that the structures be demolished. They were removed in 2007. The project was nearing completion when it was delayed along with other major projects in the City until the Petaluma General Plan and EIR were adopted (May 2008) in order to resolve issues related to water supply and greenhouse gas emissions. During that time, the new International Building Code was adopted by the City, necessitating minor modification to the proposal with regard to side yard setbacks. On Page 3 November 4, 2008, the modified project was resubmitted. It was deemed complete on February 19, 2009 and scheduled for the first available Planning Commission hearing. STAFF ANALYSIS 20025 General Plan Consistencv The 2025 General Plan Iand use designation for the subject property is Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre; 12.2 dwelling units to the net acre are proposed. As the subject 2.2 -acre parcel is essentially flat, is without native/protected trees, is accessible from two public streets, and is immediately abutting other single-family subdivisions it seems suited to development at this density. Approval of both the PUD and the Tentative Map require finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Initial Study Land Use Section 1 (see Attachment D) summarizes applicable 2025 General Plan goals, policies, and programs associated with the proposed project. In general the project appears to be consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Where it is not, conditions 5 - 8 have been added to achieve consistency. The project appears to use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses, while preserving the overall scale and character of the established residential neighborhoods (chapters 1 & 11). Narrow streets with a sidewalk on each side have been utilized with the aim of creating a pedestrian -scaled street environment. Extensive street trees are proposed to improve air quality and aesthetics. Compliance with policy 4 -P -15D regarding reducing emissions in residential units can be achieved with the adoption of recommended condition 5 (requiring high efficiency heating and low NOx water heaters) and SPARC review. Compliance with policy 4-P-16 regarding reducing combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases can be achieved with the adoption of recommended condition 6. Compliance with policy 2-P-121 regarding reducing green house gas emissions, based on Council direction to establish a mandatory green building program, can be achieved with the adoption of recommended condition 7 specifying that each house achieve at least 50 GreenPoints under the residential Build It Green program — the current minimum standard. Compliance with policy 4-P-19 regarding encouraging the use and development of renewable or nontraditional energy in residential units will be achieved with the adoption of condition 8 requiring that homes are "pre -plumbed" for solar pursuant to Council Resolution 2005-151. Green Building The General Plan discusses "green building' throughout its different elements, and includes policies that address the positive attributes of infill development. The intent is to reduce the greenhouse footprint of the proposed project in compliance with State law AB 32. More specifically, the General Plan in Section 2.3 Green Building, identifies the desirability of standards "to promote sustainable and environmental appropriate site planning practices as well as `green buildings'. It discusses the need for projects to be energy efficient, resource efficient, and people friendly. These green building concepts include energy efficiency, water conservation, indoor air quality, use of recycled and renewable materials, construction waste reduction, and site planning. Z-4 Page 4 As a means of demonstrating their conformance with these policies and the reduced impact of their project, other recent projects have proposed participation in the City's currently voluntary green building program, "Build it Green". For example, the Pinnacle Ridge project committed to achieving 89 GreenPoints and Sunnyslope II commitment to achieving 120 GreenPoints with a goal of 150 points. The Birches applicant has not submitted a GreenPoints checklist for the proposed project. Staff has drafted condition 7 to ensure that, prior to SPARC review, the project is designed to qualify for at least the program minimum, 50 GreenPoints. If the Planning Commission wishes to see the project demonstrate more of a commitment toward green building, they should consider the threshold reconunended by the Development Code Advisory Subconunittee (100 GreenPoints) or one more consistent with recently reviewed projects. Currently, and in the foreseeable future, use of the GreenPoint Checklist is the only criteria for evaluating the "green' features of a proposed project. Zonine Ordinance Consistencv The Zoning designation for the subject property has been Planned Community District (PCD) since it was annexed into the City in 1980, part of a 107 acre annexation. This parcel and the vacant parcel across Wood Sorrel are the only remaining with the PCD designation; all others have been rezoned as they developed, most to residential PVDs. During this era of large annexation areas, the PCD designation was commonly assigned to the whole area and functioned as a general "preplanning" designation; then as individual parcels developed they were rezoned to subdivision- specific Planned Unit Districts. This is the route that the Birches Subdivision proposes; a Rezoning to a Planned Unit District specific to their proposed subdivision. The Birches PUD will establish development parameters and specifications. It will dictate how the subdivision is constructed and dictate what modification can occur over time. The Planned Unit Development Plan (see TM -5) depicting the project layout and the associated plans represent the proposed PUD. The written Development Standards will specify the regulation of the subdivision, see Attachment G. The other route would have been to propose rezoning the parcel to that standard zoning district most closely associated with the General Plan density range, in this case, R3 or R4. The Birches proposal is generally consistent with the regulations of one or both of these zoning districts, including parking, lot size, and most building setbacks. The applicant choose to propose rezoning the parcel to a PUD rather than the standard R4 to enable the project to deviate from the R4 standards in small ways, such as allowing the 8.4 foot setback at Lot 4 (where R4 requires a 10 foot setback) and allowing the front property line to move in closer than 10 feet in order to accommodate the parallel parking spaces and roadway curvature. By choosing to apply for the PUD, the applicant must present the whole nature of the subdivision to the Planning Conunission and City Council rather than just the lot arrangement. Also, the PUD Development Standards provide more regulation to change over time than would the subdivision developed under the R4 standards. For example, under the R4 standards, a two-story addition to within 10 feet of the rear yard setback could be approved at any lot via a building permit. Under the proposed Birches PUD, such residential additions would not be allowed (only small modifications would be allowed, see Attachment E, Section VVTI D); at least not before the application and approval of a PUD amendment, which is a public process that includes noticing to neighbors within 500 feet. Thus, the PUD gives the City and the neighborhood more information regarding what the subdivision will look like both at the time of construction as well as over time. 2.-5 Page 5 The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve a FUD only after making the finding that the Plan "clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district" (Zoning section 19.030). The additional project details and the additional regulation about future modifications that are the hallmark of a modern day PUD, may represent - to the City and specifically to the nearest neighbors - cause for finding that development of this land under the Birches PUD is more desirable than development under standard R4 zoning. In summary, this project or a project very similar could be developed under either the proposed PUD or R4. Development under the PUD will result, both now and in the future, in a project with larger setbacks abutting the existing residents than required by R4 (except at Lot 4), and therefore development under the PUD is more consistent with the existing neighborhood. That may represent cause for the required finding that the PUD results in a better physical environment than if developed under a standard zoning designation. Neighborine PUD Developments All the abutting homes on Morning Glory Drive are one-story and part of the McDowell Meadows PUD. The house behind proposed lot 11 is a quad lot design set back 5 feet from the shared property line, all the other abutting Morning Glory homes are set back. between 10 to 28 feet (see Attachment H). Of the four homes off Allegheny Court that abut lots 11 and 12, 3 are two story; the house labeled as Bruton on Sheet TM -5 is the one-story home. The PUD has a minimum setback requirement of 20 feet; the 4 homes appear to be set back between 20 feet (Derby) and 58 feet (Conroy) from the shared property line (see Attachment 11). The homes across Yarberry are within the same PUD (Meadow Park) as the Allegheny homes and as such comprise both one and two story homes, but here the split is roughly equal. All the abutting residents were developed by constructing 1 to 3 foot retaining walls just within their property line and filling with soil so that the lots drain to the street. The Birches homes are proposed to be developed in the same way; retaining walls of similar height will be constructed within their property and a new fence placed upon it. The existing, neighboring retaining walls and fences will be unaffected. Trees The project will require the removal of eight trees; none is a native or considered a protected tree by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17 (see Attachment D, Arborist Report for specifics). One of the eight is a public street tree along Yarberry Drive where the new 20 foot street will intersect with Yarberry; it is a nine inch diameter Sycamore. Draft condition 9 recommends that a new sycamore street tree be planted in the Yarberry planter strip, staff has identified an available space near the Lots 16 and 17 shared property line (mid -way between the existing 8 inch and 6 inch sycamore). The project arborist recommends a tree replacement ratio of 3 to 1. The project landscape plan includes the planting of approximately 125 street, canopy, and accent trees (including the white birch clusters that give the development its name) throughout the site. This represents a ratio of approximately 15 to 1. To avoid impacts to the Yarberry Drive redwood trees, preservations measures outlined in the Arborist Report (see Attachment D) and by Chapter 17 of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance are listed as conditions of approval 10 and 11. Traffic/Circulation A study that evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the project (W -Trans, 2006, see Attachment D) estimated that the project would generate an average of 201 daily trips, with 16 trips during the morning peak hour and 21 trips during the evening peak hour. The traffic study evaluated the potential impacts of project traffic at the North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard, the 2,--6 Page 6 Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Boulevard, and the Wood Sorrel Drive/Yarberry Drive intersections. The traffic study concluded that the levels of service (LOS) at the three intersections would each remain unchanged at LOS A or B, in the existing condition, if project traffic were to be added. The study also concluded that the three intersections would be at LOS A or B (Table 5 — Traffic Analysis) under both the future conditions scenario and the future plus project conditions scenario. In conclusion, when the subject site is fully developed as proposed, the study intersections are expected to operate at the same levels of service in both the existing and the projected future condition with or without the project, and with only an incremental increase in delay due to these added project trips. The traffic study also evaluated the proposed circulation and determined that the sight distances from each proposed street connection is equal to or great than the Caltrans standard of 275 feet. The new private street will have one 10 foot wide travel lane in each direction with four parking bays which are 8 feet in width per the requirements of the Department of Public Works. The sidewalks on each side are proposed abutting the street rather than separated by a landscape strip as is typically required. The sidewalks are proposed at 4 foot wide rather than the usual 5 feet; this width is adequate to meet the ADA requirement and is acceptable to the Public Works Department as it is a diminutive private street that does not provide more direct access than already exists. A rolled curb rather than the standard curb is proposed because of the frequency of driveways. If satisfactory to the decision makers, these variations are allowable because the proposed streets are private and within a PUD. The project includes a "hammerhead" turnaround for residential vehicle turnaround. The private street turnaround is not designed to accommodate emergency and service vehicles such as garbage trucks, which may need to back out before proceeding forward on Yarberry (see Sheet TM -9). The project's circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. Parking As the Birches project is proposed as a Planned. Unit District, the required parking standard is that proposed/approved by the PUD Development Standards. As a means of comparison, the Zoning Ordinance parking standard would require 3 parking spaces per single-family house: one of which must be covered and all of which must be on-site. Thus, under these standards, 63 total spaces would be required for this project. The applicant proposes two garage parking spaces per residential unit for a total of 42 garage parking spaces, plus two (and at Lot 18, three) parking spaces in the driveway for a total of 85 off street parking spaces for the project. The proposed CC&R's will require that garages be used for vehicle parking and not for storage, allowing for visitor use of driveway parking. The project also provides four on street parking spaces. No other parking is allowed on the new street. There are also approximately 21 existing public on - street parking spaces on Yarberry and Wood Sorrel Drives. The proposed parking appears adequate. Pedestrian and Bievcle Committee Recommendations The Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the proposed project in 2005. They states that the proposed streets did not need to be Class III bikeways and offered specific recommendations. Staff has reviewed these recommendations and placed them in the following categories: PBAC recommendations that have already be incorporated into the project: M Provide a sidewalk on both sides of the proposed streets and ADA accessible intersections. Page 7 PBAC Recommendations included as Conditions of Approval 13 - 14: ■ Provide no lighting that creates a direct glare into cyclist/pedestrian eyes. ■ Use pesticides/herbicides only utilizing Best Management Practices. PBAC Recommendations not included as Conditions of Approval: ■ Sidewalks should be five feet wide. (See discussion above under Traffic/Circulation. It is not clear if the extra foot of width is possible without a redesign.) Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee SPARC will review the project only after the project receives City Council approval and prior to building permit issuance. SPARC will review site plan design, building design, PUD Development Standards, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. PUBLIC COMMENTS A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on February 26, 2009 and sent to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. No written communication has been received. IMPACT FEES The project will be subject to the development impact fees, including but not limited to: sewer and water connection, community facilities development, storm drainage impact, park and recreation land improvement, school facilities, in -lieu housing, and traffic mitigation. 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: air quality and noise. 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. (Initial 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, 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 Report Associated Studies: ■ Geotechnical Report from Bauer Associates, dated March 23, 2005 ■ Hydrology Report from Steven J Lafranchi and Associates dated Nov. 2005 ■ Storm Water Treatment Report from Steven J Lafranchi and Associates 2.. dated Nov. 2005 Page 8 ® Biological Evaluation and Wetland Determination Letter from Darren Wiemeyer of Golden Bear Biostudies dated June 6, 2005 and a letter addressing any potential presence of the California Tiger Salamander from Darren Wiemeyer dated July 5, 2006 ® Arborist Report from John C. Meserve of Horticultural Associates dated March 23, 2005 and letter dated November 9, 2005 ■ Environmental Noise Assessment, from Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated February 15, 2006 ® Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches, W -Trans, February 23, 2006 For a Copy of any Appendixes listed in any of the above Studies, please call the Planning Division Attachment E: PUD Development Standards dated March 4, 2009 Attachment F: Applicant's Project Narrative dated January 7, 2009 Attachment G: SPARC Preliminary Review Excerpt Minutes, October 28 and December 9, 2004 Attachment H: Abutting detail from Neighboring PUD Maps — Meadow Park & McDowell Meadows Attachment L• Full Size Tentative Subdivision sheets including the Planned Unit Development Map and Landscape Plan and Reduced Size of the previous plus the Architectural plans date stamped March 12, 2009 Z^1 Page 9 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 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS:', The Birches Subdivision 870 Wood Sorrel Drive APN 137-061-022 City File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was drafted to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential air quality and noise impacts, generated by the proposed project. 2. The project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees. 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Report has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. Mitigation Measures All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for The Birches subdivision proposal, are herein incorporated (Attachment D, Initial Study). Page 10 ?.-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT FINDINGS . The Birches Subdivision 870 Wood Sorrel Drive APN 137-061-022 City File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT AND FOR THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S., to amend the Planned Community District to a Planned Unit District (The Birches PUD) to develop the site as a residential subdivision is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan. The proposed 21 residences comply with the 2025 General Plan land use designation of the site as Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows a variety of residential types at a density of 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre. The proposed density is compatible with that range, as 12.2 dwelling units to the net acre are proposed. As the subject 2.2 -acre parcel is essentially flat, without native/protected trees, accessible from two public streets, and immediately abutting other single-family subdivisions, development at this density is appropriate. 2. The proposed rezoning to PUD is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan because it clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district. The additional project details and the additional regulation about future modifications that result from the Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards ensures the project is more compatible with the surround existing residences than if it were developed as a standard zoning designation. 2. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the proposed PUD zoning in that the amended zoning designation will result in single- family housing, a use that is appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project plans present a unified and organized arrangement of lots and private streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committec. 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential air quality and noise impacts generated by the proposed project. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was prepared for the PUD rezoning of the property. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would result. A copy of this notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E 1. The Unit Development Plan, including the Development Standards, will result in appropriate and compatible uses in the district. 2. The PUD is proposed on property which has suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (Wood Sorrel & Yarberry Drives), and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by development, as demonstrate by the Traffic Impact Study. 3. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, and that provisions for adequate landscaping and screening are included to ensure compatibility. Conditions have been incorporated requiring design and development standards that are compatible with neighboring developments. 4. The development of the subject property in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, and with the Petaluma General Plan. 6. The project, as conditioned per the resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map (Resolution No. -) complies with the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the General Plan. 7. The Unit Development Plan for The Birches Subdivision shall be subject to the applicable conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map, including Mitigation Measures adopted as conditions of approval. Page 12 2-- Q - I ATTACHMENT C 2 3 4 5 DRAFT FINDINGS. - 6 7 The Birches Subdivision 8 870 Wood Sorrel Drive 9 APN 137-061-022 10 City File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR 11 12 FENDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 13 14 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions 15 of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State 16 Subdivision Map Act. 17 18 2. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is 19 consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or 20 welfare in that adequate public or private facilities exist or will be installed, including roads, 21 sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 22 23 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed. 24 25 4. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial 26 environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or 27 wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no 28 significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts. 29 30 31 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI. 32 33 From the Planning Division (778-4301) 34 35 1. Before issuance of any development pennit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other 36 first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions 37 of Approval and the Mitigation easures as notes. 38 39 2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the 40 Unit Development PIan and the Tentative Map date stamped March 12, 2009. 41 42 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 43 the Birches subdivision are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 44 45 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to 46 the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning staff 47 will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5) days of 48 receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has eliminated the fee 49 exemption for projects determined that have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife and 50 requires that an environmental filing fee be paid, (as required under Fish and Game Code Page 13 I Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of 2 Determination (as of January 2009, the fee is $1,993, contact them at 944-5500 to confirm). 3 4 5. Prior to building permit approval, the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency 5 heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 or less) in 6 compliance with policy 4 -P -15D (reducing emissions in residential units). All residential 7 units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1881 N.C.S. for 8 clean -burning fuels. 9 10 6. Prior to building, grading, or demolition permit approval, all plans shall note the following 11 and all construction contracts shall include the same requirements (or measures shown to be 12 equally effective, as approved by Community Development Department), in compliance with 13 General Plan policy 4-P-16: 14 0 Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per 15 manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; 16 a Minimize idling time of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty 17 equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; 18 0 Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid 19 petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); 20 a Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; 21 0 Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for ofd 22 road heavy-duty diesel engines; 23 a Phase construction of the project; and 24 0 Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. 25 26 7. Prior to SPARC review, the applicant shall submit the GreenPoints Checklist showing that the 27 project is designed to achieve at least 50 GreenPoints under that cycle's residential Build It 28 Green program. Prior to building permit issuance, the Checklist shall be submitted and the 29 building permit plans shall depict/note the relevant measures. Prior to building permit final, 30 each house shall be GreenPoint Rated. 31 32 8. Prior to building permit approval, plans for each house shall include pre -wiring for solar 33 facilities, in accordance with Council Resolution 2005-151, and subject to staff review and 34 approval. 35 36 9. Prior to SPARC review, the plans shall show a new sycamore street tree planted in the 37 Yarberry Drive planter strip where space is available near the Lots 16 and 17 shared property 38 line (mid -way between the existing 8 inch and 6 inch sycamores) to replace the nine inch 39 Sycamore removed for construction of the new roadway. The sycamore (Platanus acerifolia 40 Bloodgood) shall be 24 -inch box size, mulched to a 3 inch depth. 41 42 10. Prior to Final Map and Improvement Plan approval, the plans shall be modified to show 43 protective construction fencing at the drip line of the offsite redwood trees along Yarberry 44 Drive (where the dripline is within the project site or adjacent to right of way modifications) and 45 the plans shall note that the existing grade shall be maintained within that fenced area. Drainage 46 swales and all underground work shall be routed outside the dripline where possible. The 47 drainage swale proposed at the rear of lots 12 through 21 shall not exceed 6 inches in depth and 48 the tree -side edge of the trench shall be offset from the rear property line by at Ieast 5 feet, per 49 the arborist letter dated November 9, 2005 and the Horticultural Associates Tree Preservation 50 Guidelines. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, this construction -phase 2--0- Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 77 23 24 25 26 27 78 79 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 protective fencing shall be erected. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height and shall be secured with in -ground posts. Proof that the fencing has been installed shall be made to the Planning Division by photographs. 11. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, a security deposit shall be posted to cover the value of off-site redwood number 9 (which has an 18 -inch truck diameter, making it a protected tree pursuant to Chapter 17 of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance) during the construction process. See section 17.060F for further details. 12. Prior to SPARC approval, the landscape plan shall be further detailed to reflect which listed tree is proposed at which location. 13. Herbicides/pesticides shall not be applied in areas used by pedestrians/bicyclists within the project without first providing appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals. The project shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of bicyclists and pedestrians. 14. All lighting shall be glare -free, hooded and downcast in order to prevent glare into bicyclists' and pedestrians' eyes. 15. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall review and approve site plan design, building design, PUD Development Standards, colors and materials, landscaping, and lighting. 16. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to reconuncnd future action. The local Native American conununity shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. 17. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harniless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees by the City. From the EnRineerinf� Division (775-4301): The following conditions shall be addressed at final map and improvement plan application. 18. Frontage Improvements a. Remove and replace any broken or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, vaults and curb inlets. b. Remove and replace all existing driveway approaches with City standard curb and gutter. C. Retrofit the existing pedestrian ramp the corner of Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drive to be ADA compliant. Install a crosswalk across Wood Sorrel at Yarberry Drive. d. Provide painting, striping and traffic sings as indicated and as necessary. Page 15 L -I'S 1 19. Grading 2 a. Grading shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report specific to this 3 development. 4 b. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted with the subdivision 5 improvement plans. All measures shall be employed per the City Storm Water/Grading 6 and Erosion Control Ordinance. 7 C. The developer shall be responsible for funding, through the project cost recovery s account, all City required storm water quality inspections. 9 10 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 20. Private Street a. The minimum private street pavement section shall be 4 -inches of asphalt concrete over 12 -inches of class 2 aggregate base. b. The project driveway approach on Yarberry Drive shall he revised to match the proposed Wood Sorrel entrance. C. Provide ADA accessibility within Parcel A (sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, etc.). d. Provide a private street light system within Parcel A which will be maintained by the homeowners association. e_ The private street configuration, widths, parking and curb painting shall be constructed as proposed on the tentative map and incorporating the changes in these conditions of approval. f. Install no parking signs and paint curbs as necessary, including the turnaround area, and as indicated on the tentative map. 21. Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Systems a. The storm drain system and sanitary sewer system shall be private and privately maintained. Maintenance responsibility shall extend to the connection point with the public storm drain or sanitary sewer system. b. Abandon any existing unused water and sewer services along both street frontages. C. The water main system shall be public and capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as required by the Fire Marshal. d. The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. e. All new services shall be 1.5 -inches in diameter with 1 -inch meters. f. The project shall comply with the City landscape/irrigation efficiency requirements. g. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase tI Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. The homeowners association shall be responsible for providing a yearly inspection and maintenance report for the proposed storm drain separator. 22. Easements a. All necessary easements shall be dedicated on the final map. b. Parcel A shall include private access, emergency vehicle access, private storm drain, private sanitary sewer, private surface drainage and public water main easements. 23. Miscellaneous a. Maintenance agreements shall be required for any shared utilities or facilities and shall be recorded with the final map. Agreements shall identify the utility or facility to be maintained, the parties responsible for maintenance and the funding mechanism for maintenance, replacement and repair. All agreements shall be reviewed and approved prior to recordation. Page 16 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 3D 31 32 33 34 35 b. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes, resolutions and ordinances. Final map fees and technical review deposits shall be required at the time of the application submittal. C. The developer shall submit a 1:1 to scale digital file of the record subdivision improvement plans and final map prior to acceptance of the subdivision. d. A subdivision agreement and the necessary surety are required prior to final map approval. From the Fire Marshal (778-4398) 24. The Fire Prevention Bureau conditionally approves TM -5 design for fire truck access. Prior to approval of final map, the red curbs shown on this sheet shall be adjusted to include all curbs except those portions in front of each driveway and for the turnouts. This will include the curb at Lots 20, 19, 18, 14, 13, and 9. 25. Prior to approval of final map, for the turnout parking, radius the curb approach and departure so vehicle would avoid striking the 90° curb angle. 26. A fire sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with NFPA13-D is required for Lots 10 to 13 in this project proposal. Due to the lack of a standard turnaround, the sprinkler systems must be upgraded to meet the requirements of a FULLY SPRINKLERED system. This includes sprinkler protection of the attic, garage, attached carports, bathrooms over 55 sq. ft., closets over 24 sq. ft. or 3 ft. deep, and/or other attached structural elements of the building. The system shall be calculated for a two -head activation in the attic. 27. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-D are required in residential structures; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. These systems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. From the Water Resources and Conservation Department (778-4699) 28. Prior to SPARC review, the landscape plans shall be submitted to the Department for Water Conservation Ordinance review and direction. 29. Prior to building permit issuance, the landscape plans shall be submitted to the Department for Water Conservation Ordinance review and approval. Page 17 r Introduction COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Initial Study of Environmental Significance PLANNING DIVISION 1 1 ENGLISH STREET P1 rALUMA, CA 94952 707/778-4301 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 on file at the City of Petaluma Planning Division. Project Name The Birches Subdivision File Number 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Site Address 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 137-061-022 Posting Date February 19, 2009 End of Comment Period March 24, 2009 Lead Agency Contact City of Petaluma, Community Development Department Tiffany Robbe, Planner I 1 English Street, Petaluma CA, 94952 (707) 778.4301 Applicant Sequoia Land Investments 1-C Gate Five Road Sausalito CA 94965 415-331-3373 Property Owner Project Description Same as Applicant The proposed project is a 21 lot tentative parcel map consisting of 21 single family homes located on vacant lot at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive. The total project site is 2.21 acres (96,155 square feet) gross area and 1.72 acres (74,828 square feet) net area. The private street and sidewalk will encompass 19,936 square feet (Parcel A). The average lot size is 3,563 square feet with the smallest lot being Lot 4 at 3,122 square feet and the largest lot being Lot 21 at 4,066 square feet. The garage in every other lot is forward, while the garages of the other plans are deeply recessed, thus forming a "two -pack" concept and ensuring that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. The density of the project is 12.2 dwelling units to the net acre. The project includes a request to have the property rezoned from Planned Community District (PCD) to Planned Unit District (PUD). The General Plan Land Use is Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre. The proposed vehicular access to the site will be from two locations. A private street will intersect at Wood Sorrel Drive to the south and Yarberry Drive to the east. The private street will be 20 feet in width with four on -street parallel parking pullouts and will accommodate two-way traffic. Pedestrian access to the site will be from the public sidewalks on Yarberry Drive and Wood Sorrel Drive. A 4 -font wide private sidewalk is proposed to be W 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 2 located on both sides of the private street. Neither Wood Sorrel Drive nor Yarberry Drive is listed in the City of Petaluma's Bicycle Plan Matrix and, accordingly, this project does not propose bikeways. The proposed project is a PUD therefore there are no specific parking requirements. Twenty of the twenty-one lots within the project will have four off-street parking spaces. Two of these spaces will be within the garage and the other two will be in the driveway. Lot 21 will have two garage parking spaces, but the driveway is not deep enough to accommodate additional vehicles. The project also provides four on -street parking spaces. Project Setting The 2.21 acre site is located in northeast quadrant of Petaluma. The property is one of the last remaining undeveloped sites that were annexed into the City of Petaluma with North Petaluma Reorganization No. 8 on October 27, 1980. Since that time, the area has been developed with single-family planned unit districts and professional offices. The subject parcel is surrounded to the west by the McDowell Meadows, Unit No.l, to the north by the Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No. 2, to the east by Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No. 1, and to the south (across Wood Sorrel Drive) by a vacant 0.51 -acre parcel. The vacant parcel is under the same ownership as the subject parcel, but is not a part of this application. The site is also immediately surrounded by Wood Sorrel Drive to the south and Yarberry Drive to the east. Two small public parcels that were dedicated to the City of Petaluma with the filing of the Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No. 1 are located adjacent to the site at the northeasterly and southeasterly corners; they provide street -side landscaping and include redwood trees. The subject parcel is currently vacant. A significant amount of concrete and asphalt surfacing is located on the site. Two single-family residences, a workshop, two barns, and some small sheds were not found eligible for individual listing on a local, state, or federal historic resource list by the City's Historical and Cultural Review Committee on April 27, 2006. Therefore, the Committee permitted demolition of the structures. This action was based upon the Historical Evaluation Report prepared by Carey & Company Inc. (2006). The structures were removed in 2007. The site is essentially flat (1% to 3% slope) with a maximum elevation change of approximately 2 feet. During construction, the sites to the west and north were filled and retaining walls ranging from 1 to 3 feet in height were constructed near the shared property lines. Responsible/Trustee Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Board 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 lmpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use & Planning 2. Population, Employment & Housing 3. Geology & Soils 4. Air Quality 5. Hydrology & Water Quality 6. Biological Resources 7. Noise S. Visual Quality & Aesthetics 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 10. Transportation(rraff is 11. Public Services 12. Recreation 13. Utilities Infrastructure 14. Mineral Resources 15. Cultural Resources 16. Agricultural Resources 17. Mandatory Findings of significance 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 3 Determination I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will X not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. Prepared by. Tiffany Robbe, Planner STJ ignature- Fe-6 /7: Z 4) 09 Date 2--20 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. Land Use and Planninq Would the project: a, Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Page 4 Potentially Less than Less than No impact sipificant significant w/ significant impact mitigation impact measures X X // a. The project is considered infill development of a parcel which was formerly used as a residence. The project will not physically divide an established community. b. The project does not conflict with the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2425, Implement Zoning Ordinance, or any other applicable regulation (the application includes a rezoning from Planned Community District to Planned Unit District). The General Plan Land Use is Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.1-18 dwelling units to the net acre; 12.2 are proposed. Policies contained in the Petaluma General Plan that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and that apply to this project include the following: i. Land Use, Growth Management, & the Built Environment: I -P -I: Promote a range of land uses at densities and intensities to serve the community needs within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). I -P-2: Use land efficiently by promoting infill development, at equal or higher density and intensity than surrounding uses. I -P-3: Preserve the overall scale and character of established residential neighborhoods. ii. Community Design: 4-P-6: Improve air quality through required planting of trees along streets and within pari: and urban separators, and retaining tree and plant resources along the river and creek corridors. 4 -R -15D: Reduce emissions from residential and commercial uses by requiring the following: • Use of high efficiency heating and other appliances, such as cooking equipment, refrigerators, and furnaces, and low NOx water heaters in new and existing residential units; • Compliance with or exceed requirements of CCR Title 24 for new residential and commercial buildings; • Incorporation of passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use for both residential and commercial uses, i.e,, building orientation in a south to southeast direction, encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures, landscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; • Encourage the use of battery -powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local air quality for nonresidential maintenance activities; • Provide natural gas hookups to fireplaces or require residential use of EPA -certified wood stoves, pellet stoves, or fireplace inserts. 4-P-16: To reduce combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor of future individual projects shall encourage the inclusion in construction contracts of the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: • Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 5 • Minimize idling time of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; • Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase construction of the project; • Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. iii. Mobility 5-P-7: Where aesthetic, safety, and emergency access can be addressed, allow narrower streets in residential development to create a pedestrian scaled street environment. 5-P-19: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and pedestrian friendly in design. iv. Housing 11-P-1: Promote residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary. Ensure that the updated General Plan provides an inventory of sites within the UGB adequate to accommodate anticipated long- term residential growth. I 1-P-3: Encourage a mix of housing design types. A. Ensure that the General PIan update provides an inventory of sites with a wide range of densities that allows a variety of product types. c. There is neither a habitat conservation plan nor a natural community conservation plan that apply to the project site. Mitiaation Measures/Monitorina: None required 2. Population, Emglovment and Housinq 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 ntunbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant w/ significant impact mitigation impact measures X M 1/ a. The project's 21 residential units will not induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, these units were anticipated by the General Plan. b. & c. The project site is not currently developed with housing and therefore will not displace existing housing units. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: None required 2.-2_2- 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 6 3. Geologv and Soils a., c., & d. The following discussion is based on a report (Geotechnical Investigation, by Bauer Associates, dated March 23, 2005) that was prepared for the subject property, which concluded that, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is appropriate to use the site for the proposed residential project. The primary geoteclmical concern is the presence of the relatively weak and expansive natural surface soils, and variable density old fills. The report concludes that the existing surface materials are unsuitable for support of fills, foundations, and concrete slabs in their present condition. To mitigate this impact the report recommends that weak surface soils (and old fill, where encountered) must be upgraded in building areas by removal and recompaction for their full depth. All recommendations found in the report shall be undertaken; standard conditions of the City Engineer and Building Division ensure that they will. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults traverse the site. Therefore, the risk of ground rupture within the limits of the site is considered to be low. The active Rogers Creek fault is located about 4 miles to the northeast, the West Napa fault is 16 miles to the east, the San Andreas fault is 16 miles west, and the Hayward fault is 17 miles to the southeast. Any one of these faults could generate an earthquake capable of causing strong grounding shaking at the subject site. It is reasonable to assume that during the life of the proposed development, it will be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that could produce potentially -damaging ground shaking at the site. Further, it is anticipated that the subject site 2- -Z3 Potentially Less than Less U3an No impact significant significant w/ significant Would the project: impact mitigation impact measures a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning X Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? • Strong seismic ground shaking? X • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of on- or off-site X landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X risks to life or property? e. Result in disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? f Change topography or ground surface relief features? X g. Destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or physical X features? h. Increase wind or water erosion of soils, either on- or off X site? i. Result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, which X may modify the channel of a river or stream? a., c., & d. The following discussion is based on a report (Geotechnical Investigation, by Bauer Associates, dated March 23, 2005) that was prepared for the subject property, which concluded that, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is appropriate to use the site for the proposed residential project. The primary geoteclmical concern is the presence of the relatively weak and expansive natural surface soils, and variable density old fills. The report concludes that the existing surface materials are unsuitable for support of fills, foundations, and concrete slabs in their present condition. To mitigate this impact the report recommends that weak surface soils (and old fill, where encountered) must be upgraded in building areas by removal and recompaction for their full depth. All recommendations found in the report shall be undertaken; standard conditions of the City Engineer and Building Division ensure that they will. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults traverse the site. Therefore, the risk of ground rupture within the limits of the site is considered to be low. The active Rogers Creek fault is located about 4 miles to the northeast, the West Napa fault is 16 miles to the east, the San Andreas fault is 16 miles west, and the Hayward fault is 17 miles to the southeast. Any one of these faults could generate an earthquake capable of causing strong grounding shaking at the subject site. It is reasonable to assume that during the life of the proposed development, it will be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that could produce potentially -damaging ground shaking at the site. Further, it is anticipated that the subject site 2- -Z3 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - Fife No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 7 will periodically experience small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes. The project site is Iocated in an area shown on the City of Petaluma's General Plan (Figure 3.7-5 Geologic Hazards) as having a "high liquefaction potential." To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures shall be designed using sound engineering judgment and the current Uniform Building Code. b. The majority of the project site will be covered with buildings, paving, wall -ways, or landscaping; very little exposed soil will remain and so there is no threat of soil erosion over the term of the project. e. The site's upper soils will be removed and replaced with imported fill. However, there are no adverse impacts anticipated from these actions. £ The site is essentially level. g. The site does not support any unique geologic or physical features. h. See response to (b) above. i. The site is not located near a river or stream. It is also because of the following standards, that no significant geological impact is anticipated. i. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations, and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. Foundation and structural design for buildings shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). ii. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain a geotechnical engineer to review the final project plans and specifications to determine if they are consistent with the recommendations as outlined in the report and observe grading, compaction, and foundation excavations to verify that conditions are as anticipated and to modify recommendations if warranted. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. iii. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotechnical specifications by the Public Works Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with the Code. iv. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (41046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance 91576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). v. The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during excavation for foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include that the material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on-site by October 1 st. The Public Works Department in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading may require special erosion control. vi. All public and private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved improvement plans, prior to their acceptance by the City. -L-2A 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Mitivation Measures/Monitoring: None required 4. Air Quality 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 concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? f. Conflict with AB 32 and its governing regulations? Potentially Less than Less than significant significant W significant impact mitigation impact measures X X Page 8 No impact X X /:/ * Unable to determine significance; see discussion below. a. & c. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The air quality plans are based on local General Plans, thus, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Development of the proposed project would not change the overall buildout scenario for the City of Petaluma envisioned in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan or the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP) and this impact is considered less than significant. b. & c. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short tertn in association with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the residential use of the project site. Air quality impact could occur during construction of the proposed project from soil disturbance and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during grading and site preparation include (1) exhaust emissions from construction vehicles; (2) equipment and fugitive dust generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces; and (3) soil disturbances from grading and backfilling. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -1 would reduce potential impacts to a level below significance. The proposed project could result in both stationary and mobile sources of long-term air emissions. The stationary source emissions from the residential uses would come from the consumption of natural gas. The 21 single-family homes would add approximately 201 vehicle trips a day (Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. 2006). This number is below the threshold (2,OOOVDT) that requires a quantitative analysis of air emissions established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMM). None of the project's traffic would impact intersections that operate at level of service D or lower, the threshold which BAAQMD deems to be a significant impact. No mitigation measures are required. 2--2-5 d. There are no substantial pollutant concentrations in the project vicinity. 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 9 e. None of the project activities are anticipated to create objectionable odors. During the project construction period, some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel -powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result. f. Assemblv Bill 32 — The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 commits the State of California to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The statute requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to track emissions through mandatory reporting, determine what 1990 emissions were, set annual emissions limits that will result in meeting the target, and identify a list of discrete early actions that directly address greenhouse gas emissions, are regulatory, and can be enforced by January 1, 2010. The initial report of the Climate Action Team identifies recommended measures that account for a reduction of approximately 68 million metric tons of CO2 -equivalents (MMTCO2E). In June 2007, the CARB approved the Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California (April 20, 2007). In September 2007 CARB published the Draft Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. The two ARB reports combined include 44 measures that are estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42 MMTCO2E. Of the 44 measures, nine are identified as "discrete early actions" that are regulated and enforceable by January 1, 2010 (see chart, following page). The remaining 35 measures are to be initiated by CARB between 2007 and 2012 (GARB, September 2007). To achieve the 2020 target, California must reduce its emissions by 177 MMTCO2E (CEC, 2006). In December of 2008, the CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, the first step toward identifying the additional reductions needed to meet the target. In August 2007, the Senate passed SB 97 requiring the State Office of Planning and Research to prepare and submit guidelines to the State Resources Agency by July 1, 2009 for the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. The Resources Agency must adopt the regulations by January 1, 2010. Climate Chanae Climate change is a shift in the average weather patterns observed on earth, which can be measured by such variables as temperature, wind patterns, storms and precipitation. The temperature on earth is regulated by what is commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor, absorb heat from the earth's surface and radiate it back to the surface. Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons (fluorine, chlorine and bromine). Of all human activities, the burning of fossil fuels is the largest contributor in overall greenhouse gas emissions, releasbig carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. The resulting increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are leading to higher concentrations and a change in composition of the atmosphere. For instance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30 percent since the late 1800s (National Assessment Synthesis Team [NAST], 2001). Many sources and models indicate that temperatures on earth are currently warming and will continue to warm at unprecedented levels. The global mean surface temperature has increased by 1.1' F since the 19a' century (IPCC Synthesis report, 2001), and the 10 warmest years of the last century all occurred within the last 15 years. The many effects of greenhouse gas emissions are still being researched and are not fully known, but are expected to include increased temperatures which would: reduce snow pack, a primary source of drinking water; exacerbate air quality problems and adversely impact human health by increasing heat stress and related deaths; increase the incidence of infectious disease, asthma and respiratory health problems; cause sea levels to rise, threatening urban and natural coastlands; increase pests and pathogens; and cause variations in crop quality and yields. No current CEQA regulation, statute or judicial decision outlines how CEQA analysis of a project's greenhouse gas emissions impact should be performed. Senate Bill 97, adopted in August, 2007, requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects 2 -2.� 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 10 of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009 which must be certified and adopted by January 1, 2010. It is likely that these prospective Guidelines will provide needed guidance on significance criteria and how to reconcile AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, rollback provisions with CEQA's mandate that CEQA documents are not required to mitigate existing pre -project conditions. As of February 17, 2009 neither the State Air Resources Board nor the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has identified a project -specific significance threshold for analyzing the effects of greenhouse gases. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding both the regulatory climate and ability to quantify greenhouse gas emissions accurately, as applicable within Petaluma. It is also premature to quantify or rely upon the effects of emission reduction measures that emanate from larger regional, state, federal and global regulatory mandates. In addition, CEQA is only one of many tools being used to approach the greenhouse gas problem, and it is unclear to what extent CEQA documents may rely on other efforts, such as State or Air District measures adopted pursuant to AB 32. Nonetheless, the City is evaluating the contribution of this project to the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in this Initial Study. The evaluation is not quantitative, that is, the tons of CO2e expected to be emitted by 21 single-family residential units have not been calculated. Instead, this evaluation focuses on whether or not the project is consistent with the state and local measures and policies regarding greenhouse gases. Data developed for the Revised Draft EIR on Petaluma's General Plan 2025 — Air Quality: Greenhouse Gas Emissions found that Petaluma's contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions constitutes approximately 0.11 percent of California's emissions, and one dwelling unit constitutes on average approximately 0.0004 percent of Petaluma's future annual emissions. (Primary sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) for single family dwellings are from electricity and gas usage, vehicle emissions, and solid waste disposal.) Therefore the 21 unit proposed project would contribution (0.0004 x 21) or ± 0.008 percent of Petaluma's future annual emissions. Such contributions to the overall emissions by the City of Petaluma are small and are not easily evaluated or considered on a quantitative basis; therefore, the subsequent evaluation focuses on consistency with measures and policies that are either adopted or proposed, but are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures/Policies Applicable to the Birches Subdivision Measures and Policies Relation of the Project to Measures/Policies State Reduction Measures Measures Applicable to Energy Use in Buildings SB 1368 (Regulation of greenhouse gases from load serving entities) IOU Energy Efficiency Programs Urban Forestry California Solar Initiative — 2,000 MW by 2016 CONSISTENT. This measure would increase renewable energy in the California grid from 11% to 20% by 2010. Therefore the electricity used by the project would result in project emissions being reduced by 9%. CONSISTENT. This measure would outline a program for using energy more efficiently by both residences and businesses. This measure has less of a direct impact and relies on the future owner to install and/or use energy efficient products. CONSISTENT, This measure is not only about increasing the number of trees in a community but also selecting the species and placement of tree so that they contribute to a reduction in heating and cooling needs. The landscape plan for the project includes a number of deciduous trees and evergreen tree but not necessarily strategically placed to shade the building(s) in the summer and allow the sun to warm building(s) in the winter. The landscaping shall be reviewed by SPARC and revised accordingly to ensure the project is consistent. CONSISTENT. This measure seeks to deliver 2,000 megawatts of clean, emission -free energy to the grid through installation of passive solar systems. The Birches Subdivision will be "pre -plumbed" for solar (pursuant to Council Resolution 2005-151) to allow future owners to install such facilities. 2 _21 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 1 1 Measures and Policies Relation of the Project to Measures/Policies Additional RPS (33% by 2020) CONSISTENT. This measure would increase renewable energy in the California grid from the 20% goal identified above under SB I368 to 33% by 2020. Therefore the electricity used by the project would result in an additional 13% emission reduction over the life of the project. Measures Applicable to Vehicle Emissions Vehicle Climate Change Standards i CONSISTENT. Neither the City nor the developer can influence the car or Low Carbon Fuel Standard fuel purchasing habits of those living at the project site. However, over Strengthen Light Duty Vehicle Technology 4 the life of the project, as these state measures come on line, and cars and Heavy-duty Vehicle Emission Reductions fuel become more efficient, and those living at the project replace their aging cars, it is a reasonable assumption that emissions from the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be cleaner. 5-P-22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods and require a well connected pedestrian network linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses. 5-P-25 Establish a network of multi -use trails to facilitate safe and direct off-street bicycle and pedestrian travel. 5-P-30 Require all new development abutting any public trail to provide access to the trail. 2-P-94 Encourage the development of landscape standards that reduce existing lawns and require tree planting. 2-P-121 Evaluate the success of the voluntary green program and develop and implement a mandatory program for new residential, commercial and municipal development and remodels 4-P-19 Encourage use and development of renewable or nontraditional sources of energy. General Plait 2025 Policies CONSISTENT. The new private street would include a sidewalk on each side of the street. A network of multi -use trails has been specified by the Bicycle Plan; no routes are designated for either of the project -abutting streets, therefore none are proposed by this project. The development does not abut any public trail. The project will be subject to paying the Traffic Impact Fee which funds pedestrian and bicycle improvements through the City. CONSISTENT. Water conservation standards such as limiting lawn size were very recently adopted by the City, and the project shall be subject to that Water Conservation Ordinance prior to building permit issuance. Street trees are proposed by the project. CONSISTENT. While such evaluation is underway and the Council gave direction for a mandatory program, no mandatory program has yet been established. Pursuant to that council direction, the staff report shall include a draft condition specifying that each house achieve 50 points under the residential Build It Green program — the current minimum standard. If this condition is adopted by the City Council, at a minimum, each house will be 15% more energy efficiency than conventional homes. CONSISTENT. As noted above the project is being "pre -plumbed" for solar, thus encouraging future owners to install such facilities. Other Design Measures, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval to which the Applicant has Committed Drought tolerant plants with a drip system Less water being used for irrigation means less water having to be pumped will be installed. and delivered to the site. CONCLUSION The consistency analysis in the table above shows that the Birches Subdivision is consistent with the State measures and General Plan 2025 policies regarding greenhouse gas reductions. Based on the small amount of greenhouse gas emissions contributed directly by the project and based on the consistency of the project with state and local measures and policies, the project is not expected to increase community -wide greenhouse gas levels by a substantial margin compared to pre -project conditions and would not conflict with AB 32 and its governing regulations. However, determining its individual contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is too speculative for evaluation because of the small size of this individual project. Therefore, no determination of significance can be made of the project's net effects relative to GHG emissions (CEQA Guidelines section 15144-15145). Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - Filo No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 12 AQ -1 The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicates these provisions in the specifications. Additional measures may be required by the City's Engineering Division. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMtu Basic Control Measures — The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. 5. Hvdroloav and Water Qualitv 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? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or of -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 of 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 runoff? £ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year Rood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures 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? Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant wl sianificant impact mitigation impact measures X X X X X X X X X - Zo° 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Main and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 13 j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X a. Any sediments or pollutants generated by construction activities will be addressed through the conditions listed below. b. The project will not use groundwater. The amount of ground that will be covered by the project's buildings and paving is not substantial. c. The project site is not located near a stream or river. d. & e. The Hydrology Report by Steven J Lafranchi and Associates prepared November 2005, found that the project site is not located within a floodplain. The report concluded that the existing public storm drain pipes on Wood Sorrel Drive have adequate capacity to safely accommodated changes on the project site due to redevelopment and increase in impervious surfaces under 10 -year hydrological conditions. The pipe sizes are adequate, and raises in 14 year hydrologic grade line (HGL) elevations are less then 0.2 feet. Pursuant to the Sonoma County Water Agency requirement, storm water in a 10 year event will stay within pipe/gutter. No other water quality degradations are expected. Furthermore, the developer will be required to submit a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to the approval of improvement plans or the issuance of grading or building permits (see e. above). At a minimum, the plan shall: (a) identify specific types and sources of storm water pollutants; (b) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and (c) specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design and improvement plans. C,. & h. According to FEMA Flood Panel Map 060379-0894E, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. The project site in located in Zone X - other flood areas. These are areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than I square mile; and areas protected be levees from 1% annual chance flood. i. The project site is not located within an inundation area associated with a levee or dam. j. The project site is not located within an area that could be affected by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. In addition the project will be conditioned as followed: e An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement plans. All measures shall be employed per the City Storm Water/Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. • The developer shall be responsible for funding, through the project cost recovery account, all City required storm water quality inspections. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase 11 Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. The homeowners association shall be responsible for providing a yearly inspection and maintenance report for the proposed storm drain separator. ® The applicant shall pay the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ® The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required 2 -SD 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR 6. Biological Resources Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Less than significant simificant w/ impact mitigation measures Page 14 Less than No impact significant impact X R. X X a X The discussion below is based on the information contained in the Biological Evaluation and Wetland Determination Letter — The Birches, 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, Petaluma written by Darren Wiemeyer of Golden Bear Biostudies dated June 6, 2005 and a letter addressing any potential presence of the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) also by Darren Wiemeyer dated July 5, 2006. The intent of the biological surveys was to identify potentially occurring sensitive habitats and biological features (e.g. wetlands) which may present regulatory issues of concern during site development. In addition, two special status plant species surveys were conducted at the site and the trees and now - removed structures on site were surveyed for evidence of raptor and bat use. a. No special status plant species were observed at the site during the two special status plant species surveys. In addition, there was no evidence of raptors or bats utilizing any of the trees, barns, or other structures at the site. The evaluation found that development of the site would have no significant impacts to biological resources at the site. The second Golden Bear Biostudics letter states that the project site is outside of the potential range of the California Tiger Salamander. The project site is approximately 1.6 miles from the southern edge of the potential range for CTS. The nearest known CTS breeding location is in southern Cotati approximately 4.1 miles from the project site. CTS are known to travel up to 1.3 miles from breeding ponds. Given the distance between the project site and the breeding ground and the numerous physical barriers (e.g. residential, commercial developments, and Highway 101, which is considered a permanent physical barrier) it is not probable the CTS could migrate to the project site from the breeding pond. The reported observation of CTS at the site by a neighbor was most likely a misidentified observation. The observation was most likely of an arboreal salamander, which to the untrained observer, may look similar to a CTS because of yellowish spots on the arboreal 2_-3 i 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 15 salamander. CTS are very elusive and are rarely observed since they spent most of their life in underground rodent burrows only emerging to travel to wetland ponds to breed during the rainy season. The report concludes that the proposed development at 870 Wood Sorrel will not impact California Tiger Salamander habitat. b. The loss of ruderal non-native annual grassland is not significant given the highly disturbed nature of the site, which is dominated by weedy, non-native plant species. See also a. above and c. below. c. A single wetland determination data point was performed near the southeast corner of the site in a shallow depression that had the highest likelihood of being determined as a wetland. This area was determined to be annual grassland habitat. No wetland or other sensitive habitats were observed or delineated at the site. There is no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites on the project site. Also see a) above regarding California Tiger Salamander movements. e. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances regarding biological resources such as trees. The project will require the removal of six trees per the Arborist Report from John C. Meserve of Horticultural Associates dated March 23, 2005. In addition to the trees proposed to be removed in the arborists report, plan Sheet TM -6 (Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan) shows a nine inch Sycamore street tree which will need to be removed to construct the 20 foot driveway access to the project off of Yarbony Drive and a small Monterey Pine at the rear of Lot 16 (Tree 7) which will need to be removed to construct the storm drain system. None of the trees recommended for removal in the arborist report or by the project plans are considered protected trees by the City of PetaIuma's Implementing Ordinance Chapter 17. The project arborist recommends a tree replacement ratio of 3 to 1. The project landscape plan includes the planting of approximately 125 street, canopy, and accent trees throughout the site, which is a ratio of approximately 15 to 1. To avoid impacts to the trees that are to remain on the site, preservations measures outlined in the arborists report and by Chapter 17 of the City of Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance shall be conditions of project approval. f There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state 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. Mitiaation MeasureslMonitorina: None required 7. Noise Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise Ievels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Less than Less than significant significant w/ significant impact mitigation impact measures X M X X No impact 2-�2_ 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 16 The following discussion is based on a noise study prepared for the project site: The Birches PUD Development Environmental Noise Assessment, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., February 15, 2006. This is a less -than -significant impact with the incorporation of the specified mitigation. The major existing noise source affecting the project site is vehicular traffic on McDowell Blvd, with other roadway noise sources from Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives. A future noise source affecting the project site may be noise from horns blown by trains approaching the McDowell grade crossing. Based on the current residential development proposal for the property, the rear yards of the homes adjacent to Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives will be as close as 40 feet from the centerline of these roadways. The results of the noise measurement survey and considering a conservative estimate of future noise level increases shows that, without mitigation, the rear yards of the homes north and west of the Wood Sorrel/Yarberry Drive intersection will be exposed to an Ldn of up to 64 dBA. The noise environments in the rear yards of the homes north and west of the Wood Sorrel/Yarberry Drive intersection would, therefore, exceed the City's `normally acceptable' level of an Ldn of 60 dBA, necessitating either a solid noise barrier fence or an earth berm of sufficient height to reduce noise levels within these outdoor use areas to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less. Typical frame construction techniques with standard thermal insulating glass in moderately sized closed windows have been shown to reduce traffic noise levels by about 25 dBA. When windows are open the amount of exterior to interior traffic noise attenuation is reduced by 15 to 17 dBA. Based on this average exterior to interior noise attenuation the following conclusions pertaining to interior sound levels within project homes may be drawn; 1. Interior noise levels within the southernmost homes on Lots 1 and 21 and those within all other two story homes which would not be acoustically shielded by the structures of intervening homes, may exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA with open windows, but will meet the Ldn standard when standard thermal insulating windows are closed for the purpose of noise control, and 2. Maximum interior noise levels within the development where second story bedroom windows give a clear view of the rail line may exceed the recommended 55-dBA maximum sleep disturbance criteria level due to the sounding of horns from passing trains if the NWT rail line becomes active. b. Existing sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site are located north and west of the site along Morning Glory Drive and AIlegheny Court. The potential noise sources associated with the occupation of the proposed homes are not expected to be out of character with typical residential uses and should be similar to that of the existing homes in the area. This is a less -than -significant impact. c. See a. above. Construction of the project would result in a significant short-term noise impact at nearby residences Noise generated during construction would differ depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. Construction activities would include site grading and excavation, foundation work, framing, and exterior & interior finishing. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. The following table presents typical ranges of energy equivalent levels (Leq) at 50 feet, for domestic housing production. Noise Levels by Construction Phases for Domestic Housiraq Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels at 50 Feet, L C[l in dBA, at Construction Sites Construction Phase �11 pertinent equipment on site. Minimum required equipment on site. Ground Clearing 83 83 Excavation 88 75 Foundations 81 81 Erection 81 65 Finishing 88 72 Source: U.S.E=.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973. - � 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 17 The table illustrates that the construction of the project would increase noise levels in the project area over the entirety of the construction period. During construction increased noise levels would be generated on the site and the surrounding land uses by trucks delivering and recovering materials at the site, grading and paving equipment, saws, hammers, the radios and voices of workers, and other typical provisions necessary to construct a residential housing project. When site work (demolition, ground clearing, excavation, paving and foundation work) activities are occurring near adjacent neighbors, daytime levels can be expected to significantly exceed existing noise levels. As construction proceeds to the interior of the site noise levels at these residences will diminish, however, noise produced by construction activities would remain audible and is expected to exceed existing noise levels at the adjacent homes during the entire construction period. This would constitute a significant, unavoidable, short-term noise impact. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring 1. To reduce outdoor noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less within the rear yards of the proposed homes that would otherwise be impacted by road noise, construct solid walls or an earth berm with a wall above as the rear fence at lots 16 to 21 and the street side fence at lots 1, 16, and 21. The sound wall shall have a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades (see noise study). To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA. A wood fence built with a double layer of 1" nominal thickness fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block and concrete panel walls. To reduce indoor noise during train future train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum Ievel of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. The following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site: • Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line; • Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); • Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); and • Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 — which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 718" three coat stucco finish). 3. Because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, construction activities shall be restricted as follows: These restrictions shall be noted in all related construction contracts: • Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma; b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday; and c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non -holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. • Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences. 2 _M 4 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 18 Quiet Equipment Selection_ Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at lite construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a. The site is not located within a scenic vista. Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant w/ significant impact miftalion impact measures X X X b. The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic resource or on a state scenic highway, a c. Tile project's preliminary building designs have been reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). Following City Council approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, Rezoning, and Unit Development Plan, the project will be subject to review and approval by SPARC. SPARC is required to make the finding that the visual character and quality of the project is satisfactory and appropriate. d. Exterior lights installed in conjunction with the development will increase artificial Iight in the vicinity; however, the project's outdoor lighting plan is subject to approval by the Site PIan and Architectural Review Committee and will only be approved if the lighting plan is appropriate. Additionally, standard conditions of approval require that all exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent properties, only low -intensity light standards and/or wall -mounted lights shall be used (no flood lights), and lights attached to buildings shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall generate no direct glare. Parking lot and security lighting shall be typical of lighting for multi -family uses. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: None required 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant svi significant Would the project. impact mitieation impact measures 2 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 19 a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? d. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? a. & b. None of the project activities are expected to involve hazardous materials. No storage of chemical or hazardous materials is anticipated at this site. Except during construction where equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the project does not involve hazardous substances and should have no effect on emergency evacuation plan. During construction, the applicant will comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention PIan (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. c. The site is not listed on a hazardous materials site list. d. None of the proposed site improvements are expected to impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Mitiaation Measures/Monitorina: None required 10. Transaortation/Traffic Would the project; a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 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. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially Less than Uss than No impact significant significant wl sienificant impact mitiEation impact measures X 91 X 2 `L 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 20 e. Result in inadequate parking capacity? R9 f Conflict wide adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g, bus turnouts, X bicycle racks)? a. & b. The traffic study submitted by the applicant (Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches, W -Trans, February 23, 2006) evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the project and estimated that the project would generate an average of 201 daily trips, with 16 trips during the morning peak hour and 21 trips during the evening peak hour. The traffic study evaluated the potential impacts of project traffic at the McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard, Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Boulevard and the Wood Sorrel Drive/Yarberry Drive intersections. The traffic study concluded that the levels of service (LOS) at the three intersections would remain unchanged at LOS A and B, respectively, in the existing condition, if project traffic were to be added. The study also concluded that the three intersections would be at LOS A or B respectively (Table 5 — Trak Analysis) under the future conditions scenario and the future plus project conditions scenario. In conclusion, when the subject site is fully developed as proposed, the study intersections are expected to operate at the same levels of service in both the existing and the projected future conditions with or without the project, and with only an incremental increase in delay due to these added project trips. c. Sight distances from each proposed street connection were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Caltrans Highway Design manual, 5"' Edition. The manual provides different sight distance standards for public streets versus private roads. The public street standard requires more sight distance than the private street standard. Both access points would be via private streets, with the minimum sight distance requirement base on corner sight distance. The posted speed limit on Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive is 25 mph. For speed of 25 mph, an intersection should have corner sight distance of at least 275 feet. From the proposed location of the Yarberry Drive connection point the sight distance to the east exceeds 450 feet and the sight distance to the west, is approximately 275. From the proposed access location on the east side of Wood Sorrel Drive, the sight distance exceeds 500 feet. Therefore, these new connections would meet applied standards for corner sight distance. d. The project's circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. The new private street will have one 10 foot wide travel lane in each direction with four parking bay which are 8 feet in width per the requirements of the Department of Public Works. The project includes a "hammerhead" turnaround. The turnaround will serve vehicles backing out of lot I I as well as a turnaround area for other vehicles. The "hammerhead" will serve passenger vehicles and passenger trucks; however, emergency and service vehicles such as garbage trucks may still need to back out approximately 5 lots in length before proceeding forward on the cross connection to Yarberry. This circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Petaluma Public Works and Fire Departments. e. The Birches project is proposed as a Planned Unit District, the required parking standard is that proposed/approved by the PUD development standards. As a means of comparison, the Zoning Ordinance parking standard would require 3 parking spaces per single-family house; one of which must be covered and all of which must be on-site. Thus, under these standards, 63 total spaces would be required for this project. The applicant proposes two garage parking spaces per residential unit for a total of 42 garage parking spaces, plus between 2 and 3 parking spaces in the driveway in front of the garage for a total of 87 off street parking spaces for the project. The exception is Lot 21, which does not have adequate depth for two cars and will therefore only provide two on-site parking spaces. It may be possible to move this house back to accommodate driveway parking, if the decision makers desire. The proposed CC&R's will require that garages be used for vehicle parking and not for storage, allowing for visitor use of driveway parking. The project also provides four on street parking spaces. No parking is allowed on the new street, other than at the four designated parking bays. The number of spaces provided also complies with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Planning Handbook 2004 which identifies a parking space requirement of 1.83 spaces per single-family residential unit. There are also approximately 21 existing public on -street parking spaces on Yarberry and Wood Sorrel Drives. The Planning Commission and City Council will determine if the proposed parking is appropriate and only approve the project if so. 2--37 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 21 £ The project is located adjacent to public transit corridors, although it is anticipated that few trips from the site would be via public transit. The project would be expected to generate a minor volume of bicycle traffic within the new and existing neighborhoods. This traffic can be accommodated on the streets as designed or existing. The existing facilities are expected to be adequate. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by new sidewalks along both sides of the private street, that connect to these existing sidewalks at Yarberry Drive and Wood Sorrel Drive. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required 11. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts Potentially Less than Less than No impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered significant sismiticant.v/ significant impact mitigation impact governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered measures governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks? X e. Other public facilities? X a. Additional fire service calls may occur as a result of the project. However, the project will be subject to the payment of Community Facilities fees, in accordance with Chapter 17.14, of the Municipal Code, to offset the impacts to public facilities. b. The project will be subject to the payment of Community Facilities fees, in accordance with Chapter 17.14, of the Municipal Code, to offset the impacts to public facilities. c. The project will be subject to the payment of school impact fees to offset the impacts on the school system of students residing in the project. d. The project will pay a Park and Recreational Facilities Fee and a Park and Recreation Land Improvements Fee to help offset any increased use of parks or recreational facilities by the project residents. e. There are no other public facilities that are likely to be impacted by the project. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: None required 12. Recreation Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant wl significant impact mitigation impact measures a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No, 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 22 b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. The project's Park and Recreational Facilities Fee will be used, in part, to maintain existing parks and recreational facilities. b. The project's proposed park design or future activities are not anticipated to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin2: None required 13. Utilities Infrastructure Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have insufficient water 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 inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Less than Less than Nu impact siatificant sienificantvvl sigtificant impact mitigation impact measures a. The project is not expected to generate wastewater that will require special treatment. 0 X X X X el X b. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the project is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma General Plan and will not require the construction of new treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. c. The amount of runoff expected to be generated by the project can be adequately accommodated by the city's existing and improved storm water drainage facilities. d. The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site with the ability to connect to existing water main at Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drive to serve the 21 units. Based on projected build out of the City of Petaluma's General Plan 2025, sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project are expected to be,, -3i 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 23 available from existing entitlements from the Sonoma County Water Agency. Additionally, a standard condition from the department of Water Resources and Conservation requires that the project comply with the City"s Water Conservation Ordinance for interior and exterior water usage. Thus, no significant impact to water supply can be expected. e. The proposed 21 unit residential units were anticipated by the General Plan and are not expected to generate a substantial amount of wastewater. The existing and planned new wastewater treatment plants have adequate capacity to serve the project's expected demand in addition to that of existing commitments. f. The amount of solid waste expected to be generated by the project is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the Petaluma General Plan. Residents of the single-family units have curbside recycling pick up. g. The project will only generate solid waste typical of residential uses. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 14. Mineral Resources Would the project: a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mineral 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 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Less than Less than No impact sienificant slaniflcant w/ sianificanl impact mitigation impact measures ON FI a. Soil studies conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation did not reveal any valuable mineral resources. b. The project site has not been delineated as a locally -important mineral resource recovery site on any such plans. Mitigation Mcasures/Monitoring: None required 15. Cultural Resources Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 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? Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant simificant «I significant impact mitigation impact measures X X X X 2-.-40 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 24 a. In April of 2006 the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee approved the demolition of the existing pre - 1945 farmhouse, tank house, and accessory buildings. Currently there are no structures on the site. b. No prehistoric or historic -period archaeological resources were identified in the 2006 Carey and Co. study commissioned prior to the demolition the existing structures. Therefore, no impacts are expected in this area. A standard condition of approval states that should any archeological/historical 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. Thus, the project is not expected to 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. c. There are no known paleontological or archeological resources on the site; therefore, there are no potential impacts. There are no unique geological features associated with the site. d. There are no known human remains that have been interred on the site. If human remains are discovered during excavation of the site or during construction, state law requires that the county Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission be contacted to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains should they be determined to be Native American. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required 16. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? Potentially Less than Less than No impact significant significant w/ siLmificant impact mitigation impact measures /:i X X a. The project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. c. The project site is an urban infill property and is not contiguous to any other agricultural land. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required 17. Mandator Findings of Sianiticance Yes No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self X sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict 2_i 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 25 the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? a. See Section 6 b. See Sections 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13. c. See Sections 1 through 16. Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Air Quality 1. The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicates these provisions in the specifications. Additional measures may be required by the City's Engineering Division. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMIo Basic Control Measures — The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Noise 2. To reduce outdoor noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less within the rear yards of the proposed homes that would otherwise be impacted by road noise, construct solid walls or an earth berm with a wall above as the rear fence at lots 16 to 21 and the street side fence at lots 1, 16, and 2 L The sound wall shall have a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades (see noise study). To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA. A wood fence built with a double layer of V nominal thickness fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block and concrete panel walls. 3. To reduce indoor noise during train future train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum level of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. The following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site. • Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line. • Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); • Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); 2 -A2— 870 Wood Sorrel Dr. Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD - File No. 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Page 26 • Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 — which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 718" three coat stucco finish); 4. Because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, construction activities shall be restricted as follows: These restrictions shall be noted in all related construction contracts: • Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma; b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday; and c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non -holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. • Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be located near adjacent residences. • Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) • Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. Acceptance by Applicant: I, _ C. 4'l , representative for the project applicant, have reviewed this Initial Study and hereby agree to incorporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project. r r Signature of Applicant D to 2-43 SAPlaaninglCEQA Docsllnitial StudiesllS-PCBirches 870 Wood Sorrel 1S.doc w� L City of Petaluma, California Community Development Department Planning Division VSs 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: The Birches Subdivision File Number: 05 -TSM -0369 -CR Address/Location: 870 Wood Sorrel ®rive 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. OiIEVI�W IM' DiPT is oltDU is DATE is Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division Air Qualitv: Mitigation Measures AQ -1 The Applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicates these provisions in the specifications. Additional measures may be required by the City's Engineering Division. Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM,o Basic Control Measures — The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover al trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and stating areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Requested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Comnutice LTM Long -Term Monitorin Page 1 2--44 The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures For Approval Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division Noise: Mitigation Measures City of Petahana, California To reduce outdoor noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less within the rear yards of the proposed homes that would otherwise be impacted by road noise, construct solid walls or an earth berm with a wall above as the rear fence at lots 16 to 21 and the street side fence at lots 1, 16, and 21. The sound wall shall have a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades (see noise study). To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA. A wood fence built with a double layer of 1" nominal thickness fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block and concrete panel walls. 2. To reduce indoor noise during train future train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum level of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. The following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site: Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line; • Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); • Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); and • Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 — which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 718" three coat stucco finish). Requested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Conunittee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Page 2 I ` `I_5 The Birches -Si® Wood Sorrel Drive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval City ofPetalulna, California 3. Because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, construction activities shall be restricted as follows: These restrictions shall be noted in all related construction contracts: • Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest: a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma; b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday; and c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non -holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. • Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. • Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be Iocated near adjacent residences. • Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) • Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. This individual would most likely be the contractor or a contractor's representative. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule, Department Requested By or Due Date Page 3 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit Ac ENG Engineering CO Certificate or Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring The Birches -870 Wood Sorrel ®rive Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures For Approval REVIEW D1:1'T...f:1j .:.DEPT. STAFF .. INITIAL4.:` Mandatory Findings of Significance 00i of Petahana, California a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, 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 die range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? S:1Planning\Cl;QA Docs (all)1Midgation Monitoring1670 Wood Sorrd-The Dirches.doc Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division Reauested 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 Yes No X S 1 Page 4 2--41 BAUER associates GEOTECHNICAL CON5UL'TANT5 REPORT GEOTECHNICAL, INVESTIGATION Proposed Subdivision 870 Wood Sorrel Drive Petaluma, California Prepared for: Anthony Investments, Inc. Attention: Mr. Adam Morrison 3420 Mt, Diablo Boulevard E Lafayette, CA 94549 by BAUER ASSOCIATES Job No. 2185.0 Arthur H. raff Geotechnical Engineer Bryce Bauer Geotechnical Engineer March 23, 2005 Copyright 2005 Bauer Associates �oQ�,0FE5 H.. G G99 F� Q NUMB R 2119% m Exa?�310 C'" `FOFOF C ALW' � N0. GE 21 9 L � a Westside Center Post Office Box 460 ForestviLle, CA 45436 707.887.2505 { V 707.887.6756 (F) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 WORKPERFORMED...........................................................................................2 SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS............................................................................3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 8 A. Site Preparation and Grading........................................................... 8 B. Post -Tensioned Slabs..................................................................... I I C. Concrete Slabs-on-grade................................................................12 D. Geotechnical Engineering Drainage...............................................13 E. Supplemental Services...................................................................14 MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................15 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................15 ILLUSTRATIONS...............................................................................................17 LIST OF REFERENCES......................................................................................18 DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................................19 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PIate 1 Test Hole Location Plan Plates 2 - 7 Logs of Test Borings 1 through 6 Plate 8 Soil Classification Chart and Key to Test Data INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The planned development is indicated on the Existing Conditions Exhibit, prepared October 29, 2004, prepared by Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc., and partially reproduced on Plate 1. We understand that the project consists of developing the site with 15 new single family residences. Existing structures at the site will be demolished. Further, we understand that the residences will be one- and two-story, wood frame structures with post -tensioned, concrete slab - on -grade floors. Foundation loads are expected to be typical for the type of construction indicated. We understand that unretained cuts and fills will be relatively minor and Iess than about 4 feet high. No retaining walls are planned. The scope of our investigation, as outlined in our agreement dated October 22, 2004, included reviewing selected published geologic information from our files, exploring subsurface conditions at the site, and performing laboratory testing on selected samples. Based upon our work, we have developed conclusions and recommendations regarding: 1. Proximity of the site to published active faults. 2. Soil/rock and ground water conditions observed. 3. Site preparation and grading. 4. Foundation type(s) and design criteria. S. Concrete slabs -on -grade. 2-^50 Sauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 2 6. Geotechnical engineering drainage. 7. Supplemental services. Our scope of work did not include an evaluation of any potential hazardous waste contamination or corrosion potential of the soil or groundwater at the site. Further, our scope of services did not include evaluation of areas beyond the planned residences (i.e. driveways, or new streets). WORK PERFORMED We reviewed the published geologic information summarized in the List of References as well as our previous work from other projects in the vicinity. On January 31, 2005, our senior field engineer observed the surface conditions and explored the subsurface conditions to the extent of six test borings within the planned development area. The test borings were drilled with an all -terrain drill rig equipped with 6 -inch diameter, solid stem augers. The completed test borings ranged in depth to about 14 feet. The test borings were located by pacing the distance from features indicated on Plate 1. Our engineer logged the conditions exposed and obtained both loose bulk samples and relatively undisturbed samples at selected intervals for visual identification and laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained with a 2.4 -inch, inside -diameter, split -spoon Z -51 Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 3 sampler driven with a 140 -pound hammer. The stroke during driving was about 30 inches. The blows required to drive the sampler were recorded and converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts for correlation with other data. Logs of the test borings showing the materials encountered, sample depths, and converted blow counts are presented on Plates 2 through 7. The soil is classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System presented on Plate 8. The logs show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions on the date and locations indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of the subsurface conditions at other locations and times. AIso, the stratification lines on the Iogs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the transition may be gradual. Representative samples of the soils encountered were laboratory tested to determine their strength, moisture content, density, and expansion potential (Atterberg Limits). The test results are typically presented on the logs in the manner described in the Key to Test Data, Plate 8. SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS The nearly level property is located north/northeast of the intersection of Wood Sorrel and Yarberry Drives. The parcel is developed with two residences and outbuildings. Current development includes gravel and asphalt pavement, and landscaping. A backfilled swimming pool appears to be located in the site Iandscaping. 2—T52- Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 4 The geologic maps reviewed indicate that the site is underlain by fluvial deposits. These deposits are comprised of mainly fine sand, silt, and silty clay. The results of our field exploration indicate that the development area is generally covered by about 2 to 4 feet of sandy clays. These natural surface soils are porous/weak to about 2 feet deep. Variable density gravel fills ranging between a few inches and about a 1-1.12 feet, associated with driveway and parking areas was encountered in Test Borings 1, 2, and 3. Porous/weak soils and variable density old fills are prone to non-uniform settlement, and may collapse/consolidate when loaded and saturated. The estimated depth of weak soils is shown on the right side of the test boring logs. Our visual classification and laboratory test results indicate that the surface clay soils are of moderate to high expansion potential. Highly expansive soils can heave and crack lightly loaded, shallow foundations and slabs -on -grade. Underlying the surface soils are stiff to hard sandy clays and sandy silts with occasional minor gravels, and medium dense to very dense silty gravels and silty sands. The underlying materials have moderate to high strength and are relatively incompressible for the range of anticipated foundation loads. The underlying clays are of moderate to high expansion potential. Groundwater was encountered in Test Borings 1, 3, and 6 at depths between about 6-112 and 8 feet. However, groundwater conditions are expected to vary seasonally and at different locations. Our work did not include an evaluation of flooding. Published geologic maps of the area do not show any active faults at the site. The property is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthqualce Fault Zone, which could require a detailed Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 5 investigation to evaluate the hazard of fault surface rupture. The distance to the faults (or portions of faults) considered seismically active according to current AP Zone criteria are presented below. The indicated distances are interpolated from the map prepared by Wagner, D.L., and Bortugno, E.J., 1982, and may not correspond to the 1997 UBC criteria. The nearest faults considered seismically active (experiencing surface rupture within about the last 11,000 years) are the Healdsburg and San Andreas, located approximately 4-112 miles northeast, and 15 miles southwest, respectively. A concealed portion of the Tolay Fault is located within 114 -mile of the site. The Tolay Fault is not considered active but is estimated to have experienced rupture within about the last 10,000 to 700,000 years. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. The primary geotechnical concern is the presence of the relatively weak and expansive natural surface soils, and variable density old fills. Upon saturation, variable density old fills and weak/porous natural surface soils will lose strength and consolidate rapidly under loads of new fill and structural elements. Saturation will occur when the natural evaporation of soil moisture is inhibited by new fill and structural elements. Expansive soils undergo significant volumetric changes with seasonal variations in moisture content. Such movements can result in unacceptable heaving and cracking of lightly - Barrer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 6 loaded structural elements, such as foundations, pavements and concrete slabs. We conclude that the existing surface materials are unsuitable for support of fills, foundations, and concrete slabs in their present condition. Based on our earlier consultation with you, we understand that post -tensioned concrete slab -on -grade floors are the preferred foundation alternative at this time. Weak surface soils (and old fills, where encountered) must be upgraded in building areas by removal and recompaction for their full. depth. The underlying expansive clays, if dry, must be pre -swelled (moisture conditioned) prior to construction. The risk of future structural damage by shrinking and swelling of the expansive clays must be further reduced by covering the expansive soils with a 12 -inch thick confuting and moisture protecting blanket of imported, non -expansive fill. A 12 - inch section of lime treated on-site soils could be used in lieu of the imported fill. Satisfactory foundation support for the proposed structure can then be obtained from the use of the post - tensioned slab. We can provide recommendations for other foundation types if desired. Non-critical slabs (such as for exterior areas) may be constructed on properly prepared subgrade provided that: 1) the slabs are separated from foundations; 2) slabs are designed to minimize cracking (i.e. reinforced and provided with control joints); and 3) some soil related cracking and settlement is considered acceptable. Groundwater was encountered in Test Borings 1, 3, and 6 at depths between about 6-112 and 8 feet. However, groundwater conditions are expected to vary. Excavations performed in the summer or autumn months will typically result in a Iower risk of encountering groundwater. However, if grading is performed during the dry season, overexcavation and replacement of the 1-55 Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 7 expansive soils as compacted fill may be necessary to thoroughly moisture condition expansive soils and to close shrinkage cracks for their full depth. As an alternative, flooding or irrigation of the site to fully saturate the soils and close shrinkage cracks could be considered. We highly recommend that irrigation be considered to prevent drying of the clay soil prior to grading in the summer/autumn months. Control of surface run-off will significantly enhance the stability of the site. All building areas must be graded to provide positive drainage away from the building foundations. The discharge of roof gutter downspouts, must be collected into non -perforated pipes. All collected water must be discharged into the site storm drainage, or onto concrete slabs -on -grade or asphalt pavements that drain away from the foundations. The published geologic maps do not indicate active faults on the site, therefore the risk of fault rupture during earthquakes is considered to be low. Like all of Sonoma County, the site is subject to severe ground shaking during earthquakes generated by faults in the region. The intensity of shaking will depend on the distance from the earthquake to the site, magnitude of the earthquake, and response of the structure to the underlying soil and rock. We did not observe soils considered prone to liquefaction or densification below the weak surface soils. It will be necessary to design and construct the structure in accordance with current standards for earthquake -resistant construction. Construction in accordance with our recommendations will enhance the integrity of the development, however, damage related to faulting/earthquake shaking may still occur during the life of the development. I -5b Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 8 Division V, Section 1636 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) indicates that site categorization for seismic design should be based on the average soil values within the upper 100 feet of the site. Although the scope of our investigation was limited to relatively shallow test holes (ranging to about 14 feet deep), we estimate that a Soil Profile Type "SD" will be appropriate for design. Upon request, we could perform supplemental exploration to determine the actual subsurface conditions ranging to 100 feet. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Site Preparation and Gradincy Areas to be graded should be cleared of designated brush, rubble, debris and old fills. Material generated by the clearing operations should be removed from the site. Wells, cesspools, and other voids encountered or generated during clearing should be either backfilled with granular material or compacted soil, or capped with concrete as determined by us and in accordance with Sonoma County requirements. Areas to be graded should be stripped of the upper soils containing root growth and organic matter. We anticipate that the required depth of stripping will average about 3 to 6 inches. Deeper stripping will be required to remove Iocalized heavy concentrations of root ZT51 Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 9 growth. The strippings should be removed from the site, stockpiled for reuse as topsoil, or mixed with at least two parts soil and used as fill in areas 10 feet beyond structures, walks and paved areas. For the purpose of definition, "select fill areas" referred to in this report is building and critical exterior concrete slab areas and the zones extending for a distance of at least five feet beyond outside edges of slabs and perimeter footings or other footings extending from buildings (including trash enclosures). Within the select fill areas, weak soils and old fills should be excavated for their full depth. Additional excavation should be performed, as necessary, to allow installation of the 12 - inch thick (for post -tensioned slabs), non -expansive select fill section. Up to 30 inches of select fill would be recommended if critical slabs are not post -tensioned. The depth and extent of overexcavation should be observed by us in the field. Imported select fill material is unnecessary if the upper 12 inches of on-site soils are lime treated. All exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content (4 percent for expansive soils), and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The moisture conditioning and recompaction should extend to the bottom of any sMnkage cracks. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same soil, as determined by ASTM D 1557-91. Optimum moisture content is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density. S Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 10 If isolated deeper zones of soft, saturated, dry (shrinkage cracks), highly porous or organic soils are encountered during excavation and recompaction, the soils should be removed to expose firm soils. The depth and extent of overexcavation should be approved in the field by US. If grading is performed during the winter or spring seasons, we anticipate that higher groundwater conditions may be encountered. Severe groundwater conditions may result in the need for dewatering, placement of stabilization fabrics, and/or placement of ballast rock to achieve stable excavation bottoms. The on-site soils should be suitable for reuse as general fill provided that: 1) all rock sizes greater than 6 inches in largest dimension and perishable materials are removed, and 2) the fill materials are approved by us prior to use. The on-site low expansive soils should be suitable for use as select fill if the materials can be maintained separate from expansive soils. However, the on-site expansive soils will not be suitable for select fill. Imported, non -expansive fill, should be free of organic matter, and should conform to the following requirements: Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 -Inch 100 4 -Inch 90-100 No. 200 15- 60 Liquid Limit - 40 Maximum Plasticity Index - 15 Maximum (ASTM D 4318-84 Wet Test Method) r'E�i1 Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page I1 Fill should be placed in thin lifts (normally 6 to 8 inches depending on compaction equipment), moisture conditioned to least 2 percent above optimum (4 percent for expansive soils), and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. If lime treatment is planned, the lime treated materials should be prepared with Quicklime, in accordance with Section 24 of Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, in maximum lifts of 15 inches. A pH of 12.4, or higher, determined in accordance with ASTM test procedures, should be achieved when establishing the percentage of lime required. Typically, 4 to 6 percent lime will be required. All surfaces should be finished to present a smooth, unvieldinz subgrade. Fill and cutslopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1. Fill and cutslopes should be planted with erosion -resistant vegetation, or protected from erosion by other measures upon completion of grading. Ground cover should be maintained on all slopes. B. Post -Tensioned Slabs Structure support can be obtained from planned post -tensioned slabs underlain by at Ieast 12 inches of properly engineered select fill. An allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design. The following design criteria were developed using "Design of Post -Tensioned Slabs -on -Ground", 3rd edition, by Post -Tensioning Institute. The structural engineering design should use our criteria only with the 3rd Edition design methods for design of the post -tensioned slabs: 1-0 Center Lift Condition Edge Moisture Variation Differential Soil Movement Edge Lift Condition Edge Moisture Variation Differential Soil Movement C. Concrete Slabs -on -Grade Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 12 em = 9 feet Ym = 314 inches em = 5 feet Ym = 1 inch Provided surface materials are prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report, post -tensioned slabs -on -grade can be used. As previously indicated, 12 inches of non -expansive, select fill or lime treated soils should be placed in post - tensioned slab areas (i.e. building areas). In less critical slab areas, where conventional slabs are planned, select fill (on the order of 12 to 30 inches) may be appropriate depending on the performance desired. We should be consulted regarding non-critical slab support if improved performance is desired. Garage and exterior slab -on -grade subgrade should be smooth, uniform and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. During foundation installation and utility trench excavation and backfilling, previously compacted subgrade soils may become disturbed. Where this is the case, these soils should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at least four percent above optimum moisture content and rerolled to provide a smooth, unyielding surface compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Exterior concrete slabs can be placed directly on a properly prepared subgrade soil. Subgrade should be maintained at a uniform moisture, at Ieast four percent above optimum moisture content, until the concrete slabs are placed. Slabs should be underlain with a J—�t Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 1.3 capillary moisture break and cushion layer consisting of at least four inches of clean, free - draining crushed rock. The crushed rock should be at least 114 -inch, and no Iarger than 314 -inch, in size. Moisture will condense on the underside of slabs. Where moisture migration through slabs is detrimental, an impermeable membrane (moisture vapor barrierlretarder) should be provided between the rock and the slabs. Two inches of clean sand can be placed on top of the membrane for puncture protection, if desired. Slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced to reduce cracking. Non -living area slabs (i.e. garage slabs and exterior slabs) should be carefully separated from foundations with felt paper, mastic, or other positive and low friction separation. Some cracking of slabs must be anticipated considering concrete shrinkage. Reinforcing must be carefully installed in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations to minimize the potential of cracking. We have commonly observed that welded wire mesh is not properly located in the slabs and typically recommend the use of rebar reinforcement. Control and expansion joints should be provided, as appropriate, to mitigate the effects of differential settlement. D. Geotechnical Engineering Drainage Ponding water will be detrimental to building foundations and structural elements. The site should be graded to provide positive drainage away from the building foundations. Outlets Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 14 should be provided in slab rock at slab -on -grade floors to reduce the risk of water build up in the slab rock. Roofs should be provided with gutters, and the downspouts connected to non -perforated pipes discharging in erosion resistant areas well away from the structures. Roof downspouts and surface drains must be maintained entirely separate from subsurface drainage. Collected water must be discharged into the site storm drainage, or onto concrete slabs -on -grade or asphalt pavements that drain away from the foundations. E. SUDDlemental Services We should review the final plans for conformance with the intent of our recommendations. During grading and foundation construction, we should provide intermittent geotechnical engineering observations, along with necessary field and laboratory testing, during: 1) removal of weak and expansive soils; 2) fill placement and compaction; 3) preparation and compaction of subgrade; and 4) excavation of foundations. These observations and tests would allow us to check that the contractor's work conforms with the intent of our recommendations and the project plans and specifications. These observations also permit us to check that conditions encountered are as anticipated, and modify our recommendations, as necessary. Upon completion of the project, we should perform a final observation prior to occupancy. We should summarize the results of this work in a final report. These supplemental services are performed on an as -requested basis, and we can accept absolutely no responsibility for items that we are not notified to observe. These supplemental Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 15 services are in addition to this investigation, and are charged for on a hourly basis in accordance with our Schedule of Charges. We must be provided with at least 48 hours notice for scheduling our initial site visit, and 24 hours thereafter. MAINTENANCE Periodic land maintenance will be required, Surface and subsurface drains should be checked frequently, and cleaned and maintained as necessary. Areas around slabs should be maintained wet with landscaping or covered with hardscape (e.g. concrete patio). LIMITATIONS We performed the investigation and prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted standards of the geotechnical engineering profession. No other warranty, either express or implied, is given. If the project is revised, or if conditions different from those described in this report are encountered during construction, we should be notified immediately so that we can take timely action to modify our recommendations, if warranted. -0 Bauer Associates Job No. 2185.0 Page 16 Site conditions and standards of practice change. Therefore, we should be notified to update this report if construction is not performed within 24 months of the submittal date. '515*#� l? R.C.E. 49302 P.L.S. 6368 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS -- LAND SURVEYORS -- LAND PLANNERS PETALUMA MARINA BUSINESS CENTER 775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954 TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239 THE BIRCHES 870 Wood Sorrel Drive Petaluma, California APN: 137-061-022 Job No.: 04929 November 2005 Prepared by: VV Checked by: EAK 20020 - �, GENERAL STATEMENTS 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The project site is approximately 2.2 acres, located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive within the incorporated city limits of Petaluma. The location of the site is shown on Vicinity Map, Page 2. Currently, there is a residential building with a driveway, sheds and barns on the site. It is proposed to redevelop the site into twenty two townhouses with common access driveways. This report evaluates the impact of the proposed improvements on the surface runoff drainage patterns on the site, and existing public storm drain structures on Wood Sorrel Drive. Under existing conditions of developments, a smaller portion of the- site drains to the north towards curb inlet #1 (see Hydrology Map 1, Page 3), mostly as sheet flow. The larger portion of the site drains as sheet and pipe flow to curb inlet #2, and further down to curb inlet #3. Existing storm drain facilities on the site consist of few area drains; drop inlets; 3 -inch, 8 -inch and 10 -inch pipes; and ditches. These facilities will be abandoned under proposed development. New storm drain structures (pipes, inlets, manhole and ditches) will be added to the site (see Preliminary Grading and Drainage, and Utility Plans for this project) under proposed conditions. The flows will concentrate and connect to the existing public storm drain facilities on Wood Sorrel Drive via existing curb inlets #1, #2, and #3 (see Hydrology Map 2, Page 4). 2. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Changes in CxA factors from the Rational Formula, where C is runoff coefficient and A is drainage area, were used to evaluate the impact of re -development on the existing surface runoff. (Assuming the same time concentration and return period, the surface runoff is directly proportional to the CxA factor). The analysis of existing and proposed conditions shows that CxA factors, and consequently flows, will increase by 22% for the entire site, due to increase in impervious area (see calculation Pages 5 to 7, and Hydrology Maps, Pages 3 & 4). Further, the impact of the re -development on the existing public storm drain structures on Wood Sorrel Drive was evaluated (see calculation Pages 8-17). Hydraflow was used to calculate 10 -year hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevations and to the check the adequacy of the existing public storm drain pipes. The Sonoma County Z-0 rA — Water Agency f=lood Control Design Criteria (a modified Rational Method) was used to calculate 10 -year flows (see Plates on Pages 21 to 24). Hydraflow calculates pipe hydraulics based on Mannings Equation. Existing hydraulic information for curb inlet #1 was obtained from Mc Dodwell Meadows Hydrology Report (see Page 20), while the existing hydraulic information for curb inlet #3 was used from Meadow Park Hydrology Report (see Pages 18 & 19). Any elevation information (like invert, top of curb and HGL information) used here from above mentioned hydrology reports was recalculated to match the datum elevation of this project by matching the top of curbs at the same elevations. 3. CONCLUSIONS The results show that the existing public storm drain pipes on Wood Sorrel Drive do have an adequate capacity to safely accommodate changes on the project site due to redevelopment and increase in impervious surfaces under 10 -year hydrological conditions. The pipe sizes are adequate, and raises in 10 -year HGL elevations are less then 0.2 ft (10 -year HGL will stay in the ground). I-ta I -B_ R.C.E. 49302 P.L.S. 6368 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS -- LAND PLANNERS PETALUMA MARINA BUSINESS CENTER 775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954 TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER TREATMENT REPORT The Birches 870 Wood Sorrel Petaluma, California APN: 137-061-022 Job No.: 04929 November 2005 Prepared by: EK F- ", e -;R' rpt p ._.� to l:G. 41:=.' 1 0- 2005 Z-7 STORM WATER TREATMENT REPORT 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................... 2 2.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ATTACHMENT 4 OF THE STATE STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT PHASE II..................................................................................... 2 2.1 RECEIVING WATERS LIMITATION ............................................... ........ 2 2.2 DESIGN STANDARDS.................................................................................................. 2 2.2.1 Corflicts with Local Practices........................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Design Standards Applicahle to All Categories ................................................ 2 2.2.2 Minimize Storm mater Pollutants of Concern ................................................... 2 2.2.3 Protect Slopes and Channels............................................................................. 3 2.2.4 Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage ..................................................... 3 2-2.5 Outdoor Material Storage Areas....................................................................... 3 2.2.6 Properly Design Trash Storage Area................................................................ 3 2.2.7 Proof of Ongoing BMP Maintenance................................................................ 3 2.2.8 Design Standards far Structural or Treatment Control BMP's ........................ 3 2.2.8.3 Vegetated Swales....................................................................................... 4 ATTACHMENT #1: Storm Water Calculations ATTACHMENT #2: Unit Basin Storage Water Quality Volume Chart ATTACHMENT #3: Storm Water Treatment Control Design Guidelines ATTACHMENT #4: Site Plan 04929 Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Report .doc 21-11 1.0 Project Description Refer to PUD Development description. 2.0 Compliance with Attachment 4 of the State Storm Water General Permit Phase Il 2.1 Receiving Waters Limitation The following report describes how we will not contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan. Water will be treated onsite before being discharged into an existing storm drain system along Wood Sorrel Drive. Meeting the State water quality standards will be done through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharges in accordance with the SWMP. These measures will be constructed and functioning as early as possible during the construction of the proposed development. If it is found that project discharges during or after construction are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable WQS, requirements set forth in Attachment 4 will be implemented. 2.2 Design Standards This project will strictly follow Attachment 4 guidelines since we are proposing a home subdivisions with 10 or more housing units. 2.2.1 Conflicts with Local Practices No conflicts are expected. 2.2.1 Design Standards Applicable to All Categories 2.2.1.1 Peak Storm Water Runoff Discharge Rates Our post development peak storm water runoff discharge rates will exceed the estimated pre -development rate for developments per meeting discussions with the City. Refer to the hydrology report for details. 2.2.1.2 Conserve Natural Areas The project's fire protection plan consists of hydrants along with fire truck access throughout the site. Plans are currently be review by the City Fire Department. Trees are an important component to the proposed project due to the high density development. Please refer to the landscape plans for the type of trees proposed throughout the project. 2.2.2 Minimize Storm Water Pollutants of Concern We will minimize the concern of storm water pollutants with the combination of BMPs best suited to maximize the reduction of pollutant loadings in the runoff to the maximum 04929 Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Report .dor- extent practical. We are proposing the use of grass lined swales strategically located throughout the site. 2.2.3 Protect Slopes and Channels Vegetated Swale beds will be hydroseeded over planted soil. The relative compaction of subgrade will be similar to native soils. Water will be conveyed safely since longitudinal slopes will range from 14%. 2.2.4 Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Storm drain stencils such has "NO DUMPING -DRAINS TO OCEAN" will be placed directly adjacent to all site storm drain inlets. 2.2.5 Outdoor Material Storage Areas This item will be addressed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan developed for the project during the construction phase. 2.2.6 Properly Design Trash Storage Area City of Petaluma Trash Enclosure Screen Design Standards will be followed in the design phase. 2.2.7 Proof of Ongoing BMP Maintenance This item will be addressed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan developed for the project during the construction phase. 2.2.8 Design Standards for Structural or Treatment Control BMP's We are proposing a treatment system that incorporates Flow based Treatment Control BMP's. The following is a summary of the system. Per attachment 4, flow calculations were based on rain events equal to at least two times the 85'h percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the area. According to the S W SMP, the rainfall intensity that occurs during the 85'h percentile mean annual 24 hour storm event is 0.21 inches per hour. So this method is met by applying the following equation Q? 0.21*2*C*A*K Q? 0.21*2*0.9*A*0.813 Q ? 0308 * A We calculated a C value of 0.9 based and K value of 0.813 based on the Storm Water Treatment Control Design Guidelines (SWTCDG)-see attached. Flow of run off produced from a rain event that will result in treatment of the same portion of runoff as treated using volumetric standards. 04929 Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Roport.doc: 1- 7',� 2.2.8.3 Vegetated Swales The project is proposing the installation of vegetation swales throughout the project to trap particulate pollutants, promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of storm water runoff. The flow rate was determined for the worst case basin based on the flow based hydraulic sizing requirements described in Section 2.2.8.2 of this report. Lot 1 was found to be the worst case since the percentage of usable space to lot size is the least of all lots at 30%. The vegetative swales have been designed so that the water level does not exceed 4 inches at the design treatment rate. We are recommending longitudinal slopes between 1 % to 2%. We are envisioning the installation of parabolic swales rather than an abrupt break in the Swale. The swales will all be constructed in cut. The grass lined swales will be planted with a locally suitable plant species as provided in Attachment #1 of the SWTCDG. The swale widths were determined using Manning's Equation which is the following: Qjroxyosed ' 1.49*A*R%17*S0.5 n 1.49*A*(-4)0.67*Sn_5 0.308 * Aimpervioua ? P n A*!A)0.67 ,� 0.308*A-v1:11imis *n lP 1.49*S°'S n was determined as 0.025 for native earth. Rather than performing a trial and error to determine the A and P numbers above, we used the Autocad Trapezoidal Calculator to determine the width of channel required for each area by inputting the flow determined by the Flow based method outlined in Section 2.2.8.2. Flow will enter the swales as overland flow from landscaping, Each of the swales will be installed with side slopes varying from. 4:1 to 2%. 04929 Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Report Aoc 2-14 We have also verified that our project will provide a minimum 5 minute retention time for all water traveling through the swale area. The way we can increase the retention time is by increasing the length of the swale. The retention time for each Swale was determined as the following: Rt ? Vsware Q Rt? 2 Qflnwau cd Following the Sonoma County method, the retention time within each swale shall be a minimum of 5 minutes. Based on this requirement, we determined the minimum length of swale required as the following: Rt ? V.r„-re Q 2 * Rr * Qfluwiiased LBhfP ? ,k d waler }vchannel A summary of our findings for each catchment area is attached in Appendix A. 04929 Preliminary Storm Water Treatment Report .dot Z T 7S �., 870 WOOD SORREL PETALUMA CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 2005 T ATMENT 4--37 Lt \3 �t.0 GR 31 C GR AR I 1' WIDE SWIj i 30.2 GR .06' MIN. l�P [- 9.8 GR ROOF 3 i 1154 S.F. _ I� J I J I �17 �1 I � --J C /AN_ IMPER OUS SIDEWALK, _D_J . 32.1 TC a 32.3 TC (21 i �5" irl e 32.8 ��J� ~- '- 29.95 TC7 GR HP Ll � SIGH 2 S - -_ 32.18 TQ \ C�57 E 32.3 TC �C i DI TC HP 2 29.6 GR i -F11 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS Petaluma Marina Business Center 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, California 94954 (707) 762-3122 FAX (707) 762-3239 City of Petaluma Stormwater Compliance, Retention, and BMP Sizing Worksheet Input Data K 0.813 (see hand calculations) C 0.9 (see hand calculations) S 0_.01 n 0.2 A 0.5 sf Impervious Area Area ID Surface Area Size BMP ID Flow Rate Side Slopes (SF) (cfs) Lot 1 Roof 1154 SWALE 0.004 (See exhibit for location) Roadway/Sidewalk Roof 1506 SWALE 0.005 (See exhibit for location) TOTAL 2,660 0.009 Summary Flow Rate 0.01 cfs Side Slopes 12.5 % Slope 0.04 fUft Flow Depth 0.04 ft Bottom Width - ft Top Width 1.01 ft Retention Time 5.000 min Swale Length required 134 if Swale Length provided 148.00 If Catchment 4 2--71 Len, 1 M Ii i 1 1 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (707) 573-1770 June 6, 2005 Steven Lafranchi Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Land Planners 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND WETLAND DETERMINATION LETTER - THE BIRCHES, 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE, PETALUMA Summary This letter is intended to briefly outline the findings of a preliminary wetland determination and reconnaissance level site surveys conducted on April 29 and May 23, 2005 at the subject property located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive in Petaluma, CA. The intent of the surveys was to identify potentially occurring sensitive habitats and biological features (e.g. wetlands) which may present regulatory issues of concern during site development. In addition, two special status plant species surveys were conducted at the site and the structures and trees on site were surveyed for evidence of raptor [e.g. barn owl (Tyco alba)] and bat use. A single wetland determination data point was performed near the southeast corner of the site in a shallow depression that had the highest likelihood of being determined as a wetland. This area was determined to be annual grassland habitat (Refer to Wetland Determination Data Form). No wetlands or other sensitive habitats were observed or delineated at the site. No special status plant species were observed at the site during the two special status plant species surveys. In addition, there was no evidence of raptors or bats utilizing any of the trees, barns, or other structures at the site. Development of the site would have no significant impacts to biological resources at the site. 2-78 0 Page 2 June B, 2005 Introduction The site occurs as one parcel consisting of 2.21 acres on the east side of Petaluma at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, between Yarberry Drive and Morning Glory Drive (Figure 1). The Assessor's Parcel Number is 137-061-022. To the north, east, and south of the site is residential development and to the west are two small parcels of undeveloped grasslands. The proposed development consists of the construction of twenty-one single family homes that would encompass the entire site (Refer to Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc., Context Plan, Sheet TM -2). General Site Description The site consists of two single-family homes with several barns, sheds, and other structures (Refer to Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc., Existing Conditions Exhibit, Sheet TM -3) (Figure 2). It appears that the southeast portion of the site may have been used as grazing land in the past. There is a paved entrance driveway along the northern boundary of the site and extends east to the single-family home and barns (Figure 2). The western portion of the site is landscaped, primarily with lawn and ornamental plant species (Figure 2). Non-native annual grassland habitat occurs in a small strip along the northern boundary and along the southern portion of the site. Dominant plant species consist of perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne), annual blue grass (Poa annua), Medeterranean barley (Hordeum marinum spp. gussoneanum), bristly ox tongue (Picris eschioides), redstem filaree (Erodium eicutarium), and crane's bill geranium (Geranium inolle). Several trees are located on the site (Refer to Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc., Existing Conditions Exhibit, Sheet TM -3). Coast redwoods (Sequoia semperi irens) are located along the southern boundary and weeping willows (Salix bablylonica), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and other trees are scattered throughout the site. The site is relatively flat but it appears that surface water flows west into storm drain drop inlets located at the northwest corner of the site on each site of the entrance driveway. Wetland Determination Standard United States Arany Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland delineation procedures as described in the USACE of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) were used to determine whether any wetlands were present onsite. A routine on-site investigation was conducted using the plant community assessment method. Each sample included detailed application of the three -parameter approach (vegetation, hydrology and soils). The wetland delineation was conducted on April 29, 2005 by Darren Wiemeyer of Golden Bear Biostudies (GBB). One wetland determination data point was established near the southeast corner of the site in an area that had the most potential to be a wetland. One (1) exploratory soil pit was dug to determine soil type and search for evidence of wetland hydrology. The predominant soil type at the site is Clear Lake clay, which has formed in closed basins and is classified as a hydric soil 2-71 a Page 3 June B, 20D5 due to its very low chromas (Miller, 1972; NTCHS, 1987). The soil color was classified as 10YR3/2. There were no mottles observed in the soil profile. There were no hydrology indicators at the wetland determination data point. The dominant plant species at the wetland determination data point were perennial ryegrass, crane's bill geranium, and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). Based on the information obtained from the wetland determination data point and from inspecting the site for other areas that could potentially be considered wetlands, it has been determined that no wetlands occur at the site. Biological Resource Special Status An in? al Species Special status animal species that may potentially occupy the site is limited to barn owl, nesting raptors [e.g. red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)], and special status bat species [e.g. Townsend's western big -eared bat (Coi347orhinus townsendii townsendii) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)]. The lack of sensitive habitat types including seasonal wetlands, streams, or saltmarsh habitat, greatly reduces the number of special status animal species that could occur at the site. The barn and other structures were inspected to determine if barn owls or bat species were actively utilizing these structures. There was no indication that barn owls or bat species were utilizing these structures. It is highly unlikely that these species would use these structures because they are actively being used as storage areas and as workshops. In addition, no raptor nests were observed in any of the trees at the site. Special Status Plcnit Species GBB staff conducted floral surveys in a manner to locate any rare or endangered species that may be present (CDFQ 1980. These surveys were conducted at the time of year when rare or endangered species are both "evident" and identifiable, i.e. they were scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. The surveys were floristic in nature and not based on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features. The surveys were conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. A meandering pattern was walked through each habitat to ensure that all areas were viewed. Every species noted in the field was identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it was rare or endangered. All plants at the site were identified to the level necessary to ascertain whether they were "special status species". No special status plant species were observed at the site during the two special status plant species surveys conducted on April 29 and May 23, 2005. The likelihood of any special status plant species occurring at the site is very low because of the degraded condition of the site, the predominance of primarily non-native and invasive plant species, and the lack of sensitive habitats (e.g. wetlands). Page 4 June 6, 2005 I trust this is the information that you require at this time. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 6 llxm 210 View Darren Wiemeyer Golden Bear Biostudies Figures (follows text) Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Photo Plate A Wetland Determination Data Form References California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1984. Guidelines for assessing effects of proposed developments on rare and endangered plants and plant communities, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Environmental Laboratory Technical Report Y-87-1. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Washington, D. C. Miller, V. C. 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Santa Rosa. 188 pp. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS). 1987. Hydric soils of the United States. USDA -SCS National Bulletin No. 430-5-9. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D. C. July 5, 2006 REID Steven Lafranchi JUL 10 2006 Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Land Planners PLANNING D I Vi i 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 SUBJECT: SITE EVALUATION FOR PRESENCE OF CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER - THE BIRCHES, 870 WOOD SORREL DRIVE, PETALUMA .Introduction This letter is intended to discuss the potential for the presence of California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS) at the subject property located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive in Petaluma, CA. The site occurs as one parcel consisting of 2.21 acres on the east side of Petaluma at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, between Yarberry Drive and Morning Glory Drive (Figure 1). The Assessor's Parcel Number is 137-061-022. To the north, east, and south of the site is residential development and to the west are two small parcels of undeveloped grasslands, which is on the east side of Highway 101. Site Description The site consists of two single-family homes with several barns, sheds, and other structures. It appears that the southeast portion of the site may have been used as grazing land in the past. There is a paved entrance driveway along the northern boundary of the site and extends east to the single-family home and barns. The western portion of the site is landscaped, primarily with lawn and ornamental plant species. Non-native annual grassland habitat occurs in a small strip along the northern boundary and along the southern portion of the site. Dominant plant species consist of perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne), annual blue grass (Poa annus), Medeterranean barley (Hordeurn marinum spp. gussoneanum), bristly ox tongue (Picris eschioides), redstem filaree (Erodium cieutarium), and crane's bill geranium (Geranium molle). Discussion The site is outside of the potential range of the California tiger salamander and occurs approximately 1.6 miles from the southern edge of the potential range for CTS (Figure 2) (USFWS). The nearest known CTS breeding location is on Railroad Avenue in southern Cotati. The site is approximately 4.1 miles from this known CTS breeding location (Figure 2). CTS are known to travel up to 1.3 miles from breeding ponds (USFWS). The site is well beyond the 1.3 miles of potential dispersal range from the breeding location on Railroad Avenue in Cotati. 2-.I 715106 1 Golden Bear Biostudies 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, Petaluma, CA In addition, there are many potential barriers to dispersing CTS between the breeding location on Railroad Avenue and the site, including several housing subdivisions and commercial. developments. It is not probable that CTS could migrate to the site from the breeding pond near Railroad Avenue. Because Highway 101 is considered a permanent barrier, there is no potential for CTS on the west side of Highway 101 from migrating to the east side of Highway 101. Although the grasslands at the site would be considered suitable aestivation habitat for CTS, the site would not be considered CTS habitat because if the factors discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The reported observation of CTS at the site by a neighbor was most likely a mis-identified observation. The observation was most likely of an arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), which to the untrained observed, may look similar to a CTS because of yellowish spots on the arboreal salamander. CTS are very elusive and are rarely observed since they spent most of their life in underground rodent burrows only emerging to travel to wetland ponds to breed during the rainy season (USFWS). Conclusion The site is not potential habitat for CTS based on the following factors: ® The site is outside of the potential range of the California tiger salamander and occurs approximately 1.6 miles from the southern edge of the potential range for CTS. ® The site is well beyond the 1.3 miles of potential dispersal range from the nearest known CTS breeding location on Railroad Avenue in Cotati. There are many barriers to dispersing CTS between the breeding location and the site, including several housing subdivisions and commercial developments. Development of the site located at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive in Petaluma will not impact California tiger salamander habitat. I trust this is the information that you require at this time. PIease feel free to call me at (707) 573-1770 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1fP�.�P% Darren Wiemeyer Golden Bear Biostudies 715106 2 Golden Bear Biostudies Consultants in Horticulture and Arboriculture TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REPORT THE BIRCHES PETALUMA, CA Prepared for Lafranchi & Associates 775 Baywood Dr., Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 By John C. Meserve Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 March 23, 2005 2-84 1 1 1 1 �- � �� 1 March 23, 2005 Mr. Steve LaFrandd LaFranchi & Associates 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 Consultants in Hordculture and Arba culture P_Q Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 954-42 Re: Completed Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report for The Birches, 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, Petaluma, California Steve, Attached you will find our Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report for the above noted project. Sixteen trees were evaluated based on their trunk diameter and location in relation to proposed construction. Each tree in this report was evaluated for size, health, and structural condition. These observations are presented in the section entitled Individual Tree Evaluations. Also in this section we have provided our estimate of the development impact on each tree, as well as specific recommendations for preservation or removal. The second section, entitled Tree Location Plan, shows the location and numbering sequence of all trees evaluated, and illustrates the dripline of each tree. The third and fourth sections are comprised of general Tree Preservation Guidelines, and Prnining Standards, This report is intended to be a basic inventory of trees present at this site, which includes a cursory review of tree health and structural condition. No in-depth evaluation has occurred, and assessment has included only visual examination of each tree without probing, drilling, coring, root collar examination, or dissecting any tree part. Failures, deficiencies, and problems may occur in these trees in the future, and this inventory in no way guarantees or warrantees their condition. All trees preserved should be periodically monitored by a consulting arborist during and after construction' to ensure that decline or hazard does not develop. Each tree must be protected and mitigated per this report, and common sense, to have a reasonable chance for long-term survival. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this report, or if further discussion about any tree issue is required. Sincer JVm C. Meserve Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 5pVETY OF � o �G. MESZ�p���'c rLU- WGA M x m ARS° - Voice 707-935-3911 Fax 707-935-7103 -- Z _e e INDIVIDUAL TREE EVALUATIONS 2-8 N C� GO TREE INVENTORY The Birches 870 Wood Sorrel Drive, Petaluma Tree Species Trunk (dbh) Height Radius Health structuret 1 Morus alba (white mulberry) 17.5 15 14 3 2 2 Salix babylonica (weeping willow) 17+30.5 30 18 3/4 3 3 Salix babylonica (weeping willow) 2+3+4 15 12 4 4 4 Magnolia soulangiana (saucer magnolia) multiple 20 14 4 4 5 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 16 20 14 4 4 6 unknown species 7+10.5 12 6 3 2 7 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) 4+4 12 6 4 4 8 Sequoia sempervirens (coast redwood) 16 40 16 4 4 9 Sequoia senzpervirens (coast redwood) 18 45 16 4 4 10 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 15 30 14 4 4 11 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 14.5 30 14 4 4 12 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 13.5 30 14 4 4 13 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 13.5 30 12 3/4 4 14 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 17 40 16 4 4 15 Sequoia senipervirens (coast redwood) 15 40 16 4 4 16 Sequoia sempervirens (coast redwood) 15 40 16 4 4 HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 707.935.3911 March 23, 2005 Recommendations 2 2 2 2 2 3 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 1, 6, 7 1,6,7 1,6,7 1,6,7. 1,6,7 1,6,7 1, 6, 7 1,6,7 1, 6, 7 KEY TO RATINGS HEALTH (5) Excellent - health and vigor are exceptional, no pest, disease, or distress symptoms. (4) Good - health and vigor are average, no significant or specific distress symptoms, no significant pest or disease. (3) Fair _ health and vigor are somewhat compromised, distress is visible, pest or disease may be present and affecting health, problems are generally correctable. (2) Marginal - health and vigor are significantly compromised, distress is highly visible and present to the degree that survivability is in question. (1) Poor - decline has progressed beyond the point of being able to return to a healthy condition again. Long-term survival is not expected. This designation includes dead trees. STRUCTURE (4) Good structure- some minor structural problems maybe present which do not require corrective action. (3) Moderate structure - normal, typical, structural issues present which can be corrected with pruning. (2) Marginal structure - serious structural problems are present which may or may not be correctable with pruning, cabling, bracing, etc. (1) Poor structure - hazardous structural condition which cannot be effectively corrected with pruning or other measures, may require removal depending on location and the presence of targets. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) Appears to be a preservable tree. (2) Removal required due to proposed development impacts. (3) Existing hazardous structure, removal recommended. (4) Poor existing health, removal recommended. (5) May or may not be preservable, depending on actual location of home and other impacts. (6) Install temporary protective fencing at the edge of the dripline prior to beginning grading or construction. Maintain fencing in place for duration of all construction activity in the area. (7) Maintain existing grade within the fenced portion of the dripline. Route drainage swales and all underground work outside the dripline where possible. (8) Place a 4" layer of chipped bark mulch over the soil surface within the fenced dripline prior to installing temporary fencing. Maintain this layer of mulch throughout construction. 1� (9) Prune to clean and raise the canopy, per International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards. CP __Q TREE LOCATION PLAN 2.-1b -41 ' 3, PLAN 4 PLAN ........... 2 PLAN PLM 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 --7 7 L -7 JJ vr T— V al;.L TREE LOCATION & NUMBERING PLAN FOR 6 29.35' 2S..19' is' p The Birches Petaluma, California PMLANAu 3 C — 'PHIS PLAN TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION PLAN % WITH VALUATION REPORT DATED 3/23/05 F —T 3, ; PLAN I % 'Y F 8KI Gee' R.,� 9 41, YAgg'Fo7y I PLAN 4 -3 PLAN 4 F i Lrl ptio 2. 'j Pt" 3 ZOLA PLAN 2 e' 7, ELI r I 4_ U A 7- ni JOHN C. MESERVE 61 CONSULTING ARBORIST Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists 7"1 —It ", L International Society of Arboriculture, WCISA #478 L > P1 PLAN HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261 GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 707.935.3911 -wt PLM I PLAN 4 14 13 Aj 5- ra J' YARFEW Y ----------- 10 D IN 1 1 J'T� URAL -It - - Cu r'��Z November 9, 2005 Mr. Steve Lafranchi Lafranchi & Associates, Inc, 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 Consultants in Horticulture and Arboriculture P.Q Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 Re: Response to tree issues submitted in City of Petaluma Completeness Letter dated 8/1/05 Steve, Per your request, I reviewed questions regarding -the preservation issues submitted in a City of Petaluma Completeness letter dated August 1, 2005, and provide the following specific responses for your use. Item 3B: Drainage swales will minimally impact trees on City property if they do not exceed 6 inches in depth, per our Tree Preservation Guidelines. ® Trees #2, 3, 4, and 5 are all in good condition, generally exhibiting good health and stable structure. These trees would be suitable candidates for preservation if they do not conflict with the proposed development. Trees #1 and #6 are in reasonable health, but have structural characteristics and deficiencies, which make them questionable for preservation, especially in a subdivision setting. They would not be suitable candidates for preservation in the front or rear yard of a residence. A reasonable and typical tree replacement ratio for the trees proposed for removal could be 3 replacement trees for each tree removed. Replacement size could be either 15 gallon or 24" box. Voice 707-935-391 1 Fax 707-935-7103 — 1 NOV 292005 COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2--91 Mr. c leve Lafranchi 11/9/05 Page 2 of 2 Item 5A: o A drainage swale constructed as previously discussed will not injure trees #8 through 16. The storm drain line, which passes .by trees #7 through #12, should be offset from the property by at least 5 feet; this means that the tree - side edge of trench should be at least 5 feet from the property line. This location will still be somewhat within the dripline of 2 trees; but, based on their species and excellent condition, no problems are expected. Please feel free to contact me if further discussion is desired. Vrely,pClEiYpF i1B8-serve 78 ` r Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists �nr� International Society of Arboriculture WCISA #47$ -DA RBfl�\I THE BIRCHES PLANNED UNIT DEVEL OPIIIENT ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT PETAL UMA, CALIFORNM February l5, 2006 Prepared for: .'racy Anthony Anthony Investments 3420 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite E Lafayette, CA 94549 Prepared by: Fred M. Svinth, Assoc. AIA ILLING3jORTH & RODKIN, INC. Acoustics —Air Quality 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, CA 94952 (707)766-7700 Job No. 05-031 INTRODUCTION The Birches Planned Unit Development is a proposed single-family residential development of the existing ranch parcel at 870 Wood Sorrel Drive in Petaluma, California (see Figure 1)_ The purpose for this noise assessment is to evaluate the compatibility of the development with respect to the environmental noise levels at the project site and evaluate noise impacts upon sensitive receptors in the area. The study responds to the following CEQA Appendix G checklist questions. Would the project result in: (1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (3) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? To assist in understanding the terminology and concepts referred to in this report, Appendix A: Background Information on Noise, is provided at the end of the report. The existing noise environment was documented using two long-term noise measurements in the site vicinity. In summary, this noise assessment concludes that noise impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of standard construction noise controls. APPLICABLE NOISE GUIDELINES City of Petaluma The Community Health and Safety Element of the Petaluma General Plan sets forth goals and policies related to community noise. The objective of the policies and programs set forth in the Noise Element is to "minimize the amount of noise that future development creates and the amount of noise to which the community is exposed". Policy 25 establishes a noise level of 60 Ldn as the reasonable level for exterior use areas in new residences. Interior noise Ievels for residential buildings will be mitigated to provide a level of 45 La„ or less. The city's Zoning Ordinance contains noise performance standards in Article 22. The standards prohibit construction activities on weekdays between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on weekends between the hours of 10:00 PM and 9:00 AM. State of California Title 24, Part 2, of the State Building Code (Appendix Chapter 12 UBC) sets forth Noise Insulation Standards applicable to new multi -family housing. The environmental portion of the standard applies to projects located in a noise environment of 60 Ldn or greater and establishes a maximum interior noise limit of 45 Ld, 2 1-96 Supplemental Sleep Disturbance Criteria Though the City and State noise criteria are typically sufficient to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment with common environmental noise source, when dealing with loud intermittent noise sources, such as the sounding of train horns near railroad tracks, the achievement of an Ld„ of 45 dBA within homes may still result in maximum noise levels within interiors great enough to result in significant sleep disturbance. Studies have been undertaken to determine the effect of short term maximum noise levels on sleep disturbance. The conclusions of these studies typically give a probability of sleep disturbance related to the maximum noise level of the event at the sleep location and the duration of the event. A review of sleep disturbance study data shows that limiting maximum noise levels to 55 dBA within bedrooms will limit the probability of waking the future residents of the homes at the subject project when trains pass the site to less than five percent per occurrence'. Therefore, though this is not a City or State requirement, I&R recommends the adoption of additional interior sound level criteria limiting maximum noise levels to 55 dBA within bedrooms of homes adjacent to rail lines. FIGURE 1: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE WITH NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ' Kryter Karl D., The effects of Noise on Man, Second Edition, Academic Press, Inc. London, 1985, p.444-445 2_.-91 E)aSTiNG CONDITIONS The noise environment at the project site results primarily from vehicular traffic on Mc Dowell Blvd. and Wood Sorell Drive. Other sources of noise in the area traffic on Yarberry Drive, Morning Glory Drive and overhead noise from general aviation aircraft using the Petaluma Airport. The North West Pacific (NWP) rail line opposite Mc Dowell Blvd from the site is currently not operating. To evaluate the existing noise environment at the site due to the primary traffic noise sources effecting its use for residential development, two long-term noise measurements were made, one near Mc Dowell Blvd. southeast of the project site (LT - 1) and the other near the intersection of Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drives (LT -2) [see Figure 1, above]. The measurement along Mc Dowell Blvd. (LT -1) was conducted at a setback of 60 feet from the roadway centerline between 4 p.m. Wednesday, February 9th and 4 p.m. Thursday, February 10th', 2005. The hourly trend in noise levels at the measurement site including the energy equivalent noise level (Ley), maximum (L ), minimum (L m 0, and the noise level exceeded 10, 50 and 90 percent of the time (indicated as L10, L50 and Lgo) is shown on Chart 1. Chart 1: Measurement Results at LT -1 - 60 ft to the centerline of McDowell Blvd. 90 �x. 85 x, X. X ;r . - x. -x so -X' 75 ^• ' Y 470 65 ` 60 f� 45 •i••--F---F---�'-. 40 ILdn = 70 dBAJ 35 Q Q O O O O O O O Q O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O Q Q O O O O O O O O Q Q O Q O Q O O O Q O G r- op C, Q (V - � N M V V1 �0 r- W 0% O Time Beginning, February 8th to 9th, 2005 ~ - - X - - Lax — -- LO - 0 L10 Leq --A L50 --OL90 - - + - - Ln in A review of Chart 1 shows that average (Ly) noise levels ranged from 63 to 70 dBA daytime and 57 to 66 dBA nighttime. The overall average daytime and nighttime Ley levels were found to be 68 and 62 dBA, respectively. The Ld„ measured at this location was calculated to be 70 dBA. 2--16 The measurement along Wood Sorell Drive near Yarberry (LT -2) was conducted at a setback of 65 feet from the centerline of Wood Sorell Drive and 75 feet from the centerline of Yarberry Drive simultaneously with the measurement at LT -1 between 4 p.m. Tuesday, February Bch and 4 p.m. Wednesday, February 9d', 2005. The hourly trend in noise levels at the measurement site including the energy equivalent noise level (L,,,), maximum (T), minimum (I;,,), and the noise level exceeded 10, 50 and 90 percent of the time (indicated as Lio, L5o and L90) is shown on Chart 2. Chart 2: Measurement Results at LT -2 - 65 ft to the centerline of Wood Sorell Dr. 90 85 X, X 80 X -< �5 ! .X X.. -X- x. X X X h x' x' x 70 x x. X w a n 65 .60 v� 50 1 45 + . 44 ILdn = 62 dBAI 35 0 0 o c o P o o a o Q o o P a o a Po 0 0 o a o O P O C O C7 o P P O P o O P O O O PR 4 O P P O sr kn �O Fl- 00 C. V kn [- m Ch Time Beginning, February 8th to 9th, 2005 . - X • - Lmax —a— L01 — 0 L10 Leq - A -- L50 ---0— L90 - - + - - Lmin A review of Chart 2 shows that average (Lq) noise levels ranged from 55 to 61 dBA daytime and 48 to 60 dBA nighttime. The overall average daytime and nighttime L,, levels were found to be 59 and 55 dBA, respectively. The Ldj, measured at this location was calculated to be 62 dBA. Based on the accepted sound propagation factor of 3 dB per doubling of distance for a traffic noise source and considering some limited noise shielding from existing intervening structures, the average sound level from McDowell Blvd. traffic at the LT -2 position (approximately 300 ft from the centerline), would be 9 dBA lower than those at LT -1. Thus the LdE, noise exposure at LT -2 from Me Dowell traffic would be expected to be 61 dBA. When the contribution of McDowell traffic noise is logarithmically subtracted from the sound levels measured at LT -2, the resulting Ld„ noise exposure due to Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drive traffic alone would be 58 dBA. 5 2-°L� FUTURE CONDITIONS Construction Noise Construction of the project would involve grading, road construction, the installation of utility & sewer connections to each home site, and individual home construction. Given the type of development it is expected that all construction would be completed within one or possibly two building seasons. Overational Noise The occupation and use of the homes proposed by the project would be expected to result in the typical noises associated with residential development, including voices of the new residents, home maintenance activities, barking dogs and children being heard more frequently. Though the noise environment at the homes immediately adjacent to the site along Morning Glory Drive and Allegheny Court may change noticeably due to the occupation of the new residences, the noise associated with new homes is not expected to be out of character with typical residential uses and should be similar to that of the existing homes in the area. Roadway Traffic Future traffic projections are not available for the roadways adjacent to the project site. However, to conduct a conservative analysis, we assumed that traffic along Me Dowell Blvd. could increase by fifty percent (50%) in the future, which would result in a 2 -decibel increase in noise levels along the roadway, producing an Ld„ of 72 dBA at 60 feet from the centerline of McDowell Blvd. A fifty percent (50%) increase in future traffic along Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drives would result in increased noise exposure due to Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drive traffic alone to an Lan of 60 dBA at 65 feet from the centerline, and overall noise level due to all sources (McDowell Blvd., Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drive) of an Lar, of 64 dBA at 65 feet from the roadway centerline. Rail Traffic The use of the NWP rail line for transportation is currently being studied. The Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) is a rail district created with the passage of California State Assembly Bill 2224. The rail district was formed from Sonoma County, Marin County, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District. The baseline (existing conditions) noise work of the EIR/EIS for the rail transportation project has been completed. This work does not include projections of the noise from the operation of the project, since the specific type of train that would be used and the numbers of trains or the hourly distribution of train movements has not yet been established. It is likely that a self-propelled diesel rail car would be used. It is anticipated that noise levels from individual train events would fall somewhere between the noise generated by a BART train and the noise generated by a traditional diesel -powered train. Without information regarding the numbers of events or the hourly distribution of such events, it is not possible to estimate or calculate the Lan from such a use of the rail line. However, the noise of an individual 2 Telephone conversation with Lawrence Spurgeon, Noise Specialist, Parsons Brinkerhoff, January 2004 6 2 a IDD train event can be estimated. There is a grade crossing at McDowell Blvd. and it would be expected that trains would blow their whistles in front of the subdivision when they approach this crossing. At these times, maximum sound levels due to the whistle blast would be expected to reach 85 to 90 dBA at the facades of the homes in the development that will have a clear view of the rail line. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT Impact 1: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. This is a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporation. The major existing noise source affecting the project site is vehicular traffic on McDowell Blvd, with other roadway noise sources from Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drives. A future noise source affecting the project site may be noise from horns blown by trains approaching the McDowell grade crossing. Based on the current residential development proposal for the property (see Figure 2), the rear yards of the homes adjacent to Wood Sorell and Yarberry Drives will be as close as 40 feet from the centerline of these roadways. The results of our noise measurement survey and our conservative estimate of future noise level increases shows that, without mitigation, the rear yards of the homes north and west of the Wood Sorell/Yarberry Drive intersection will be exposed to an Ldn of up to 64 dBA. The noise environments in the rear yards of the homes north and west of the Wood Sorell/Yarberry Drive intersection would, therefore, exceed the City's `normally acceptable' level of an Ldn of 60 dBA, necessitating either a solid noise barrier fence or earth berm of sufficient height to reduce noise levels within these outdoor use areas to an Ldn of 60 dBA or less. Typical frame construction techniques with standard thermal insulating glass in moderately sized closed windows have been shown to reduce traffic noise levels by about 25 dBA. When windows are open the amount of exterior to interior traffic noise attenuation is reduced by 15 to 17 dBA. Based on this average exterior to interior noise attenuation the following conclusions pertaining to interior sound levels within project homes maybe drawn; 1. Interior noise levels within the southernmost homes on Lots 1 and 21 and those within all other two story homes which would not be acoustically shielded by the structures of intervening homes, may exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA with open windows, but will meet the L.& standard when standard thermal insulating windows are closed for the purpose of noise control, and 2. Maximum interior noise levels within the development where second story bedroom windows give a clear view of the rail line may exceed the recommended 55-dBA maximurn sleep disturbance criteria level due to the sounding of horns from passing trains if the NWP rail line becomes active. 2~1a\ FIGURE 2: Residential development proposal and Noise Mitigation Mitigation Measure III a: To reduce outdoor noise levels within the yards of the proposed homes to an Ld,, of 60 dBA or less, construct solid walls or a wall and landscaped earth berm combinations. To reduce sound levels within the rear yards of the homes north of Wood Sorell Drive to an Ldn of 60dBA or less, a solid wall or an earth berm with a wall above should be built on the Wood Sorell Drive rear yard frontages and Yarberry Drive rear yard frontages south of the access road with a height of 6 feet above the final pad grades as shown in Figure 2. To be effective as a noise barrier the walls should be built without cracks or gaps in the face or base, have a minimum surface weight of 3.0 lbs. per sq. ft., and be capable of reducing noise traveling directly through it by a minimum of 15 dBA_ A wood fence built with a double layer of l" nominal thickness fence boards, where the second layer of boards installed to cover the joints of the first layer will meet these surface weight and noise reduction requirements. Other wall types that will provide the needed level of noise reduction include masonry block, and concrete panel walls. Mitigation Measure #Ib: To reduce indoor noise during train future train passbys within the proposed homes to a maximum level of 55 dBA, provide home construction and ventilation techniques and materials necessary to reduce interior noise levels within all homes where second story bedroom windows will give a clear view of the rail line. z-Ioz Though details of the proposed homes are not available at this time, the following items may be required in order to achieve an interior maximum noise level of 55 dBA within bedrooms when trains pass the site. -� Smaller window and door sizes as percentage of the total facade facing the rail line. -� Sound -rated windows (estimated STC 32 to 35); -� Mechanical Ventilation (so windows may be kept closed at the discretion of the occupants); -� Sound Rated Exterior wall assemblies (estimated at STC 45 -- which may be met by a exterior insulated wood frame wall with a 7/8" three coat stucco finish); Impact 2: Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels due to the project -generated noise. Existing sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site are located north and west of the site along Morning Glory Drive and Allegheny Court. The potential noise sources associated with the occupation of the proposed homes are not expected to be out of character with typical residential uses and should be similar to that of the existing homes in the area. This is a less -than -significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: None Required Impact 3: Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels due to the project -generated noise. Construction of the project would result in a significant short-term noise impact at nearby residences Noise generated during construction would differ depending on the construction phase and the type and amount of equipment used at the construction site. Construction activities would include site grading and excavation, foundation work, framing, and exterior & interior finishing. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction and finishing. Table 3, following, presents typical ranges of energy equivalent levels (Leq) at 50 feet, for domestic housing production. Table 3: Noise Levels by Construction Phases for Domestic Housing Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels at 50 Feet, L., in dBA, at Construction Sites Construction Phase All pertinent equipment on site. Minimum required equipment on site. Ground Clearing 83 -- __ 83 Excavation 88 75 Foundations 81 81 Erection 81 65 Finishing 88 72 Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973. 9 .- 10_?i� A review of Table 3, illustrates that the construction of the project would increase noise levels in the project area over the entirety of the construction period. During construction increased noise levels would be generated on the site and the surrounding land uses by trucks delivering and recovering materials at the site, grading and paving equipment, saws, hammers, the radios and voices of workers, and other typical provisions necessary to construct a residential housing project. When site work (demolition, ground clearing, excavation, paving and foundation work) activities are occurring near adjacent neighbors, daytime Ievels can be expected to significantly exceed existing noise levels. As construction proceeds to the interior of the site noise levels at these residences will diminish, however, noise produced by construction activities would remain audible and is expected to exceed existing noise levels at the adjacent homes during the entire construction period. This would constitute a significant, unavoidable, short-term noise impact. Mitigation Measure #3: Noise impacts due to construction activities would be reduced by implementing the noise performance standards in Article 22 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits construction activities between the hours of 10.00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and 10:00 PM and 9:00 AM on weekends. However, because of the proximity to existing residences to the site, it is recommended that construction activities be further restricted by incorporating the following conditions in related construction contract agreements. 1. Construction Scheduling. The following measures are recommended to limit construction and related activities to the portion of the day when the number of persons in the adjacent residential uses is lowest. a. Limited construction hours to between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Prohibit construction on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma b. Do not allow the on-site cleaning or servicing of machinery on weekends or before 7:15 a.m. or past 7:45 p.m. Monday through Friday. c. Limit the allowable hours for the delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose to weekday (Monday through Friday) non - holiday hours between 7:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 2. Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. 3. Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. Equipment should be turned off when not in use. 4. Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, as far as practical from the adjacent homes. Acoustically shield such equipment when it must be Iocated near adjacent residences. S. Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good working order.) 10 2 - IC4 FMR= w-trany-s Whitlock & Weinberger Tmspt;rmtJan.Inc. 49D Menclodna Avenue Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 9540I volce 707.542.9500 fax 707.542.9590 web www.w-trans.com F"t MAR 1 0 ZOOD" 7 �j V1 i � .: ukPDATED F11 J. -j F L w-trany-s Whitlock & Weinberger Tmspt;rmtJan.Inc. 49D Menclodna Avenue Suite 201 Santa Rosa, CA 9540I volce 707.542.9500 fax 707.542.9590 web www.w-trans.com F"t MAR 1 0 ZOOD" Table of Contents Page Introduction and Summary ...................................................... Existing Conditions............................................................5 Future Conditions.............................................................7 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................. 15 Study Participants and References................................................16 Figures I Lane Configurations and Existing Traffic Volumes .................................... 2 2 Site Plan..................................................................... 8 3 Project Traffic Volumes........................................................ 10 4 Future Traffic Volumes......................................................... 13 Tables IIntersection Level of Service Criteria .............................................. 4 2 Summary of Existing Intersection Level of Service Calculations ...........................6 3 Trip Generation Summary....................................................... 7 4 Peak Hour Trip Distribution Assumptions .................. I .......... 4 ............ 9 5 Summary of Future Intersection Level of Service Calculations ......................... 12 Appendices A Level of Service Calculations Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page i w -trans Introduction and Summary Introduction This report presents an analysis of the traffic impacts that would be expected from a proposed residential development near the intersection of Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive in the City of Petaluma, The traffic study was completed in accordance with standard criteria, and is consistent with previous analyses and standard traffic engineering techniques. Prelude The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers such as Planning Commissioners and City Council members with data which they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any associated improvements which would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance as defined by the City's General Plan. Traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the number of trips the new use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, and then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections included in the study area. Project Profile The proposed project consists of the development of 21 single-family residential homes ranging in size from three to four bedrooms, all units include 2 -car garages. The site location and study area are shown in Figure I . Setting The Transportation Element of the Petaluma General Plan contains information on existing Circulation conditions, as well as goals and policies for the development of future circulation systems within the City. The general objectives of the Transportation Element are to improve traffic flow, provide easy and convenient access to all areas of the community, and improve connections between the east and west sides of the City. Additionally, there are objectives related to increasing transit use, encouraging safe bicycle use and accommodating safe travel for pedestrians. Study Intersections Traffic impacts were evaluated within the project area with special emphasis on the following intersections. The locations of intersections I through 3 are shown in Figure I. I. McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard 2. Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Boulevard 3. Wood Sorrel DrivelYarberry Drive 4. North McDowell Boulevard/Corona Road 5. North McDowell Boulevard/Old Redwood Highway Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page I w -trans Z -toy Study Periods Conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours were analyzed. The a.m. peak hour is the highest volume hour between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and captures conditions during the outbound home to work or school commute trips, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects worst-case operating conditions for the street system as a whole during the homeward commute. Study Scenarios Four scenarios are evaluated in this study including Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project Conditions, Future Conditions and Future plus Project Conditions. The Existing Conditions scenario presents an evaluation of current traffic operations based on data collected in the field and available in other planning documents. The Existing plus Project scenario indicates the potential traffic impacts which would be expected to occur with the development of the site as proposed. The Future scenario evaluates the long- term growth conditions under which traffic would be expected to operate with build out of the City under the proposed Petaluma General Plan. The Future plus Project Conditions presents an evaluation of the potential changes in operational performance of the circulations system with the trip generation demands of the proposed residential development. Intersection Level of Service Methodologies Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. The LOS designation is generally accompanied by a unit of measure which indicates a level of delay. The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle. The Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are "unsignalized," were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection capacity method from the Highway Capacity Manual. This method determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. The movement with the highest level of delay is presented as the Worst Case Level of Service. The through movements on the main street are assumed to operate at free flow and a Level of Service A. The signalized methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. It should be noted that the levels of service for this study were calculated using optimized signal timing. The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table I. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 3 w -trans 2 - 100 Table Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily available Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during for drivers exciting the minor street. the green phase, so do not stop at all. B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are somewhat less Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than readily available than with LOS A, but no queuing occurs on with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop. the minor street C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic are less Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles frequent, and drivers may approach while another vehicle is stopping is significant, although many still pass through already waiting to exit the side street. without stopping. D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable gaps Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or two is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop. vehicles on the side street. E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in traffic are Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles available, and longer queues may form on the side street. must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive. F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait for long Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait periods before there is an acceptable gap in traffic for exiting through more than one cycle to clear the intersection. the side streets, creating long queues. Reference, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Traffic Operation Standards The General Plan's adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard for streets indicates the minimum acceptable operation is LOS C where it is currently LOS C or better. Where the LOS was D or E in 1985, it shall not deteriorate to the next lower level. Under a City Council Policy adopted in 1990, mitigation is required at any study intersection where the project results in delay indicative of operation worse than LOS D. On sections of certain arterial streets it is not unusual to have all of the side streets operating at LOS E or F with long traffic delays, even where side street volumes are very low. In fact, it may be operationally, physically, and/or financially infeasible to provide mitigation which would allow LOS D conditions or better from all side streets during peak hours. The most typical mitigation measure used to improve operation for the side street is a traffic signal, and it is both operationally and financially undesirable to provide a traffic signal at every intersection along most street segments. For these reasons mitigation measures were only considered when LOS F conditions were projected for minor movements at unsignalized intersections. Additionally, a project impact may be considered significant if any of the following conditions are met. • At any unsignalized intersection or driveway approach with significant traffic volumes, the project results in congestion for the side street exceeding LOS E; • Access at site driveways causes significant delay to traffic flow on public streets; • The onsite circulation plan provides inadequate circulation or is potentially unsafe; or • Site design circulation aspects are inconsistent with local guidelines. The Community Character Element of the General Plan also contains circulation -related objectives and policies directing the integration of pedestrian and bicycle circulation into street designs and improvements. It also states that the amount of paving and the apparentwidth of streets should be reduced where possible. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 4 `� "a"S Z—ID� Existing Conditions Description of Study Area North McDowell Boulevard is a 4 -lane arterial street that carries approximately 22,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit within the study area is 40 miles per hour. Southpoint Boulevard, Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive are 2 -lane local streets with posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour. These streets serve single family residences and a few office buildings within the study area. The office buildings are located along Southpoint Boulevard. All four roads are equipped with curbs, gutters and sidewalks as well as area street lighting. Study Intersections The project would be connected to North McDowell Boulevard via the local street study intersections of Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Boulevard and Wood Sorrel Drive/Yarberry Drive and the arterial intersection of North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard. Wood Sorrel DrivelSouthpoint Boulevard and Wood Sorrel DrivelYarberry Drive are unsignalized 'tee' intersections with stop controls located on Southpoint Boulevard and Yarberry Drive while Wood Sorrel Drive is free flowing. Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive each have single approach lanes while the eastbound approach of Southpoint Boulevard at Wood Sorrel Drive has designated left -turn and right -turn lanes with no through lane. North McDowell BoulevardlSouthpoint Boulevard is a signalized intersection with protected -permitted left -turn signal phasing at each approach. With this phasing, left -turn movements first receive the green left -turn arrow which provides a protected left -turn, which is then followed by the green ball which permits left -turn movements in the absence of oncoming traffic. The northbound and southbound approaches on North McDowell Boulevard each consist of one dedicated left turn lane, one through lane and one shared through - right turn lane. The Southpoint Boulevard approaches each consist of one dedicated left turn lane and one shared through -right turn lane. Existing Conditions Based on the existing traffic volumes collected in March of 2005 all of the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS C or better during both the a.m. and the p.m, peak periods. The Level of Service calculations are summarized in Table 2, and copies are provided in Appendix A. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 page 5 w -craps 2—` 101 Alternative Transportation Modes Transit Petaluma Transit Route 2 and Sonoma County Transit Route 44 stop atthe intersection of North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard. Bicycles There are no marked bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, however, the streetwidth near the project area is approximately 36 feet, which is considered adequate space for bicycles to travel safely on the local streets adjacent to a lane of parallel parking. Pedestrians The study area has adequate pedestrian facilities with sidewalks along both sides of the road on Southpoint Boulevard, Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. The only marked crosswalks are located at the intersection of North McDowell BoulevardlSouthpoint Boulevard. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 6 W-tra11 Table 2 Summary of Existing Intersection Level of Service Calculations Intersection Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Approach Conditions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS North McDowell Blvd/Southpoint Blvd ............................................................................................................................................................................................—,................ 14.8 B 16.2 B 15.1 B 16.5 B Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Blvd Eastbound (Southpoint) Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.3 A 9.4 A Wood Sorrel Drive/Yarberry Drive Westbound (Yarberry) Approach ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1..11.1....... 9.0 A 9.2 A 9.0 A 9.3 A North McDowell Blvd/Corona Road 32.5 C 30.3 C - C - C North McDowell Blvd/Old Redwood Hwy 27.1 C 25.8 C - C - C Notes: Delay is in average number of seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Alternative Transportation Modes Transit Petaluma Transit Route 2 and Sonoma County Transit Route 44 stop atthe intersection of North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard. Bicycles There are no marked bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, however, the streetwidth near the project area is approximately 36 feet, which is considered adequate space for bicycles to travel safely on the local streets adjacent to a lane of parallel parking. Pedestrians The study area has adequate pedestrian facilities with sidewalks along both sides of the road on Southpoint Boulevard, Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. The only marked crosswalks are located at the intersection of North McDowell BoulevardlSouthpoint Boulevard. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 6 W-tra11 Future Conditions Project Description The site of the Birches residential subdivision is located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the intersection of Yarberry Drivel Wood Sorrel Drive in the City of Petaluma, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the US 10 UWashington Street interchange. The project proposal includes the construction of 21 single family residential units to be built on a site currently containing two single family dwellings. Access to the project would be via a new street on Yarberry Drive and a new street on the east side of Wood Sorrel Drive which would be located approximately 150 feet to the north of the intersection of Wood Sorrel DrivefYarberry Drive. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2. Project Trip Generation For purposes of estimating the number of vehicle trips which the proposed future uses would be expected to generate, Trip Generation, Th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was used. This publication is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country, and is based on actual trip generation studies performed at numerous locations in areas of various populations. The anticipated trip generations of the proposed 21 residential units were determined by applying the Single Family Detatched Housing land use rates (ITE Land Use # 210). As shown in Table 3, the site would be expected to generate an average of 201 daily trips, including 16 during the morning peak hour and 21 during the evening peals hour. Trips were not deducted for the two residences that currently occupy the site and generate traffic, providing a conservative analysis. Table 3 Trip Generation Summary (Land Use Units Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Single Family Housing 21 DU 9.57 201 0.75 16 4 12 1.01 21 13 Note: DU = dwelling units Project Trip Distribution Data obtained from the 2000 Census indicates that approximately 40 percent of Petaluma residents work. south of Petaluma, 38 percent work within Petaluma, 12 percent work north of Petaluma, and the remaining 10 percent work east and west of Petaluma within Sonoma County. Trip distribution characteristics were determined by using the 2000 census as a general guide and then examining existing patterns of traffic on streets within the study area. It is projected that approximately 42 percent of traffic would be oriented to the north on North McDowell Boulevard, 43 percent to the south on North McDowell Boulevard, and I I percent to the west on Southpoint Boulevard, with the remaining 4 percent distributed on Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. Peak hour trip distribution assumptions are shown in Table 4. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 7 "� trans 2- w-tranY N N Ur IM Mn OVM 4D to 4p=— ------------- - M;= qm >R aw 'ru —_ .�wrs.,*,vr...1 :.Zn•._...,m a k.� MU- i,. _ ..s i� 17. .eaw.. IU)Tqd 1, G"pMG3CALX 0 yrt Source: Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. 11/05 .. ....... . ................ Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches ........ . . . .... . .. . .. .. .... ...... Figure 2 Site Plan City of Petaluma PUMA 2/06 Table 4 Peals Hour Trip Distribution Assumptions Origin/Destination Percent Vehicle Trips Daily AM Peak PM Peak McDowell Blvd south of Southpoint Blvd ...........................................1................................................................................................................................. 43 86 7 9 McDowell Blvd north of Southpoint Blvd ...I..................................................................................................................................................................•---....... 42 85 6 8 West on Southpoint Blvd ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 22 2 2 South on Wood Sorrel Drive ..................................................... ... ..................... 2 ..................... ................ 4 .... <1 ........................... ......................... <1 North on Wood Sorrel Drive .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 <1 <1 East on Yarberry Drive 1 2 <1 <1 Totals 100 201 16 21 The resulting project generated trips are shown in Figure 3. Existing plus Project Conditions The Existing plus Project scenario presents an evaluation of the potential traffic impacts which are expected to occur with the addition of traffic from the proposed project to the existing traffic levels. Under these conditions, all of the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS C or better during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours, with little increased delay. The Level of Service calculations are summarized in Table 2, and copies are provided in Appendix A. The project would add less than 10 peak hour trips toward the intersections of North McDowell Boulevard/Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard/Corona Road. This level of impact would result in negligible impacts. Site Access and Internal Circulation The project plan identifies two access points via new street connections on Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. The Yarberry Drive access point would be located approximately 235 feet east of Wood Sorrel Drive. Access at this new intersection would be stop -controlled where the proposed road approaches the existing street. Access to the project from Wood Sorrel Drive would be provided via a new street connection located approximately 150 feet north of Yarberry Drive. It is proposed that this new side street would be stop - controlled. Sight distances from each proposed street connection were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 5' Edition. The Highway Design Manual provides different sight distance standards for public streets versus private roads. The public street standard requires more sight distance than the private street standard, for the purpose of this project the public street requirement, based on corner sight distance, was used. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 9 w -trans 2-N The posted speed limit on Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive is 25 mph. For speeds of 25 mph, an intersection should have corner sight distance of at least 275 feet. From the proposed location of the Yarberry Drive connection point the sight distance to the east exceeds 450 feet and the sight distance to the west, where Yarberry Drive intersects with Wood Sorrel Drive, is approximately 275 feet. From the proposed access location on the east side of Wood Sorrel Drive the sight distance exceeds 500 feet. Therefore, these new connections would meet applied standards for corner sight distance. The access street is proposed with a width of 24 feet without parking. The east end of the street will include a 'hammerhear' turnaround. The turnaround will serve vehicles backing out of lot 1 I as well as a turnround area for other vehicles. The dimensions of the 'hammerhead' should serve passenger vehicles and passenger trucks, however, service vehicles such as garbage trucks may still need to back out approximately 5 lots in length before proceeding forward on the cross connection to Yarberry Drive. Parking Plans for the Birches show a proposed street width of 24 feet, which assumes no parking on the street, except for four parking pockets. Data and rates for peak parking demand available in Parking Generation, 3"d Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 show that the average demand for single family residential use is estimated to be 1.83 vehicles per dwelling unit with an 85`' percentile demand of 2.14 vehicles per dwelling unit. As each residence is proposed to have a 2 -car garage, as well as driveway space for at I to 2 additional cars, it appears that available parking will serve typical conditions. During peak parking conditions such as during holidays, parking activity will spill out onto Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. However, this parking would most likely occur on the sections of these streets which do not have existing residential uses fronting on the street. The sections of Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive which front the project would provide approximately 21 parking spaces. Alternative Transportation Modes Transit The project is located adjacent to public transit corridors, although it is anticipated that few, if any, trips from the site would be via public transit. Bicycle The project would be expected to generate a minor volume of bicycle traffic within the new and existing neighborhoods. This traffic can be accommodated on the streets as designed or existing. The existing facilities are expected to be adequate. Pedestrians Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by new sidewalks along the both sides of the street that would provide access to Yarberry Drive and Wood Sorrel Drive. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page I 1 W-cra-s 2A Ub Future Conditions The City of Petaluma has developed a Traffic Model for use in evaluating the potential traffic impacts of buildout of the land uses described in the current General Plan together with new or improved streets. The model is an electronic simulation of streets and roads, called links, and sub areas of the County, called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The links representing the street system and have values indicating capacity, travel speed, distance and lanes while TAZ's have values for various land use categories such as housing, commercial and industrial uses. The model uses an iterative process to assign trips originating in one zone to likely destination zones based upon home -to -work, shopping and work related trips. The accumulation of trips from each zone provides the anticipated traffic demand for each link in the system. Using a ratio of the traffic link volumes from the model for the year 2020 over existing traffic link volumes, future peak hour intersection turning movements at the study intersections were estimated by applying this ratio as a growth factor. Figure 4 shows the projected future a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The resulting intersection level of service conditions for these future volumes are shown in Table 5. Under this scenario, the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Table 5 Summary of Future Intersection Level of Service Calculations Intersection Future Conditions Future plus Project Approach Conditions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS North McDowell Blvd/Southpoint Blvd ............................................................................................................................................ ITI B 17.6 B 17.3 B .......................................................... 17.9 B Wood Sorrel Drive/Southpoint Blvd Eastbound (Southpoint) Approach ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10.4 B 11.1 B 10.5 B 11.3 B Wood Sorrel Drive[Yarberry Drive Westbound (Yarberry) Approach 9.7 A 10.3 B 9.8 A 10.4 B North McDowell Blvd/Corona Road nla 52.5 D nla - D North McDowell Blvd/Old Redwood Hwy nla 28.5 C nla - D Notes: Delay is in average number of seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Future plus Project Conditions The Future plus Project scenario presents an evaluation of the potential traffic impacts which are expected to occur with the addition of traffic from the proposed project together with expected year 2020 traffic levels. Under these conditions, the signalized intersection at North McDowell Boulevard/Southpoint Boulevard is expected to continue operating acceptably at LOS B. The unsignalized study intersections would continue to operate with acceptable levels of service for both the main and side street movements. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report `" tra"S February 23, 2006 Page 12 —� U 1 w -t ra n s N Traffic Impact Analysis .fo ..rt.......,. he Birches a City of Petaluma ........ ..... ...... .. .........Figure. 4. . Future Traffic Volumes PET1 Mal 2106 The intersections of North McDowell Boulevard/Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard/Corona Road would operate at LOS D. A summary of the Level of Service calculations is provided in Table 5, and copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix A. As previously noted, the project would add less than 10 peak hour trips toward the intersections of North McDowell Boulevard/Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard/Corona Road. This level of impact would result in negligible impacts. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 14 W-t`ans Conclusions and Recommendations • The proposed residential development is expected to generate an average of 201 daily trips, including 16 during the morning peak hour and 21 during the evening peak hour. • The existing study intersections are currently and are expected to continue operating acceptably under all scenarios evaluated. • The proposed new street connections have adequate corner sight distance criteria for public streets based on applied criteria from the Highway Design Manual. • Pedestrian, bicycle and transit access from the site is expected to be adequate. • The 'hammerhead' turnaround on the east side of the project will serve vehicles backing out of lot I I as well as a turnround area for other vehicles. Service vehicles such as garbage trucks may still need to backout approximately 5 lots before proceeding forward on the cross connection to Yarberry Drive. • The typical parking demand is expected to be accommodated within the development through the availability of parking in garages and driveways. Spillover parking would be served by approximately 21 parking spaces on the sections of Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive fronting the project. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma -- Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page 15 W -terns 2--112 Study Participants and References Study Participants Project Manager: Steve Weinberger, P.E., PTOE Assistant Engineer: Scott Robertson, EIT GraphicslTechnician: Deborah Dunn Data Collection: Jennifer Rhodes Report Review: Dalene J. Whitlock, P.E., PTOE References Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Trip Generation, 71" Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003 Highway Design Manual, 5t' Edition, Caltrans City of Petaluma General Plan PET[ 19 TH 00]440 Q m Traffic Impact Analysis for the Birches in the City of Petaluma — Updated Final Report February 23, 2006 Page I6 w -trans PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES THE BIRCHES 03-04-09 1. PURPOSE: ATTACHMENT E A. The purpose of this document is to provide written standards and design guidelines for the development of the Birches Subdivision. The overall objective is to provide specific standards and guidelines for the development of the site that is sensitive to abutting private and public lands while providing ownership opportunities for families on smaller and more affordable parcels. B. Provides ownership opportunities for families on smaller but more affordable parcels than traditional R2 lots. C. All City Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Unit District (PUD) Development Plan and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approvals shall be referenced for this project. D. The matters addressed herein are intended to supplement the City of Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance and building requirements and to promote environmentally sensitive and logical development of properties within the site. II. USES: Unless modified by the following, all uses shall conform to the R4 zoning district. A. Permitted Principal Uses: 1. Single -Family Residential 2. Small Family Daycare Facilities (Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 19.020-A) 3. Model homes along with temporary tract and property management offices and associated project identification signs are allowed until completion of sales. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance section 20.070 Temporary sales Office and Customer Signage. PUD DEV 53'05 Fina] 030409a - 1 - 4. Temporary construction offices in a construction trailer or building on the site until completion of construction. There may also be a temporary workshop and storage facility. Said offices, workshops and/or storage facilities shall be located no closer than 10 feet from a property line shared with an existing adjacent residence. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Private garages and off street temporary parking areas. 2. Private swimming pools and spas consistent with Residential 4 Zoning District Standards as stated within the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, section 7.080. 3. Decks, arbors, sheds, etc.: see VII.D. below. 4. Home occupations consistent with Implementing Zoning Ordinance requirements. 5. Other accessory uses and accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to permitted uses, in accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. C. Prohibited Uses: 1. All prohibited uses shall be in accordance with Residential 4 Zoning District Standards as stated within the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 2. Conversion of garage spaces to living or storage space. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit 4. Building additions (see VVII D for minor modifications allowed). An owner seeking a building addition would need a PUD amendment approval (typically minor), per the requirements of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 111. PROCEDURES A. The City of Petaluma shall review the design, site layout and landscaping plans prior to issuance of a building permit. B. Minor modifications to the PUD Development Standards may be approved in accordance with Section 19.070 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. PUD DEV 5TD5 Final 030404a 2 - 1-16 IV. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A. All grading activities shall be completed prior to October 15th unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Erosion Control Measures shall be installed per the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to said date. B. All grading and excavation shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report prepared for this project by Bauer Associates. The project's geotechnical engineer and the City of Petaluma shall approve the grading plans. V. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN A. The architectural design objectives for The Birches are to create a community following the Traditional Neighborhood Design concept. The most important aspect in the TND concept is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. The architecture achieves this by pairing homes according to garage location. The garage in one plan in the pair is forward, while the garage of the other plan is deeply recessed, thus forming a "two -pack" concept. The "two -pack" concept ensures that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. Additionally, all plans include functional front porches to further promote a pedestrian friendly streetscape. These porches further promote TND by creating a softer street edge for every house. Also, all "garage forward" plans will have architectural elements pulled in front of the garage for varied articulations and massing. The architectural themes, Craftsman, Bungalow and Cottage, were chosen to reflect the context of the City of Petaluma. Materials and colors true to each style are used for each elevation. In the Craftsman theme, shallow pitched roofs, long overhangs, exposed rafter tails, tapered wood columns, enhanced gable -end details, out lookers, roof brackets, lapped sidings, stone veneers, decorative porch railings and other authentic details are incorporated to further enrich the characteristics of this style. The Bungalow theme, utilized shallow pitched roofs, extended fascia details at gable -end roofs, enhanced gable -end trusses, detailed out lookers, tapered stone veneer columns with wood posts, tongue and groove sidings, stone veneers, pot shelf brackets, decorative porch railings and various trims to further enhance the theme. In the Cottage theme, steeper roof pitches are used, as well as, wood posts with brick veneer bases, decorative porch railings, enhanced gable -end louvered details, Cottage style shutters, mixture of lapped sidings and shingles, brick veneers and authentic trims. Trellises are added to some of the "garage forward" plans to further enhance the elevations. Porte- Cocheres with gates are included in some deep recessed garage plans to promote privacy and safety for the homeowners. Careful details and expressive styling will ensure that The Birches will be an attractive and a valuable addition to the Petaluma. PUD DEV STDS_Fina[ 030409a - 3 - H f t S L B. Roofing material shall be class "A" rated or better high definition composition shingles. Built-up tar and gravel, cap sheet, single -ply, and similar roofs are only acceptable if not visible from any surrounding property. C. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or landscape plans. D. Solar equipment, panels, or other collectors should give the appearance of being built-in to the structure. Exposed supports, excessive lengths of exposed piping, etc., are strongly discouraged. E. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet in height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture. VII. LOT SITING AND SETBACKS A. Minimum Lot size shall be 3,000 square feet. No further subdivision shall be permitted. B. Building setbacks shall be as shown on the approved PUD Development Plan. C. No structure shall encroach into any easement shown on the approved PUD Development Plans. D. The following improvements are permitted within the designated setback areas (where outside of any easement, such as the storm drain easement at the rear of most lots): On -grade patios into the rear yard usable area (see PUD plan). Decks not more than 18 inches above grade and steps from the first floor are permitted into the rear yard usable area (see PUD plan) provided they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line. Cover for decks and patios (arbors/gazebos and the like — either attached to or deattached from the house) and trellises are permitted in the rear yard usable area so long as they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line, do not exceed 10 feet in height, do not exceed 150 square feet in area, reflect the design theme and use compatible materials and finishes on the exterior to match the existing residence. PUD DEV s'rDS Fina] 030409a - a - Sheds not more than 9 feet in height provided they do not extend closer than 3 feet to a property line and do not exceed 50 feet. Pools; see section II.B.2 A.C. units within the rear yard usable area and at least 5 feet to any property line. Bay windows on the lower level rear elevation of a depth not greater than 3 feet provided that they do not comprise more than 113 the length of that building wall. Roof overhangs for a distance not greater than 3 ft provided the projection shall not exceed Y2 the width of the required setback. Landscaping, including planters. VI11. LANDSCAPE AND FENCING A. Landscaping and fencing for The Birches shall be as shown on the approved PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan. B. The developers shall be responsible for installing front yard and street - side landscaping, irrigation, and project fencing and the maintenance of all items until takeover by HOA. C. Future replacement of plants as shown on the PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan may be allowed if plants used are from the proposed plant lists as shown on said plan. Community Development Director must approve modifications to the approved plant list. D. All fence replacement must comply with the PUD Master Landscape and Fence Plan. Modifications to the approved fence design must be approved by Staff or SPARC. E. All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size unless otherwise specified; smaller (5 gallon) may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian access or based on site specific and design purposes. All trees shall be installed to City planting and staking standards. All shrubs shall be a minimum five -gallon size. All planted areas not improved with lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with a three-inch deep bark mulch as a temporary measure until the groundcover is established. F. All plant material shall be served by an automatic underground spray or stream bubbler irrigation system. G. All planting on each lot shall be maintained in good growing condition by the property owner. Maintenance of the "common" area will be addressed through the CC&R's for the project. Such maintenance shall include, PUD DEV STDS final 030409a - 5 - t 2_``tt where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas and the health and vitality of landscape materials. H. A master landscape plan of the street front areas shall be provided to Staff for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Front yard and streetscape landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a bond shall be obtained guaranteeing the installation of the landscaping at a more weather -permitting time. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets, driveways or walkways as needed, subject to City standards. J. All turf, groundcovers and shrubs shall be kept a minimum of 2' from the base of all newly planted trees. K. Landscape construction drawings shall contain detailed planting and irrigation plans for all public area landscaping, subject to City standards. Plans shall identify all proposed species and plant spacing and shall include planting details consistent with City standards. Plant quality specifications shall be provided to the landscape contractor for all public area street trees and submitted for staff review prior to approval of construction permits/public improvements. L. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed to avoid conflict with street tree planting locations within the street right-of-way. Transformer vaults, fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project without compromising public safety. M. All work within a public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works. IX. CONSTRUCTION A. All grading and major dust generating activities, when practical, shall be conducted in a manner that contains the dust within the immediate boundaries of the construction site. B. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). PUD DEV STD5 Final 030409a -6- C. Prior to any construction activity on the site, protective fencing shall be installed at the drip line of existing trees located within the immediate vicinity of proposed construction activity. These trees are identified for preservation per the arborist report prepared for the project. City Staff shall be notified by the project proponents prior to commencement of any work proposed closer than the driplines of trees recommended for preservation. All such activity, including excavation, pruning and root work shall be conducted under the supervision of the consulting arborist who will report to staff, with costs borne by the project proponents. D. High- or moderate -value trees in good condition (as identified under the arborist report for the subdivision) proposed for retention but subsequently damaged or removed during the course of construction shall be. replaced by the developer at the rate of three -l5- gallon size trees for each six inches of trunk diameter removed or damaged, as recommended by the consulting arborist. Species and location of the replacement trees shall be from the approved landscape plan. E. All City -authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and Saturday between 9;00 am and 5:00 pm, provided noise levels generated are within the limits of the City of Petaluma noise limits. No construction work shall be permitted on recognized holidays and Sundays. The developer shall designate a construction management person responsible for responding to any complaints generated regarding excessive noise during construction. A telephone number for contacting the designated individual shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The responsible authority shall determine the cause of noise complaints received and implement reasonable measure to resolve the issues. City staff shall monitor complaints received and take reasonable steps to resolve issues in a timely manner as they arise, including enforcement of abatement procedures to bring violations into conformance with the City General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance Performance standards. X. UNACCEPTABLE USES AND PRACTICES A. The following uses and practices are deemed to be nuisances. No use or practice shall be permitted to exist or operate within this property so as to be offensive or detrimental to any adjacent use, property, or its occupants, including residential inhabitants of adjacent property. B. Visible storage of junk, trash, mechanical equipment or non -operational vehicles; unpermitted storage of prohibited materials such as petroleum, oil, pesticides, paints, medical wastes and other hazardous materials. PUP DEV STDS_Final 030409a -7- 2-- 1 7- Z-1 ZO C. Any use, excluding reasonable construction activity, which emits particulate or gaseous matter, emits dust, sweepings, dirt or cinders into the atmospheres, or discharges liquid, solid wastes, or other matter into any stream, water course, river or other waterway, any of which activities may adversely affect the health or safety of persons, or vegetation, or comfort of or intended reasonable use of property by persons within the area. D. The discharge of any fumes, odor, gases, vapors, steam, acids or other substance into the atmosphere which in the opinion of the City may be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of any person, or may interfere with the comfort of persons within the area, or which may be harmful to property or vegetation. E. The radiation or discharge of intense glare or heat, or atomic, electromagnetic, microwave, ultrasonic, laser or other radiation. F. Any use which has the potential to create public health, fire or explosion hazard in the opinion of the City Fire Marshal. G. Excessive noise defined as that exceeding the decibel levels established in the City of Petaluma General Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. H. Excessive emissions of smoke, stream, or particular matter, defined as exceeding the standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Car repair. XI. EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARDS A. Whenever the standards contained in the PUD program do not address an aspect of physical development or use within the development, the Planning Director may regulate this development by interpreting the most comparable sections of other City Zoning Districts. The Director may also refer such questions of development standards or uses to either SPARC or Planning Commission for a decision. Any decision by the Director, SPARC, or Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council through standard appeal procedures contained in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. PUD DLV STDs Final 030409a - S - B. Exceptions to specific PUD Standards may be approved by Staff or SPARC provided that the overall design concept and desired quality is not compromised by the particular exception. X11. PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS PUD DEV 5TD5 Final 030409a _9_ -t Lz- CO VERED UNCO VERED = LOT PARKING PARKING SPACES SPACES 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 2 6 2 2 7 2 2 8 2 2 9 2 2 10 2 2 11 2 2 12 2 2 13 2 2 14 2 2 15 2 2 16 2 2 17 2 2 18 2 3 19 2 2 20 2 2 _9_ -t Lz- R.C.E. 49302 STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS M LAND SURVEYORS — LAND PLANNERS PETALUMA MARINA BUSINESS CENTER 775 BAYWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 312, PETALUMA, CA 94954 TEL 707-762-3122 FAX 707-762-3239 PROJECT NARRATIVE THE BIRCHES (Planned Unit District) SJLA REVISED 01-07-09 SITE DATA Site Address: 870 Wood Sorrel Drive A.P. No.: 137-061-022 Existing Zoning: Planned Community District (PCD) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit District (PUD) Existing Land Use: Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.1-18 du/ac Acreage: 2.21 acres (96,155 S.F.) Gross 1.72 acres (74,828 S.F.) Net Total Lots 21 Common Areas Parcel "A" 19,936 S.F. Smallest Lot Size Lot 4 3,122 S.F. Largest Lot Size Lot 21 4,066 S.F. Average Lot Size 3,563 S.F. Density 12.2 du/ac ATTACHMENT F P. L.S. 6368 The project being submitted for review is for Tentative Subdivision Map and a rezoning to a Planned Unit District (PUD) consisting of 21 lots and a commonly owned parcel. The project has been previously reviewed as a preliminary submittal by SPARC (04 - PRE -0593) on October 28, 2004. Based on that initial review the site plan and unit architecture was redesigned. A second preliminary submittal was made to SPARC (04 - PRE -0660) and was reviewed on December 9, 2004. Additional changes have been made to the plan based on committee input. Both preliminary reviews consisted of site plans -1_ 2_[Z+ for 2.21 acre and 0.54 acre parcels. This application only addresses the development of the 2.21 acre site. The following information is based on the comments that have been received by City of Petaluma staff and SPARC members in conjunction with previous submittal(s) and meetings. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 2.21 acre site is located in northwest portion of Petaluma. The property is one of the last remaining undeveloped sites that were annexed to the City of Petaluma over the last 30 years under North Petaluma Reorganization No. 8 dated October 27, 1980. Over that time the area has been developed with single-family planned unit districts and profession offices. It is surrounded to the west by the McDowell Meadows, Unit No. 1, to the north by the Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No. 2, to the east by Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No, 1 and by a vacant 0.54 -acre parcel to the south. The vacant parcel is owned by the developer and is not a part of this application. The site is also immediately surrounded by Wood Sorrel Drive to the south and Yarberry Drive to the east. Two small public parcels that were dedicated with the filing of the Meadow Park Subdivision, Unit No. 1 are located adjacent to the site at the northeasterly and southeasterly corners. These parcels are presently being used for landscaping. The site is currently undeveloped. A significant amount of concrete and asphalt surfacing is located on the site. Two single-family residences, a workshop, two barns and some small sheds were all deemed historically insignificant and removed from the site. The authorized removal of these existing structures was recommended by Carey & Company Inc. Historical Evaluation Report (2006). The site is flat (I% to 3%) with a maximum elevation change of approximately 2 feet. The site grading for the developments to the west and north were filled and required the construction of retaining walls ranging from 1 to 3 feet in height. PROPOSED PROJECT The project being presented for review is for 21 lot planned unit district subdivision with a private street, private sanitary sewer, private storm drain and a public water main. Development Standards and CC&R's are being created to control zoning, design and private enforcement. Site Plait The proposed site plan focuses on integrating a new small neighborhood into the existing setting. The site design objectives, which we believe have been successfully satisfied, are as follows: • To create a desirable community where people can live and appreciate the character setting of the environment. -2- z --(?.5 + Neighborhoods are to be developed in a warm and nostalgic context with architecture that is noticeably different but reflect within the context of the City of Petaluma. a To create project continuity through incorporation of a community structure composed of. 1) a landscape framework, 2) architectural character, and 3) strong pedestrian access. • Create a pleasant sense of place as a community with enhanced entry arrival sequences. Main entry will have intensified landscape treatments with comfortable pedestrian edge conditions. ® To abide by the concepts of traditional neighborhood design land planning, and create a traditional neighborhood development concept with street friendly environments. The architectural design objectives for The Birches are to create a community following the Traditional Neighborhood Design concept. The most important aspect in the TND concept is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. The architecture achieves this by pairing homes according to garage location. The garage in one plan in the pair is forward, while the garage of the other plan is deeply recessed, thus forming a "two -pack" concept. The "two -pack" concept ensures that the street -scene will not be dominated by garages. Additionally, all plans include functional front porches to further promote a pedestrian friendly streetscape. These porches further promote TND by creating a softer street edge for every house. Also, all "garage forward" plans will have architectural elements pulled in front of the garage for varied articulations and massing. The architectural themes, Craftsman, Bungalow and Cottage, were chosen to reflect the context of the City of Petaluma. Materials and colors true to each style are used for each elevation. In the Craftsman theme, shallow pitched roofs, long overhangs, exposed rafter tails, tapered wood columns, enhanced gable -end details, out lookers, roof brackets, lapped sidings, stone veneers, decorative porch railings and other authentic details are incorporated to further enrich the characteristics of this style. The Bungalow theme, utilized shallow pitched roofs, extended fascia details at gable -end roofs, enhanced gable - end trusses, detailed out lookers, tapered stone veneer columns with wood posts, tongue and groove sidings, stone veneers, pot shelf brackets, decorative porch railings and various trims to further enhance the theme. In the Cottage theme, steeper roof pitches are used, as well as, wood posts with brick veneer bases, decorative porch railings, enhanced gable -end louvered details, Cottage style shutters, mixture of lapped sidings and shingles, brick veneers and authentic trims. Trellises are added to some of the "garage forward" plans to further enhance the elevations. Parte-Cocheres with gates are included in some deep recessed garage plans to promote privacy and safety for the homeowners. Careful details and expressive styling will ensure that The Birches will be an attractive and a valuable addition to the Petaluma. -3- z_- i 7-L Landscaping Design ® The site landscape is designed to provide seasonal changes in foliage color, bloom and fragrance by using a variety of native and ornamental plant materials. With the balanced use of drought tolerant fescue lawn and native drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcovers, this water conserving landscape design successfully ties in with ordinances of the City of Petaluma. The Birches development uses clusters of European White Birches at the entries and throughout the development as a landscape theme. Surrounding, and within the clusters, will be mounding, boulders, and dry streambeds to accentuate the birch tree form. Design elements such as these, and others incorporated into this project, strengthen and accentuate the concept of pedestrian friendly community. ® Pedestrian access from Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive extends into the residential development. Tree lined sidewalks provide opportunity for pedestrian circulation. Distinct main entryways deter non -neighborhood automobile traffic from entering the private neighborhood. ® The landscape is organized to provide the following: -attractive and functional streetscape design -flowing, easy access pathway layout to be in compliance with ADA codes -well-defined vehicular entry and parking areas -appealing, low -maintenance front yard designs ® All planting areas will be automatically irrigated via high efficiency spray, or bubbler treads and ET -based controllers to conserve water above the usual water use level within residential developments. Plants with similar water requirements will be grouped into hydro zones for water conservation and maintaining long- term plant health. A residential -quality wood property fence is proposed for the project to separate adjacent backyards and provide privacy. Finish will be carefully chosen to match the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape. Wood sound walls are proposed for the specific areas designated by the sound engineer, and will decrease environmental noise levels from major streets for the residents of the subdivision. The finish of these walls will be chosen to blend into the natural enviromnent. Access and Circulation Vehicle: The proposed vehicular access to the site will be from two locations. A private street will intersect at Wood Sorrel Drive to the south and Yarberry Dive to the cast. The private street will be 20 feet in width with four on -street parking pullouts and will accommodate two-way traffic. The private street has been designed to allow emergency service vehicles to access the site. An `Emergency Vehicle Access Exhibit' has been prepared showing the tracking of the trucks body, rear and front wheels. The exhibit shows access from Wood Sorrel Drive and from Yarberry Drive. The exhibit also shows a three-point turn at interior private street intersection. -4- 2.-"12..7 Portions of the curbs shall be painted and required signage placed along the private street that will not allow any on -street parking other than as provided in the CC&R's. The CC&R's will allow parking pullouts as shown on the approved PUD Development Plans. Parking Refer to Section XII of the PUD Development Standards for parking allocation for each lot. The proposed CC&R's will require that garages be used for vehicle parking and not for storage allowing for off-street visitor parking. Parking pullouts are allowed as shown on the approved PUD Development Plans. Approximately 21 existing parking spaces are located along Yarberry Drive and Wood Sorrel Drive frontages. Pedestrian and Bicycle Pedestrian access to the site will be from the public sidewalks on Yarberry Drive and Wood Sorrel Drive. A 4 -foot wide private sidewalk is proposed to be located on both sides of the private street. Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive are not listed in the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan Matrix of Proposed Bikeways 1999 and will remain a Class III route. The private street will not have any bike paths but should be bicycle friendly since there will only be 4 on -street parking pull outs. No public access is being proposed for the site. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by W -Trans and has been submitted as a part of this application. Sanitary Server The project will connect to the existing 8" public sanitary sewer system located in Wood Sorrel Drive with the construction of a manhole. The entire on-site sanitary sewer system will be private and be maintained by Homeowners Association (HOA). See the Preliminary Utility Plan prepare by Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. (SJLA) for proposed locations. Final construction documents will formalize the design. Storer Drain The storm drainage from the project will be captured into two storm drain systems. The first system will be located along the rear of the proposed lots No. 1 to No. 11. It will discharge to the existing storm drain system on Wood Sorrell Drive, via an existing storm drain catch basin. The second storm drain system will cover the rest of the project. It will be located within the private street and along the rear of the proposed lots No. 12 to No. 21. This system will tie into the existing storm drain system on Yarberry Drive, via an existing catch basin. -5- 2:1Zt The storm drains will be privately maintained by the HOA. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans along with Preliminary Utility Plans have been prepared by SJLA to conceptually demonstrate the civil design for the storm drain system, stormwater treatment and storm drainage detention. Final construction documents and drainage reports will formalize the design. Storm Water Treatment The stormwater from the project will be treated in hydrodynamic separators. The project will provide one hydrodynamic separator per each storm drain system. The hydrodynamic separators will be located on the project, close to the existing discharge catch basins on Wood Sorrell Drive and Yarberry Drive. The storm drains will be privately maintained by the HOA. Storm Drainage Detention The storm drainage from the project will be detained in an underground pipe storage. The detention pipe will be a part of the second storm drain system (that will drain the private street and the rear of lots No. 12 to No. 21.). This detention pipe will be located along the lot line between lots No. 19 and No. 20. The detention pipe will ultimately drain to the exiting storm drain system on Yarberry Drive. The detention pipe will be privately maintained by the HOA. No detention will be required for the first storm drain system (that will drain the rear of lots No. 1 to No. 11). Water The project will provide a looped water main that will connect to the existing 8" public water mains located in Wood Sorrel Drive and Yarberry Drive. The proposed on-site system will be publicly maintained. A public water main easement will be dedicated on the final map. Two new fire hydrants are proposed for the development. Locations are subject to the Fire Marshal's Office approval, Preliminary Utility Plans have been prepared by SJLA to conceptually demonstrate the civil design for the water main system. Final constriction documents will formalize the design. Public Utilities The existing 10' wide public utility easement, as shown on Parcel Map No. 238, filed in Book 436 of Maps at page 1, Sonoma County Records will be vacated. A proposed 5' wide utility easement will be dedicated to the public. Joint utilities are located underground within the existing easement. A portion of Parcel "A" excepting that -6- 2-(Z'. portion dedicated as a public water main easement will be dedicated on the final map as a public utility easement. All proposed joint utilities should be placed underground. Development Standards and Design Guidelines Draft Development Standards and Design Guidelines have been prepared as required tinder Section 19.040 (P.U.D. District Procedures). See attached. Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) Section 19.020E requires that CC&R's be submitted as a part of the application. CC&R's are being prepared and will create a Homeowners Association (HOA) for enforcement and maintenance of private infrastructure. See attached. Supplemental and Supporting Reports A number of reports can be required for the PUD Tentative Map application submittal. The following is a list of reports that have been prepared: Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates Report: Detention & Stormwater Treatment Report Traffic Impact Study — W -Trans — Updated 2-23-06 Preliminary Title Report — Old Republic Title Company Geotecbnical Investigative Report — Bauer Associates Environmental Noise Assessment — Illingworth & Rodkin, hie. — Updated 2-15-06 Biological Assessment — Golden Bear Biostudies Historical Evaluation Report — Carey & Company Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report _. Horticultural Associates Accompanying this submittal package are additional supporting documents, exhibits and reports that address project objectives in greater detail. These include the following: PUD Development Standards PUD Checklist Development Schedule CC&R's -7- ATTACHMENT H r 47 Dur ® �ROUT �K RI �- ivory I l94! - fj MF mxnW Pw�, P�j� MAP DETP.IL