HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 2019-21 11/19/2019RESOLUTION 2019-21
CITY OF '_ ' PLANNING COMMISSIOI
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SID COMMONS
APARTMENT PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, J. Cyril Johnson Investment Corp. ("Applicant") submitted an application to the City of
Petaluma for a 278 -unit apartment project with a community clubhouse and a swimming pool,
terracing of the Petaluma River bank, and ancillary improvements; and
WHEREAS, current entitlement requests submitted by the applicant include a Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone APN 019-010-009 from the Oak Creek Apartments PUD to R4 (Residential 4 and a
Planned Unit Development (PUD)) and Amendment to remove references to APN 019-010-009 that will
no longer be part of the PUD after the Zoning Map Amendment and to reflect the as built Oak Creek
Apartments, and
WHEREAS, subsequent entitlements will enable development of the Sid Commons Apartment
project including Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Lot Line Adjustment or Tentative Parcel Map'
to divide APN-009 from land on the east side of the Petaluma River and, if desired, realign parcels to
reflect final site design.
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was
prepared and circulated to all responsible and affected agencies for consultation on the scope of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to be prepared for the project pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2007, a public Scoping Meeting was held to solicit comments from the
public on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, based on the Scoping Meeting and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft EIR dated March 1, 2018 (SCH No. 2007072041) in accordance with Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq, which reflected the
independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the original project; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was published in the Argus Courier on March
1, 2018, and mailed to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site (meeting CEQA's notice
requirements); and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45 -day public review period from March
1, 2018 to April 16, 2018 and the City continued to accept public comments through the City Council
hearing on May 21, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to those public
agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and
agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
1 As the tentative parcel map proposes to create three parcels, its approval would be conducted administratively, anticipated to occur
following SPAR approval,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2018 to consider the Draft
EIR, the purpose of the hearing being to inform the public about the contents of the Draft EIR and to
receive oral comments about the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 21, 2018 to consider the Draft EIR, the
purpose of the hearings being to inform the public about the contents of the Draft EIR and to receive
oral comments about the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, written and oral comments on the Draft EIR have been received and responses to
those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR");
and,
WHEREAS, in response to significant environmental conclusions reached in the Draft EIR and in
response to public comments on the Draft EIR, including concerns raised during the public hearings on
the Draft EIR by City Planning Commissioners and City Council members, the Applicant submitted a
revised concept site plan for evaluation in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project proposes a 205 -unit apartment project with a community
clubhouse and a swimming pool, terracing of the west bank of the Petaluma River, a Habitat Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan, an emergency vehicle access drive at Bernice Court, as well as modifications and
revisions to the original Project (now the "Revised Project") to reduce and/or avoid significant impacts
that would have otherwise occurred pursuant to the original project including removal of the at -grade
crossing of the railway via an extension of Shasta Avenue and setting development back from the River
and outside the Petaluma River Plan Corridor,
WHEREAS, the Revised Project also proposes to address an exceedance of the City's Street
Design and Construction Standards & Specifications by implementing a Traffic Calming Plan for
improvements along Graylawn and Jess Avenues to enhance livability along these residential streets;
and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project boundaries are contained within the property at the terminus of
Graylawn Avenue, east of the railway, west of the River on APNs 019-010-009, 019-010-006, a portion of
the River bank for terracing purposes on APN 019-010-007 occupied by the existing Oak Creek
Apartments, and 019-010-008 for access; and
WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Revised Project have been analyzed and compared
to the environmental effects of the original project, and that analysis has been included in the Final EIR,
concluding that;
a) no new significant environmental impacts not previously identified in the Draft EIR would result
from the Revised Project, and
b) no substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact has been
identified as resulting from the Revised Project, and no additional mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance, and
c) there is no feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of
the Revised Project and that the Project applicant declines to adopt; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Final EIR was published in the Argus Courier on
October 31, 2019, mailed to residents and occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, filed with the Sonoma
County Clerk and State Clearinghouse (exceeding CEQA's notice requirements), published on the City's
website, and made available for public review and comments at City Hall, the City Community Center
and the Public Library; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was circulated for more than the required 10 -day public review period
from October 31, 2019 to November 19, 2019; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 2
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Final EIR in conformance with CEQA to those public
agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and
agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019 and October 29, 2019 the Applicant held neighborhood
meetings to create dialogue with community members, provide information and updates on the
Revised Project, and address concerns; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on November 19, 2019,
at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to a less
than significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Revised Project will
require adoption of Findings on Impacts and Mitigations as set forth in attached Exhibit 1; and,
WHEREAS, the Revised Project will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts as all
potential impacts identified in the EIR can adequately be avoided, reduced or mitigated such that they
do not constitute significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised
Project and therefore no statement of overriding consideration is required for approval of the Revised
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Revised 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 Revised 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; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced to
a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and set forth
in Exhibit 2 to ensure that all mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of
the Project are fully implemented; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma
and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information presented in the Final EIR
prior to making recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record
of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall, 1 1
English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the above recitals are true
and correct and incorporated by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following recommendations to
the City Council:
1. Certify that the Sid Commons Apartments Final EIR, inclusive of the Draft EIR and references and
all attachments thereto, have been completed in compliance with CEQA;
2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, adopt the Findings
regarding potentially significant effects of the Revised Project and mitigation measures
contained in the attached Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 3
3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the attached Exhibit 2,
which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the
Findings are fully implemented. Compliance with the MMRP set forth therein shall be a condition
of any subsequent Project approval.
4. Find that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of
another agency, adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should
be adopted and/or implemented by said agency.
ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2019, by the following vote:
Commission Member
Aye
No
Absent
Abstain
Councilmember McDonnell
X
Chair Alonso
X
Vice Chair Bauer
X
Gomez
X
Marzo
X
Potter
X
Streeter
X
ATTEST:
Heather Hines, Commission Secretary
Scott Alonso, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-17
Lisa Tennenbaum, Assistant City Attorney
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 4
EXHIBIT 1
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes the following Findings with respect to the potential for significant
environmental impacts of the Sid Commons Apartment Project as Revised (File No. #03 -GPA -
0379) ("Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these Findings, the
term Environmental Impact Report (EIR) means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively,
unless otherwise specified.
These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environment impact contained
in the EIR. Instead, the Findings provide a summary description of each impact, identify the
applicable mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state Findings
on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full
explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is in the EIR, and these Findings
hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the
EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation
measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these Findings are found in the
record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the
analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the
determination and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and
expressly modified by these Findings. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the
following Findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final
EIRs should be consulted for a complete description .of the impacts and mitigations.
Aesthetics
Views
Impact Visual -2: The Project could substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Visual -2, Implement Mitigation Bio -10A: Limitations on Improvements
within the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (see below Biology section for details)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project does not contain buildings that encroach into the River Plan
Corridor Boundary. The only improvements allowed within the River Plan Corridor include the
river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the Planning Commission could
allow minor encroachments associated with residential improvements, such as a detention basin
and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer management zone, if found to be consistent
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 5
with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to the River Plan Corridor. Therefore, after
applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Visual Character
Impact Visual -3: The Project could potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings due to the removal of mature trees and conflict with the River
Plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Visual -3A, Inclusion in SPAR: The Site Plan and Architectural Review process for
the Project shall include an evaluation and review of the Project for the creation of a lush
landscape plan that accommodates significant trees (see also Mitigation Bio -9: Incorporation of
Native Plants in Landscaping Plans); adequate setbacks and/or landscaping between existing
abutting residential structures; and the creation of linear open space corridors with maximum
public accessibility and visibility.
Visual -313, Implement Mitigation Bio -1013: River Oriented Development Zone (RODZ) review
at SPAR (see Biology section for details)
Mitigation Visual -3C, Implement Mitigation Bio -11A: Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees
(see Biology section for details)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires the architectural and site plan review (which will
occur pursuant to Section 24.010 of the IZO prior to the issuance of any building permits) to
consider the precise massing and architectural design against required setbacks, height
limitations, site coverage and other development standards. These standards, as reviewed
pursuant to the SPAR process, will ensure that the proposed development is attractive and
consistent with existing development in the vicinity. During SPAR review, specific tree
preservation requirements shall also be monitored for compliance, and the SPAR process may
consider additional site design modifications to further increase tree preservation. Therefore,
after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Light and Glare
Impact Visual -4: Development of the Project could create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Visual -4, Glare Minimization Design Standards: Measures (such as
fixtures that cast light in a downward direction, lighting designed to minimize glare and direct
views of light sources, lighting that does not blink, flash or of unusually high intensity, etc.) shall
be applied to reduce light and glare at the site.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 6
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires compliance with regulatory requirements for glare as
found in Section 21.010 of the IZO, as well as lighting fixtures that cast light in a downward
direction, are designed to minimize glare and direct views of light sources, and that do not blink,
flash or produce unusually high intensity light. Therefore, after applying these measures, the
impact would be less than significant.
Air Quality
Construction Period PM10 Emissions
Impact AQ -2: The Project could result in air quality impacts related to fugitive dust (PM10)
during construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure AQ -2A, Basic Dust Control: The Project shall comply with all "Basic"
mitigation measures as recommended by BAAQMD for reducing construction related emissions.
Mitigation Measure AQ -2B, Enhanced Dust Control: Because of the size of the site and the
proximity of nearby sensitive receptors, the Project shall also comply with "Enhanced"
mitigation measures as recommended by BAAQMD for reducing construction related emissions.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce fugitive dust
emissions from grading as recommended by BAAQMD. Exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and trucks for criteria pollutants would be below BAAQMD criteria pollutant
thresholds as described in the EIR, and would be further minimized through implementation of
measures during construction activities. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact
would be less than significant.
Construction -Period Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Impact AQ -4: Use of heavy-duty off-road and on -road construction equipment would produce
emissions of toxic air contaminants, including diesel PM2.5. Emissions from these construction
activities would exceed the off-site threshold of significance for community risk and hazards.
This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation AQ -4, Construction -Period DPM Emission Reductions: All off-road construction
equipment greater than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4
Final off-road emission standards. The Contractor may use the next cleanest piece of off-road
equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy
[VDECS], Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS or Tier 3 Engine with alternative fuel) only under
specified circumstances.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2019-21 Page 7
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Use of Tier 4 off-road construction equipment engines can reduce
tailpipe emissions of particulate matter (including PM2.5, or DPM) by as much as 95 to 97
percent over tailpipe emission levels from non-regulated engines. A 96% reduction in
construction -period emissions would equate to a comparable 96% reduction in annual average
DPM concentrations, and a similar 96% reduction in lifetime excess cancer risk, Chronic Health
Index, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations. Implementation of these control measures
would reduce diesel particulate matter emissions such that health risk impacts related to
construction activities would be reduced to below applicable threshold levels. Therefore, after
applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Biological Resources
Special Status Bird and Bat Species
Impact Bio -2: Implementation of the Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on
candidate, sensitive or special -status bird and bat species, both directly and through habitat
modification. Affected species possibly include White -Tailed Kite, Allen's Hummingbird,
Loggerhead Shrike, salt marsh common yellowthroat, several raptor species and potential
suitable roosting habitat for some bat species such as the pallid bat. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -2a: Pre -Construction Nesting Surveys. If grading operations or
construction is scheduled during the nesting season of migratory birds (February 1 through
August 30), trees in the Project site shall be surveyed including call surveys as appropriate for
nesting migratory birds. If an active nest is found prior to, or during construction activities, an
appropriate buffer zone shall be maintained around all active nest sites until the young have
fledged and are foraging independently. In the event that an active nest is found after the
completion of preconstruction surveys and after construction begins, all construction activities
shall be stopped until a qualified biologist has evaluated the nest and erected the appropriate
buffer.
Mitigation Measure Bio -2b, Pre -Construction Tree Roost Surveys: For all tree removal and
vegetation management activities, pre -construction surveys and measures shall be implemented
to protect bats. In the event that an active roost is observed within the work area, then a work
exclusion zone shall be established. Work within the exclusion zone shall not be permitted until
the maternity roosting season has completed.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The required nesting surveys and protection of any identified nests or
roost would prevent harm to special status bird and bat species, and would prevent harm to
common types of birds. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than
significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 8
Special Status Reptile, Amphibian and Fish Species
Impact Bio -3: Grading and construction activities associated with the Project's terraced grading
plan along the banks of the River could result in an adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or
special -status reptile, and amphibian and fish species, both directly and through habitat
modification. Affected species possibly include California red -legged frog and Western pond
turtle, and degradation of special status fisheries habitat. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -3A, Limitations on the Grading Period: To the extent feasible, limit
grading in the river area to the dry season, between June 15 and October 15, when low flow
conditions are present in the River. Limit vegetation removal to the period between June 15 and
November 15 to avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish species and nesting birds, and to
avoid interfering with adult spawning migrations or the outmigration of smolts.
Mitigation Measure Bio -3B, Pre -Construction Surveys: A qualified USFWS-approved
biologist shall conduct pre -construction surveys of all ground disturbance areas within suitable
habitats in the Project site to determine if California red -legged frogs and Western pond turtles
are present prior to the start of grading operations.
Mitigation Measure Bio -3C, Relocation: If any special status species are found, they shall be
relocated or an exclusion zone shall be established and maintained around the occupied habitat
until the biological monitor, in consultation with the resource agencies, determines construction
activities can proceed in these zones.
Mitigation Measure Bio -31), Implement Best Management Practices: Avoidance and
minimization measures shall be employed prior to and during construction, as required and/or
approved by the resource agencies, to protect special status species and sensitive habitats.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all
required authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps, the RWQCB, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction, for the disturbance of waters of
the U.S. and their associated aquatic habitat. In addition to all avoidance and minimization
measures as required by these resource agency authorizations, the identified mitigation measures
would reduce potential impacts of the Project on special status species and sensitive habitats.
With completion of the Project's reconstructed river terrace and implementation of the Project's
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), habitat for these species will be restored and
possibly increased. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the
impact would be less than significant.
Seasonal Wetlands
Impact Bio -4: Development of the Project will result in the direct removal and fill of
approximately 0.34 acres of seasonal wetlands defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2019-21 Page 9
jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -4, Compensation for Seasonal Wetlands Fill: The Project applicant
shall provide on-site compensatory mitigation sufficient to achieve a no -net -loss standard,
subject to additional requirements of the permitting agencies. Compensatory mitigation shall be
achieved through creation, restoration and enhancement of wetland habitat acreage at appropriate
locations within the Project site. The newly created, restored or enhanced wetlands shall provide
higher quality wetlands habitat value than the low value habitat lost from Project fill and terrace
grading.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of the identified mitigation measure, the City will
ensure that wetland mitigation fully compensates for the loss of wetland acreage and wetland
habitat values resulting from the Project, such that there is no net loss of wetland acreage and
values. The mitigation measure identified above is the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation
requirements (as lead agency). Subsequent permit requirements may result in different
(potentially greater) mitigation obligations, particularly regarding compensatory mitigation
ratios, which shall be based on site-specific information and determined through coordination
with the Corps and RWQCB. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory
requirements, the impact would be less than significant.
Riparian Habitat
Impact Bio -5: The Project's proposed terraced grading plan for the banks of the Petaluma River
could result in substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat by removing approximately 1.62
acres of riparian habitat (most of which is considered lower quality non-native Himalayan
blackberry vegetation). Approximately 0.30 acres of higher quality native riparian vegetation
along the River would be preserved where practical, without severely diminishing the hydraulic
flood flow capacity of the terracing project. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -5A, Riparian Preservation Zone: Final grading plans for the
Project's proposed terraced grading concept along the Petaluma River shall show a Riparian
(Willow) Preservation Zone of a minimum of 0.30 acres in size, where the preservation of
existing high-quality riparian vegetation shall be achieved, while still accommodating an overall
widened channel design that provides acceptable flood control containment. As the River Plan
calls for all development (including grading and flood control alterations) to be severely
restricted within the high priority Riparian Preservation Zone, all development, including trails,
grading and flood control alterations, shall be prohibited in this Zone. (Minimal intrusions in a
carefully selected location could be authorized by the City for interpretive purposes only).
Mitigation Measure Bio -513, Riparian Tree Preservation: Special measures (such as
temporary fencing) to protect riparian and oak woodland trees within and abutting the riparian
zone shall be required for river terracing and riverside path construction.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 10
Mitigation Measure Bio -5C, Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: A final Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
regulatory agencies and the City. The City shall authorize the HMMP prior to issuance of the
terrace grading plans. The Final HMMP shall be implemented.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all
required authorizations from the CDFW (as applicable) for the loss or disturbance of on-site
riparian vegetation resulting from development of the property. Any substantial change or use of
any material from the bed, channel or bank of the River, or any change that may substantially
adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources will require CDFW issuance of a Streambed
Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602. Implementation of required
mitigation measures will ensure preservation of the maximum extent of riparian habitat, while
balancing the need for expanded floodway capacity within the Petaluma River. The Project's
HMMP provides for preservation of existing highest -value habitat along the river, removal of
invasive monocultures of Himalayan blackberry patches, creation and restoration of riparian
habitat and revegetation of the graded and re-contoured terrace area with native riparian
vegetation. Following grading activities, approximately 2.08 acres of graded terraces will be
replanted with riparian trees and shrubs, and an additional area of 0.71 acres along the River will
be planted with marsh/wetland plants, for a total of 2.79 acres of replanted riparian habitat. With
the 0.30 acres of avoided high quality riparian habitat, the result of on-site riparian habitat
preservation and restoration will be 3.09 acres, which will be more and higher quality riparian
habitat than currently exists. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less
than significant.
Waters of the US
Impact Bio -6: The Project's terraced grading activity within the Petaluma River floodplain
could result in the disturbance of jurisdictional non -wetland waters, and could indirectly affect
these waters through hydrological interruption, alteration of bed and bank, increased
sedimentation and other construction -related activities. These activities could potentially result in
substantial adverse effects on aquatic habitat within the Petaluma River and interference with the
movement of native resident and migratory fish. This is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -6, Terraced Grading Erosion Control/Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan: The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a specific Terraced Grading
Erosion Control Plan for all terrace grading work and trail construction within and abutting the
Petaluma River floodplain. The discharge or creation of potential discharge of any soil material
including silts, clay, sand, or any other materials to the waters of the State is prohibited.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 11
Rationale for Finding: Pursuant to existing regulations, the applicant is required to obtain all
necessary authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps, the RWQCB, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction (as applicable) for the
disturbance of waters of the U.S. and their associated aquatic habitat. Mitigation would further
reduce and/or avoid indirect effects to aquatic habitat during construction and minimize potential
adverse effects to aquatic habitat within the Petaluma River associated with proposed grading
along the riverbank. The mitigation measure identified above presents the City of Petaluma's
baseline mitigation requirements (as lead agency). Subsequent permit requirements may result in
different (potentially greater) mitigation obligations based on site-specific information and
determined through agency coordination. Any additional agency requirements will be
incorporated as conditions of approval. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact
would be less than significant.
Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridor
Impact Bio -7: The Project could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or
migratory wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors
along the Petaluma River. Grading of the floodway terrace and trimming and clearing vegetation
next to and within the River may temporarily hinder the migration of aquatic and riparian
wildlife species. The increased presence of people as well as outdoor lighting associated with
new development may adversely affect the behavior of nocturnal animals using the River's
riparian corridor for cover or foraging. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -7A, Hooding or Shielding of Outdoor Lighting Fixtures: All
outdoor lighting including any lighting along the river trail shall be focused and directed to the
specific location intended (e.g., walkways, sidewalks, paths). Such fixtures shall be hooded or
shielded to avoid the production of glare, minimize up -lighting and light spill. All light fixtures
shall be located, aimed, or shielded to minimize spill -light into the riparian corridor and
associated trees; this shall be demonstrated as a component of SPAR review. The River Plan
Design Guidelines states that some portions of the river trail may be lit.
Mitigation Measure Bio -713, Pre -Construction Surveys (see Mitigation Measure Bio -2A)
Mitigation Measure Bio -7C, Limitations on the Grading Period (see Mitigation Measure
Bio -3A)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation will reduce the environmental impacts of
nighttime lighting on native riparian habitat by siting and using light fixtures located, aimed and
shielded to minimize light spill into the riparian corridor and associated trees. Mitigation also
requires pre -construction surveys and avoidance measures, including restricting grading
operations to the dry season (between June 15 and October 15) when low flow conditions are
present in the River, and restricting vegetation removal to the period of June 15 to November 15
to avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish species and nesting birds. The City will not issue
grading permits for work within the Riverbanks prior to the applicant obtaining all necessary
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 12
resource agency permits and approvals, including the incorporation of all subsequent conditions
and requirements of these agency approvals into the proposed grading plans. Therefore, after
applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Invasive Species
Impact Bio -9: The Project could result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat through
the introduction of invasive, non-native plants with low habitat value, posing an increased threat
to native riparian habitats. Invasion by exotic species can severely degrade the value of riparian
areas for wildlife. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -9, Incorporation of Native Plants in Landscaping Plans: As part of
the Site Plan and Architectural Review process, the applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan for
review and approval by the City. The Landscape Plan shall incorporate planting of native trees
and ground cover plants consistent with the goals and objectives for this reach of the River as
described in the River Plan.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires planting of native tress and ground cover, consistent
with the goals and objectives of the River Plan, thereby reducing the potential degradation of
riparian areas from the introduction of non-native species. Additionally, mitigation measure Bio -
5C requires a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan including restoration, removal of invasive
and exotic species and replanting and maintenance of native species. Ongoing monitoring
associated with the HMMP will include success criteria for establishment of natives, and
management to preclude the introduction and spread of invasive/exotic species. Therefore, after
applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Consistency with Petaluma River Plan Corridor
Impact Bio -10: The Project could conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting
biological resources, including the City's Petaluma River Plan Corridor. The Project's site plan
does not include any residential structures that intrude into the River Plan's designated River
Corridor, but does include the riverside trail, terracing and restoration activities within the River
Corridor, as well as minor encroachments for a residential sidewalk and a proposed bio -retention
basin (if found to be consistent with the River Plan Corridor by Planning Commission). This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Bio -10A, Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma River Plan
Corridor: No residential structures or directly related residential components of the Project shall
extend into the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (comprised of the Preservation, Restoration and
Buffer Management Zones of the River Plan). The only improvements allowed within the River
Plan Corridor include the river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the
Planning Commission could allow minor encroachments associated with residential
improvements, such as a detention basin and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer
management zone, if found to be consistent with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to
the River Plan Corridor.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 13
Mitigation Bio -1013, RODZ review at SPAR: The Site Plan and Architectural Review process
shall include evaluation and review of the Project for consistency with River Oriented
Development Zone (RODZ) policies and design guidelines. (See River Plan page 79-80 and
Chapter 9: Design Guidelines.) As the concept plan for the apartment project is fully detailed for
Site Plan and Architectural Review, the northern portion of the Project that is within the RODZ
(Parcel -009) shall be designed pursuant to the RODZ Guidelines.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project does not contain buildings that encroach into the River Plan
Corridor Boundary and minimizes conflicts with local policies and ordinances of the River Plan
for protecting biological resources. The only improvements allowed within the River Plan
Corridor include the river trail, terracing and restoration. During the SPAR process, the Planning
Commission could allow minor encroachments associated with residential improvements, such
as a detention basin and/or segments of sidewalk within the outer buffer management zone, if
found to be consistent with the intent of the River Plan and not impactful to the River Plan
Corridor. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Tree Removal and Tree Protection
Impact Bio -11: The Project would retain and protect 58 of the 68 protected trees on the site but
would result in removal of 10 protected trees, potentially conflicting with local policies and
ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City's tree preservation policies and
ordinance. While the Project's proposed tree removal is substantially fewer than the 38 trees
proposed for removal under the original Project, this is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -11A, Ensuring Preservation of Existing Trees: The final designs of
the residential portion of the Project should be designed to reflect the goal of preserving
protected trees to the greatest extent possible, particularly those protected trees located within the
Petaluma River Plan Corridor and those isolated oaks in the RODZ. While it is recognized that
the preservation of all existing trees on the Project site may conflict with reasonable land
development considerations and with creation of the terrace directed by the General Plan, the
final design of the Project, to be reviewed at SPAR, shall seek to preserve the most desirable and
significant healthy trees on site.
Mitigation Measure Bio -1113, Protected Tree Replacements: For all protected trees permitted
by the City to be removed, the project applicant shall provide replacement trees.
Mitigation Measure Bio -11C, Tree Protection Plan: All trees designated for preservation must
have a good chance of long-term survival. Consistent with the River Plan, a tree protection plan
for the site shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist or certified forester, and
approved by the City for all trees to be preserved within the site to protect them during on-site
grading and construction.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 14
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project's site plan substantially implements Mitigation Measure
Bio -11 A by preserving 58 of the 68 protected trees on the site. However, the Project's site plan is
preliminary and subject to design refinement pursuant to the City's Site Plan and Architectural
Review (SPAR) process. During SPAR review, specific tree preservation requirements shall be
monitored for compliance, and the SPAR process may consider additional site design
modifications to further increase tree preservation. Mitigation will substantially reduce potential
conflicts with the City's tree preservation policies and ordinance, will ensure that those trees
identified as being protected are ultimately protected during grading and construction, and will
provide for the replacement of protected trees to be removed. Therefore, after applying these
measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Spreading Sudden Oak Death
Impact Bio -12: Removal of plant materials hosting Phytophora ramorum during tree removal
could result in the spread of Sudden Oak Death to the Petaluma River riparian habitat. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -12A, Infected Tree Identification: Pursuant to the City's tree removal
permits, all trees of "at -risk" species to be removed shall be surveyed for sudden oak death
pathogens, and individual treatment methods shall be identified.
Mitigation Measure Bio -1213, Tree Removal Precautions: If a tree needs to be removed, the
tree stump should be cut as close to the ground as practical. Stump grinding is not recommended
because the equipment may become contaminated by soil and result in pathogen spread when
used at another location. The operation of vehicles or heavy equipment in such areas may lead to
further disease spread when soil is disturbed and moved around. If at all practical, tree removal
should be scheduled between June to October when conditions are warm and dry, and avoid
removing diseased trees when moist conditions favor pathogen spread (November to May).
Mitigation Measure Bio -12C, Debris Removal Precautions: Proper disposal of infested
material is an effective means of limiting the spread of pathogens. In infested areas, leaving
infected or dead trees on site has not been shown to increase the risk of infection to adjacent
trees. Removal of an infected tree from the property is only recommended if that tree is the first
infected tree detected, if the fire risk is high, or if the dead tree is a safety hazard. If debris cannot
be left on site, infested material should be disposed of at an approved and permitted dump
facility.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize the spread of
Sudden Oak Death to the Petaluma River riparian habitat through accepted best management
practices of treatment of at -risk trees, tree removal schedules and proper disposal. Therefore,
after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 15
Cultural Resources
Historical Resources
Impact Cultural -1: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a known historical resource; however, there is a potential that unidentified resources may be
present within the onsite wells. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Cultural -l: Monitoring of Well Abandonment. When the two existing
wells on the site are removed, a qualified archaeologist shall be present to record and recover any
potentially significant historic -era deposits that may be uncovered. If historic materials are
observed, they shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR forms and such forms filed with the
CHRIS and the Planning Division. In the event that the onsite wells are abandoned and capped in
place, then monitoring would be unnecessary, as no disturbance to potential resources would
occur.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: While it is unlikely that either well contains debris and/or historical
artifacts in such a concentration as to be of significant historical value, there remains the
possibility that any historical artifacts located in the well could yield valuable information.
Mitigation requires that any significant historic -era artifacts that may be present within the on-
site well be retrieved and evaluate. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would
be less than significant.
Archaeolowical and Tribal Resources
Impact Cultural -2: The Project has the potential to adversely affect the significance of
undiscovered archeological or Tribal cultural resources. Prior cultural resource studies prepared
in 2003 and 2007 identified the presence of cultural resources. However, none of these resources
appeared to be historically or archeologically significant. This does not preclude the potential
that the site may still contain as -yet undiscovered archeological artifacts. The Project site is not
known to contain tribal cultural resources, as a sacred place, or as a place that contains objects
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, but the site is located along the banks
of the Petaluma River in an area that is known to have been occupied by the Coast Miwok. The
site exhibits heightened potential for such resources to be present below grade. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Cultural -2: Discovery of Unknown Archaeological or Tribal
Resources. To reduce potential impacts on prehistoric site deposits and or Tribal cultural
resources that may be discovered during construction, the applicant shall retain the services of a
qualified archaeological consultant approved by the City of Petaluma and from the Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria's list of qualified archaeologists who have also demonstrated the
ability to work, cooperatively with the Tribe. The archaeological consultant shall monitor ground -
disturbing activity near the Petaluma River during the river terrace grading work. If a
concentration of artifacts, cultural soils or Tribal cultural resources is encountered during
construction anywhere on-site, all soil -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 16
cease; the archaeological monitor shall immediately notify the City of Petaluma Planning
Division of resources encountered; the archeological monitor shall present the findings of an
assessment to the City; and provide treatment recommendations.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation ensures that any as -yet undiscovered archeological or Tribal
cultural resources will be assessed and appropriate treatment of the resources provided.
Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Paleontological Resources
Impact Cultural -3: The Project has the potential to affect adversely the significance of currently
undiscovered paleontological resources. Bedrock underlying the site has potential to contain
significant paleontological resources. Areas with alluvium soil deposits in close proximity to
rivers, such as this site, have been known to contain vertebrate fossils. Destruction of such of
currently undiscovered paleontological resources would be a potentially significant
environmental impact.
Mitigation Measure Cultural -3: Discovery of Unknown Paleontological Resources. In the
event paleontological resources are encountered, the applicant shall procure a qualified
paleontologist approved by the City of Petaluma to document, evaluate and assess the
significance of the resource in accordance with the criteria set forth in the guidelines adopted by
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. In the event of
discovery during construction, excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted
or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall
notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before
earthmoving or grading is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines
that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare and recommend to the City an
excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource
significant. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming
construction activities.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation ensures that ground -disturbing activities do not adversely
affect any as -yet undiscovered paleontological resources, and that any as -yet undiscovered
paleontological resources that may be discovered will be assessed and appropriate treatment of
the resources provided. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than
significant.
Human Remains
Impact Cultural -4: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation, grading, and
excavation could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 17
The potential to uncover human remains, including Native American human remains, exists
throughout California. Although not anticipated, human remains may be encountered during site -
preparation and grading activities. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Cultural -4, Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human
remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall
be suspended, and measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation, grading,
and excavation could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. Mitigation provides that, in the event that human remains may be encountered on-
site, the applicant shall implement measures consistent with the provisions of California Health
and Safety Code section 7050.5(b). These measures ensure that any disturbance of human
remains, including Native American remains, would be handled according to provisions of law.
Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less
than significant.
Geology and Soils
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Impact Geo -2: The Project could expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse
effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. This is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo -2A, Compliance with California Building Code: New development
on the site shall meet all requirements of the California Building Code, as may be modified by
amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of Petaluma.
Mitigation Measure Geo -211, Incorporation of Geotechnical Investigation
Recommendations: Consistent with Chapter 18 of the Petaluma Building Code requirements,
recommendations included in the RGH Consultants' Geotechnical Engineering Report Update
for Sid Commons (January 20, 2015) regarding foundation and structural design measures shall
be incorporated in final designs for each structure, contingent upon concurrence by the City's
Engineer and Chief Building Official. To ensure that appropriate construction techniques are
incorporated, the Project's Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect the construction work and certify
to the City, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that all improvements have been
constructed in accordance with the approved Geotechnical Investigation specifications.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2019-21 Page 18
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation through the incorporation of seismic construction standards
as required by the regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of
ground shaking, such as structural failure. These construction standards will not eliminate the
hazard of seismically induced ground shaking, but will reduce hazards to a level considered
acceptable by the state of California for reducing seismic risks to acceptable levels. Therefore,
after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less than
significant.
Expansive Soils
Impact Geo -5: Portions of the Project site contain localized expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to property. Expansive clay soils are potentially damaging to foundations as these soil types
shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture content. Expansive soils can affect the
performance of structures, and this impact is considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo -5A, Soil Treatment: The detrimental effects of expansive soil
movements can be reduced by pre -swelling expansive soils and covering them with a moisture
fixing and confining blanket of properly compacted non -expansive engineered fill (select fill).
Select fill can consist of approved non -expansive on-site soils, imported non -expansive materials
or lime stabilized on-site clay soils.
Mitigation Measure Geo -513, Foundation Design: New structures shall be supported on either
post -tension slab foundations or mat slab foundations. These foundation slabs shall be designed
using the expansion characteristics of the soils. Grading to prepare the building pads shall consist
of reworking the upper 2 to 3 feet of surface soils by excavating these soils, moisture
conditioning them to at least 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacting them to
at least 90 percent relative compaction, or as otherwise specified by the geotechnical engineer.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation addresses the impacts of expansive soils through grading
and/or foundation design measures as specified by the geotechnical engineer. Therefore, after
applying these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Soil Erosion
Impact Geo 6: The Project could result in the loss of topsoil from development on potentially
erodible soils. Grading will be required to provide level surfaces for roads and structures, and
excavation of expansive soils at the site will involve disturbing and removing the topsoil.
Substantial grading activities will also be necessary to implement the proposed River terracing
plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo -6, Erosion Control Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an
erosion control plan, along with grading and drainage plans, shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations
shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046,
Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 19
Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code). These plans shall
detail erosion control measures such as site watering, sediment capture, equipment staging and
laydown pad, and other erosion control measures to be implemented during construction activity
on the project site.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation addresses potential erosion impacts by requiring all
earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations to be conducted in
accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading and Erosion
Control Ordinance, which were specifically adopted for purposes of mitigating erosion impacts.
Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the impact would be less
than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Registered Hazardous Materials Sites
Impact Haz-1: The Project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and a Phase 1 ESA revealed that
the site has not been adversely impacted by any environmental releases, either off-site or on-site.
However, the Phase 1 report did recommend that the surface soil at the site be tested for
pesticides prior to development because of its former agriculture use. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Haz-lA, Soil Testing and Regulatory Compliance: Prior to issuance of
building or grading permits, the project applicant shall conduct a soil testing program to identify
the potential for agricultural chemicals, agriculture -related petroleum hydrocarbon spills, lead-
based paint or elevated levels of contaminants near the rail tracks to be present in the soils at
levels exceeding recommended health screening levels. Should any impacted soil be discovered
that exceeds human health screening levels for residential soil as noted in DTSC's HERO HHRA
Note 3 criteria and/or Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), such soils shall be excavated and
removed for appropriate off-site disposal prior to development pursuant to existing regulatory
requirements.
Mitigation Measure Haz-1B, Discovery of Unknown Contaminants: If unknown
contamination, underground tanks, containers or stained or odorous soils are discovered during
construction activities, appropriate investigation, sampling and comparison of data collected with
health -based screening levels and/or consultation with a regulatory oversight agency shall be
conducted.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires compliance with all applicable regulatory
requirements regarding California Human Health Screening Levels for residual pesticides and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 20
discovery of unknown contaminants during construction. This may include excavating and
removing any contaminated soils that may be discovered for appropriate off-site disposal prior to
development. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than
significant.
Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
Impact Haz-3: The Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. The potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials
into the environment is considered most likely during the construction phase, when potentially
hazardous materials would be stored, used and moved around on the site and in close proximity
to the Petaluma River. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Haz-3, SWPPP Requirements (see Mitigation Measure Hydro -1)
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Construction contractors will be required to comply with all existing
federal and state safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage and/or disposal
of fuels or other potentially hazardous substances during all phases of construction. Mitigation
requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) that (among other purposes) provide appropriate means for storage, use and cleanup of
fuels and hazardous materials, and identifies best management practices (BMPs) to protect
stormwater runoff. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory requirements, the
impact would be less than significant.
Hazardous Conditions - Increased Presence along Rail Tracks
Impact Haz-5: The Project would result in increased presence along the rail racks. The site's
entire westerly boundary is parallel and immediately adjacent to the SMART railroad right-of-
way. The increased presence of residents and visitors in an area immediately adjacent to the rail
tracks could result in a greater potential for rail -related accidents along this portion of the line.
This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Haz-5, Fencing: The Project shall include an open -design appropriate
fence along the edge of and parallel to the rail tracks, with consideration provided to the
protection of existing trees, to limit access onto the railroad right-of-way. The final fence design
shall be subject to SPAR review and approval.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires fencing along the edge of and parallel to the rail
tracks to limit access onto the railroad right-of-way. Landscaping proposed by the project along
the rail line will also provide a visual screening and barrier between the new residential
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 21
development and the railway. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less
than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Increased Pollution Erosion and Siltation during Construction
Hydro -1: During construction, the Project could alter existing drainage patterns of the site in a
manner that could result in substantial erosion or siltation, and provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Hydro -1, SWPPP Requirements: Design requirements and
implementation measures for minimizing Project -generated erosion and for controlling
fuel/hazardous material spills shall be set forth in the applicant's SWPPP, in accordance with
State and RWQCB design standards.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: To address construction -period erosion and siltation, as well as the
introduction of construction -related sources of water pollution, the applicant is required to
demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. These regulatory
requirements include filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the RWQCB for compliance with the
NPDES General Construction Activities Permit, preparing and implementing a site-specific
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per NPDES general construction permit
requirements, and preparing and submitting an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval by
the City of Petaluma. All of these regulatory requirements are to be met prior to issuance of a
grading permit. Mitigation through implementation of a SWPPP represents the City of
Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements, but subsequent permit requirements may result in
potentially greater mitigation obligations based on site-specific information as determined
through agency coordination. Therefore, after applying these measures and regulatory
requirements, the impact would be less than significant.
Operational Water Quality
Impact Hydro -2: During the Project's operations, the Project would contribute runoff water that
could provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and that could otherwise
substantially degrade water quality. The Project could contribute to levels of non -point sources
of pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including the Petaluma River and the San
Francisco Bay. An increase in non -point sources of pollutants could have adverse effects on
wildlife, vegetation and human health. Parking areas are a source of suspended solids, petroleum
hydrocarbons and heavy metals, and the landscaped areas could contribute harmful landscape
chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers to runoff leaving the site. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Hydro -2A, SWCP Implementation: The Project shall design, construct
and implement appropriate post -construction stormwater treatment measures to reduce water
quality and hydromodification impacts to downstream reaches, as required by the current post -
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 22
construction control requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit. Upon completion of the
final project design, the applicant shall provide documentation of stormwater management
measures that show compliance with the Small MS4 General Permit.
Mitigation Measure Hydro -213, SWCP Monitoring and Maintenance Agreement: Prior to
public improvement plan approval, a mechanism shall be in place to ensure funding of on-going
maintenance, inspection, and as needed repair of the Project SWCP, including the maintenance
of the proposed Terracing Plan.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation requires that all non -point source pollutants washed from
roofs, landscape areas and streets and parking areas be filtered through bioretention areas
dispersed throughout the site and/or through self -treating impervious paving blocks (e.g., within
walkways). Runoff from these bioretention areas will then be collected in a series of
underground storm drains that drain into larger bioretention basins located in the northerly
portion of the site before being discharged via new storm drain outlets along the banks of the
Petaluma River. The Project will be required to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES
General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s (SWRCB 2013). This permit
requires incorporation of site design measures, source controls, stormwater treatment measures
and/or other low impact development (LID) measures to reduce stormwater runoff and limit the
transport of pollutants to receiving waters, and requires implementation of source control
measures for specific pollution -generating activities. Pursuant to the City of Petaluma's
Stormwater Management and Pollution Control Ordinance, the Project will be required to
demonstrate that appropriate BMPs will be implemented to control the volume and potential
pollutant load of stormwater runoff from the site. The selection and the design of the BMPs shall
be per the City's Stormwater Policy and Design Standards, and per the applicable NPDES permit
issued to the City and other available guidance documents. The regulatory requirements and
mitigation are the City of Petaluma's baseline mitigation requirements, and subsequent permit
requirements may result in different (potentially greater) mitigation obligations based on site-
specific information and determined through agency coordination. Therefore, after applying
these measures, the impact would be less than significant.
Land Use
Conflict with a Conservation Plan
Impact LU -1: Development of the Project would result in the filling of areas identified as
wetlands within the River Corridor and within the River Oriented Development Zone as defined
in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, and would result in the removal of mature
oak trees at the site. This would be in conflict with objectives, policies and programs identified in
the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan. This is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio -4: Compensation for Seasonal Wetlands Fill
Mitigation Measure Bio -5A: Riparian Preservation Zone
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 23
Mitigation Measure Bio -513: Riparian Tree Preservation (as amended)
Mitigation Measure Bio -5C: Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measure Bio -6: Terraced Grading Erosion Control/Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
Mitigation Bio -9: Incorporation of Native Plants in Landscaping Plans
Mitigation Bio -10A: Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma River Plan
Corridor (also listed as Mitigation Measure Visual -2)
Mitigation Bio -1013: RODZ review at SPAR
Mitigation Measure Bio -11A: Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees
Mitigation Measure Bio -1113: Protected Tree Replacements
Mitigation Measure Bio -11C: Tree Protection Plan
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation would substantially reduce impacts to biological resources
and would serve to minimize conflicts with objectives, policies and programs of the Petaluma
River Access and Enhancement Plan. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would
be less than significant.
Noise
Construction Noise
Noise -4: Construction of the Project would result in temporary or periodic noise impacts,
especially where grading and construction activities are to be conducted in close proximity to
existing and new sensitive receptors, including the existing Oak Creek Apartments and neighbors
along Bernice Court, Graylawn Avenue and Jesse Avenue. Construction noise levels would
fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance
between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of barriers between noise sources
and receptors. However, the temporary or periodic impact when grading or construction
activities occur within 100 feet of an existing residence would be significant. This is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Noise 4A, Construction Hours: Due to the proximity of sensitive
receptors (residences) to the development areas, construction activities shall be required to
comply with following, and shall be noted accordingly on construction contracts. Construction
activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction equipment shall only
be permitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and on all holidays
recognized by the City of Petaluma. Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck
traffic coming to and from the site is restricted to the same construction hours specified above.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 24
Mitigation Measure Noise 4B, Construction Engine Controls: The Project Applicant shall
implement engine controls to minimize disturbance to adjacent residential uses during Project
construction. Construction equipment shall utilize the best available noise control techniques
(including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating
shields or shrouds) in order to minimize construction noise impacts. These controls shall be used
as necessary to reduce heavy equipment noise to 75 to 80 dBA (Leq) at 50 feet to minimize noise
levels at the closest residential receptors. If impact equipment such as jackhammers, pavement
breakers, and rock drills is used during construction, hydraulically or electric -powered
equipment shall be used to avoid the noise associated with compressed -air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be used. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall also be used, where feasible.
Mitigation Measure Noise 4C, Stationary Equipment and Staging: Locate stationary noise
generating equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Leq as far as possible from
sensitive receptors. If required to minimize potential noise conflicts, the equipment shall be
shielded from noise sensitive receptors by using temporary walls, sound curtains, or other similar
devices. The construction contractor shall not stage equipment within 200 feet of the existing
residential land uses to the west and south of the project site. Heavy equipment, such as paving
and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra
heavy truck trips on local streets.
Mitigation Measure Noise 4D, Miscellaneous Construction Noise: The contractor shall
minimize use of vehicle backup alarms and other miscellaneous construction noise. A common
approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a circular
flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach
to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be equipped
with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm sound is automatically adjusted
based on the ambient noise. Construction worker's radios shall be controlled to be inaudible
beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.
Mitigation Measure Noise 4E, Noise Barriers: The construction contractor shall erect
temporary walls, sound curtains or other similar devices along the property lines adjacent to the
existing Oak Creek Apartments and neighbors along Bernice Court and Graylawn Avenue, to
shield these existing sensitive receptors from construction noise. To the extent feasible, the
construction contractor shall prioritize construction of buildings nearest to Graylawn/Bernice
Court during the earlier phases of construction, such that new buildings can serve as a noise
barrier to dampen construction noise as the site develops.
Mitigation Measure Noise 4F, Noise Disturbance Coordinator: The Project applicant /
construction contractor shall designate a city -approved Noise Disturbance Coordinator,
designated to respond to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
The construction schedule and telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the Project construction site.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 25
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The increase in noise levels at nearby locations during construction
would be temporary in nature and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although
occasional single -event noise disturbances from construction activities are possible. The majority
of construction activities would take place at a distance farther than 50 feet from existing
residences. In the later phases of construction (i.e., during interior building construction) noise
levels are typically reduced due to the newly erected physical structures that interrupt noise
transmission. Thus, the highest noise levels that would be experienced by adjacent sensitive
receptors would only occur for a limited duration during construction activity. Not all
construction activity associated with the Project would occur in immediate proximity to adjacent
neighbors, and construction that does occur adjacent to existing neighbors is unlikely to
individually last for more than 1 year. Mitigation requires conformity with the City of Petaluma
Noise Ordinance, and all reasonable and feasible noise attenuation strategies will be
implemented. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than
significant.
Traffic and Transportation
Construction Traffic
Impact Transp-12: The Project would cause temporary disruption to the transportation network
due to construction. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Transp-12: Prepare Construction Management Plan. A construction
management plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Petaluma Public
Works Department.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Construction Management Plan will include a construction truck
route that would appear on all construction plans to limit truck and auto traffic on nearby streets,
comprehensive traffic control measures, an evaluation of the need to provide flaggers or
temporary traffic control at key intersections, notification procedures for adjacent property
owners and public safety personnel, regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures
would occur, and documentation of road pavement conditions for all routes that would be used
by construction vehicles both before and after proposed project construction. These measures
would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and would
provide for the monitoring of surface streets used for truck movement so that any damage and
debris attributable to the proposed project's construction trucks can be identified and corrected
by the project applicant. Therefore, after applying these measures, the impact would be less than
significant.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 26
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council finds that changes or alterations to the original Project as evaluated in the
Draft EIR have been required of, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of the original Project as identified in the Final
EIR. The Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR.
2. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the original Project. The City
Council adopts the EIR's analysis and conclusions eliminating a Rainier Connector Access
Alternative, an Alternative Site Location and a Different Northerly Access Alternative from
further consideration.
The five potentially feasible alternatives analyzed in the EIR, including the No Project
alternative required by CEQA, represent a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the original Project. These
alternatives include: (1) No Project—No Development; (2) Alternative 2: APN #-006 (Webb
Parcel) Development Only; (3) Alternative 3A: Redistributed Density, Single -Family
Residential Development; (4) Alternative 3B: Redistributed Density, as Apartments; and (5)
Alternative 4: Reduced Project. As presented in the EIR, the alternatives were described and
compared with each other and with the original Project.
4. The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information
on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the City Council's
independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the Project provides the
best balance between the project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, the
Project's benefits, and mitigation of environmental impacts. The originally proposed Project
and the five CEQA alternatives evaluated in the EIR are rejected for the following reasons.
Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject
the original Project and alternatives.
Original Project: The original Project as analyzed in the Draft EIR would have required a re-
zoning and PUD amendment to permit the development of 278 new residential apartment
units across the site. The original Project is rejected because it would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to its proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to
Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks at -grade. These impacts include increased hazards
associated with at -grade rail crossings, a likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access,
exposure of existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train
horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing, and
safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers. The at -
grade rail crossing was also likely to be infeasible, as it would have required approval by the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC staff comments indicated no support
from that agency for such a rail crossing. Based on conclusions of significant environmental
impacts as presented in the Draft EIR and lack of support for the original Project as
expressed by City Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers, the Project Applicant
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 27
withdrew the original Project's conceptual site plan, including its proposed at -grade rail
crossing, from consideration.
6. No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, no project would be undertaken.
The only development that could occur at the Project site without any discretionary action,
specifically if the provisions of the 1982 PUD that restrict use of the northern majority of the
Project site (APN-009) are not lifted, would be limited to development of 1 new single
family home with accessory structures on each of the two APNs (006 and 009) and, at APN -
009, those uses permitted in the Agricultural district as specified in the Petaluma Zoning
Ordinance. With no new approvals for development of this property, use of the APN-009 site
would likely continue much as it is today, as a large and undeveloped private parcel. A
separate development application for APN -006 could be submitted consistent with the R4
zoning, but would be a separate action, not a part of the No Project Alternative. This
alternative would avoid all of the Project's potentially significant and mitigatable impacts
identified in the EIR.
The No Project Alternative is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those
goals of the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized
infill sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding
land uses; (b) it would not provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and
General Plan; (c) it would not result in implementation of terraced grading along the
banks of the Petaluma River, and thus would have no effect on lowering the base flood
elevations at the site or at other upstream locations; (d) it would not assist in
implementation of adopted City-wide ordinances and General Plan policies that seek to
reduce flooding and floodplain impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and (e) it would
not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project.
7. Alternative# 2, APN #-006 (Webb Parcel) Development Only: Under Alternative #2, the
proposed re -zoning and PUD amendment would not be pursued, and use of APN-009 would
be limited to only those uses permitted in the City's Agricultural District zoning. The
approximately 4.39 -acre property at APN-006 was not a part of the prior 1982 Oak Creek
Apartment PUD, and development would occur consistent with the current General Plan land
use designation of Medium Density Residential and Residential 4 (R4) zoning. At a
maximum density of 18 units per acre, the 4.39 -acre site could accommodate up to 79 new
residential apartment units. Alternative #2 would reduce or avoid many of the biological
resource impacts of the original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian
habitat) and would generate less new traffic and less air quality emissions as compared to the
original Project. Alternative #2 would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to
the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing
the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at -grade rail
crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing
and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from trains
crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to
traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers.
Alternative #2 is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the
Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2019-21 Page 28
with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses;
(b) it would not provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and General Plan;
and (c) it would not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project.
Further, Alternative #2 is rejected because it does not achieve a central objective of
realizing flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the
City's General Plan. Parcel -006 is the only property that would be developed under this
Alternative, and it is not within the River Corridor. Thus, Alternative #2 would not
implement any of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan objectives,
including expanded river channel capacity improvements, the river trail, river vegetation
management and enhancement, or contribute toward lowering flood water surface
elevations to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood boundary to the greatest
extent possible in accordance with the General Plan.
8. Alternative 3A• Redistributed Density Single -Family Residential Development: Under
Alternative #3, the residential densities as calculated for Alternative #2 (79 units) would be
redistributed throughout the entire Project site and developed with lower -density single-
family residential lots. A portion of the allowable density from the APN-006 site would be
redistributed to the APN-009 site, likely through a new PUD. Subdividing a calculated 12.35
net developable acres (not including new public roadways) into 79 individual single-family
residential lots would yield an average lot size of approximately 6,800 square feet and a
density of approximately 5.1 unit per acre. As a single-family residential development,
Alternative #3A would occupy essentially the same development footprint as the original
Project. Alternative #3A would generate less new traffic and less air quality emissions as
compared to the original Project, and would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts
related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn
crossing the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include increased hazards associated with at -
grade rail crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking emergency vehicle access, exposure of
existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable noise from additional train horns from
trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to
traveling motorists, emergency responders and the rail carriers.
Alternative #3A is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the
Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites
with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses;
(b) it would likely not enable design opportunities to arrange new development on the site
in a manner that could reduce or avoid many of the biological resource impacts of the
original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian habitat); (c) would not
likely enable design opportunities to arrange new development on the site in a manner
that new homes and usable outdoor areas are set back at least 54 feet from the rail line;
and (d) it would not achieve any of the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project.
Alternative 3B: Redistributed Density, as Apartments: Similar to Alternative #3A, under
Alternative #3B, the residential densities as calculated for Alternative #2 (79 units) would be
redistributed throughout the entire Project site and developed with a lower -density apartment
project, likely through a new PUD. The density of up to 79 apartment units spread over the
15.45 net acres of developable portions of APNs -006 and -009 would yield a density of
approximately 5.1 units per gross acre. Alternative #3B would generate less new traffic and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 29
less air quality emissions as compared to the original Project, and would avoid significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a Shasta
Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. These impacts include
increased hazards associated with at -grade rail crossings, the higher likelihood of blocking
emergency vehicle access, exposure of existing and new residents to reasonably foreseeable
noise from additional train horns from trains crossing the proposed new Shasta Avenue
Extension rail crossing and safety hazards to traveling motorists, emergency responders and
the rail carriers. Alternative #3B would likely enable design opportunities to arrange new
development on the site in a manner that could reduce or avoid many of the biological
resource impacts of the original Project (e.g., wetlands fill, tree removal, loss of riparian
habitat) and would likely enable an adequate set back from the railway to avoid a potential
land use conflict due to siting new sensitive receptors proximate to an noise source with
occasionally intrusive noise events.
Alternative #3B is rejected because: (a) it would not implement those goals of the
Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites
with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses;
(b) it would not achieve the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project; and (c) based on
written comments from the Project Applicant, the limited amount of development under
this alternative would make it economically infeasible for this applicant to implement
required flood control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the
City's General Plan. Thus, Alternative #3B would be unlikely to implement any of the
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan objectives including expanded river
channel capacity improvements, the river trail, or river vegetation management and
enhancement. Alternative #3B would likely be economically incapable of contributing
toward the City's flood management policies and regulations intended to lower flood
flow water surface elevations and to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood
boundary to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the General Plan.
10. Alternative 4: Reduced Project: Alternative #4 is based on the development potential that can
be accommodated by the design capacity of Graylawn Avenue under the City's "livable
streets" standard, as was defined and calculated in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to the Street
Standards for the City of Petaluma, local residential roadways such a Graylawn Avenue are
intended to carry up to a maximum of 2,000 average daily tips (ADTs), serving up to 200
dwellings. Based on information presented in the Draft EIR that relied on 2015 data,
Graylawn Avenue carried approximately 954 ADTs, and thus had a maximum remaining
capacity of 1,046 ADTs before exceeding the design standards. The 1,046 daily trips of
remaining capacity on Graylawn Avenue equated to approximately a 149 -unit multi -family
residential project, at a trip rate of approximately 7 daily tips per unit. With 149 apartment
units spread over the 15.45 net acres of developable portions of APNs -006 and -009,
Alternative #4 would yield a density of approximately 9.6 units per gross acre. Alternative
#4, inclusive of the river terrace, would avoid many of the original project's unavoidable
impacts (primarily by not including the Shasta Avenue at -grade crossing), would reduce the
level of impacts under all other environmental categories as compared to the Project due to
reduced density, and would realize a majority of the Project's objectives.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 30
Alternative 44 is rejected because: (a) the data supporting the definition of this
Alternative is no longer accurate, based on more recent traffic counts. As presented in the
Final EIR, traffic counts conducted on Graylawn Avenue in May 2019 indicate a three-
day average traffic volume on Graylawn Avenue of 1,142 ADT. The number of
additional trips that could be accommodated on Graylawn Avenue such that the ADT
would not exceed 2,000 ADT is approximately 858 daily trips, equivalent to
approximately 108 residential apartment units; (b) this alternative may not be financially
feasible as it would add only 29 more units relative to Alternative 313, which based on
written comments from the Project Applicant would potentially make it economically
infeasible to implement required flood control improvements through terraced grading as
directed through the City's General Plan; and (c) it would not implement those goals of
the Petaluma General Plan which call for efficient development of underutilized infill
sites with residential densities that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land
uses.
11. Changes or alterations to the original Project that are similar to Alternative #4 have been
incorporated into the Project. Similar to Alternative #4, these changes avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of the original Project. Like Alternative #4, the
Project would result in fewer dwelling units and fewer cars, and traffic and air quality
impacts would be reduced as compared to the original project. Similar to Alternative #4, the
Project's changed design enables retention of more protected trees, greater compliance with
setbacks and buffers of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, and avoidance of
significant and unavoidable impacts related to the original Project's proposal to construct a
Shasta Avenue Extension to Graylawn crossing the SMART rail tracks. Similar to
Alternative #4, the Project will implement objectives of the Petaluma River Access and
Enhancement Plan including capacity improvements to the river channel, the river trail and
river vegetation management and enhancement. Also, like Alternative #4, the Project will
contribute toward the City's flood management policies and regulations intended to lower
water surface elevations of flood flows to help remove properties from the 100 -year flood
boundary to the greatest extent possible, in accordance with the General Plan.
Although not considered a significant environmental impact, the Project would
conflict with the City's 2,000 ADT design standard for Graylawn Avenue as a residential
road. To address this condition, the Project will implement a Traffic Calming Plan, which
may include bulb outs, street tree planting, pavement marking and other roadway
livability improvements and traffic calming features to minimize conflicts with
"livability" standards for local streets that exceed the 2,000 ADT design standard for this
roadway.
The Project as revised would: (a) implement goals of the Petaluma General Plan
which call for efficient development of underutilized infill sites with residential densities
that are equal to or higher than that of surrounding land uses by introducing 205 units on
the approximately 15.45 net developable parcel (approximately 13.27 units per acre); (b)
provide a river trail as envisioned by the River Plan and General Plan; (c) achieve a
central objective of realizing flood control improvements through terraced grading as
directed through the City's General Plan; (d) provide inclusionary housing onsite for 10%
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 31
of the units at the affordable level comprised of 5% at the low income level and 5% at the
median income level; and (e) achieve the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 32
EXHIBIT 2
Sid Commons Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance
with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of
the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been developed to ensure implementation of
mitigation measures and proper and adequate monitoring/reporting of such implementation.
CEQA requires that this MMRP be adopted in conjunction with project approval, which relies
upon an Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of this MMRP is to:
• document implementation of required mitigation;
• identify monitoring/reporting responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma),
other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity (applicant, contractor, or
project manager);
• establish the frequency and duration of monitoring/reporting;
• provide a record of the monitoring/reporting; and
• ensure compliance
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in conjunction with
project approval, the implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the
monitoring/reporting responsibility, reporting requirements and the status of compliance with the
mitigation measure.
Implementation
The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City
prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of improvements plans.
2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation
measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the
project.
3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractor, and agents involved
in the project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and
shall ensure compliance with such measures and conditions.
4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation
measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements.
5. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all
mitigation measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers
to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for
construction.
6. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the
building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
7. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NWRP Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 33
8. The applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference with the construction
contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions
of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Monitoring and Reporting
The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the Engineering, Planning and Building
Divisions, as well as the Office of the Fire Marshal. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Fire Marshal's Office shall
review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved project
description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit requirements
prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans, or building permits.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required
permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit
requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all
improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project
description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans.
4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is
consistent with the approved plans, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval.
MMRP Checklist
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with
project approval, the timeframe to which the measure applies, the person/agency/permit
responsible for implementing the measure, and the status of compliance with the mitigation
measure.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-21 Page 34
Q
m
co
cri
rCM
n C• �•
p 0 CD O Uq �+ P� C O O b C�
np ray -h CD CD t3 O Q O `CD N
' CD
(71 PR -
CD
O
n � CCD
r+ ~ > CD ~ A� R N COD C O.
N VC N T O CD A)
�d O CD •- Q' v' `d C
OCD
CD CD O ro
O UqcD �O
�- C3, !"
'O CP CD CD ¢ COD
�- N g b WCDt rr CD
po CD CD 0
CD CD CD O
Oq
00 r O v' 0O CD + CD
O CD 0Pt f+ F
Uq
CD CD
n b d 9
o
o � UQ �3
O �.
o
dCA
•�
v, �.0 roO
CD0 o
�W
oma ¢ CD
�. CD
CD
p CSD
cn
CD r -L
dl d
N CSD
P
fD
14
CD
E
cn
a
�Oy
R
w
O
CD
O
I�
5
0
m
w
C,
�� Cd
-p4 CD a 0 `Q' CDS �. ...
n4 q ua o cra C a ua o ua c(DD u°4 �N
...
4. UQ CD + — . ¢ ¢ OO
to n (-DU�4 N O N' 0
-' U4
cn C C
C ~
C CD A� �V CD O
C CD r�Y
CD CD 0 cn
CD -� g CD CDUma' R s1 0 CD
CD
CD o " (D "S �, p CD
0 CD COD CD t3 M
CD
¢ �. CDU�04
o ~ ¢ ~
+ CD O O d CD ►.. CD O
(D O O -h CD cii r+ UG
CD 0 f+ CD � � f/� � CD (D CD � CD
(D �t O k3 to (��q' � �n n � P, t O to
CD
CD
O CD CD RW K CD 51,
0al CD CD
rr r,
O CD
CD r� . ¢ ¢ (D
U) CDO ,aCD
CD Pt CD (Da
¢ CD o
d b
(-) b
>a
c'
o
�o
¢P.
C
o'
C CD
cy.
N r,� CD
grb
(Dbrro
CD
C CD
cy.
°�
o,
(D
�I
�I
b
0 op
0
ul
D C�(D �- c (D �:r" p CDID CD
rt
CD
o gip+ �� ¢ CSD -IIDC) 11 UQ CD vOi CD r+- CCD 11
CD
O ID O �- R ri 'fit pS CD h O W
O R O ¢ `¢
rt _ CD � CD UQ
0 CD UQ r+
'D 0 CD r- r/ A) CCD O CD
F) o aa� `co � �'� CD CCD CD
CDS arCD
C � CSD �, `� f-� p .�., �%' • � CD pC-D . +�' • ,�i�' �+
r~ �ro
O ¢' v� UIQ %� 9 p C3'CD
W
CD O O ¢ cn d CD p
p
rpt ¢
p, PD t7 rt O O ¢ O CD CD
+t p CD r� t (D y p¢ *CD UQ +
`C rpt O rpr CD 4 p O
rt.
Nn' CD 'rY rrt. CD CD N CD UQ
r-•
W
'
�3
C) 0
CD CD
0
p
CD CD
¢•CDCy
�
O
lD
COD
K
CD
CD
CD
l� l�
rf-
C9
Ow
W
-D
Q
m
U)
w
~' Cin A� � � . � Cn ��' . CD O i--. ~ • iy r-. � �-` • � �-` • i~--. Q., O �--�—• iy
o v`f ~ O�71
CD s -* -+ O O
¢ o CCD r~n. O O fy p p — con O w �1.
tn C4'm n -s o + ¢ mos
U4
COD
cn
UQ En
LZ
O n DC a21
0 T �. w ` 1 O, cr cn w
~ • _
�c '*
cn
cr
Uq p
¢ O 6 hC4 � d fir' p
b M
c
O
O °
O
En tz
o
cn
� o
o �
p.
A�
�t
d o
CD d
�- tD
W,
-o
Q
m
w
10
v
,A
CD
CD
s O rn CSD
cn 1+ Q O.
O
CD Rcn
n
CD
d
O
d
O
n
O
5 t7
W,
CD d UQ C
O
co
GC
O
A>
Cr ��. � �N
cr
(DCD
CD
o'
�71 (DID
C
(D o
cn
�a CD
¢
°
0-
°
o
CD P
CDo
o,
¢rD
Nom.
R
U�
• CCD
CD
iv
CD
M
�
�,�'
�, CCD
�•�,�
v�c�
CD
orL
��
�c
:¢•
°5CDd
O
cy
q
(D �.
�
°
(D
o
a
o�
�o
CD
+
(D
CD
(D
O"
CD
v
,A
CD
CD
s O rn CSD
cn 1+ Q O.
O
CD Rcn
n
CD
d
O
d
O
n
O
5 t7
W,
�n7� H7y
ID
CD ��'� b� p qua
Qi CD CD CD O .0 n n C7 CD (� 0CD p (�D p
r Z ~ C -D C fl CD
n C�D O N_ p� ras��+
p¢ '~�. �+ UIQ O N O— d (D
�+ + UQ Gq � `� CD C CU13 0
CD
CND t� C
ID
CD CD
CD 'CD 0 IOD
p CD RCD �-+ ni In CD C' p p' f r CCD O
y, �s o' "Cc) h CD O O p A� cD
Cl CD
ID
CD CD CD w p CD ✓ n O
CD 0
C7, CD
dCD CCD N O w CD CD CD M N O O CD tS
CCD OIDrS n G
fr
CD O
I'D
Cp ¢ ~O CD CD CD O ¢ N
�71 CD
0 COD O CD 0 CD U4
O 'off 0
CD
O a ~ C7 CD C) CD CD
`� CD
C(D CD
p.
Q
Q
m
UI
CD 0
o o '+CD w
CA CD o o
C4 p
CA
A' CCD ' cOi� CD O - O 0 rip rte.
b
CD fi r O CD CD
O
SCD ° �+ nom• `0 H ° N. �'
° O O 0 CD nO Oo N o �+ P � R C~o � N� � � � CA 0 O.
'
cr Co O O• r+ RJ 0 h 5 U) C O CD �] UIQ,�
n'CD p it
CD op O O+ � Bpd
cn
cn
° tj
o'er 0 0 �•
En ¢CA
CD
Coo° o o ° C(o Q °
° °
CD
°CP
¢, o
¢• w ° o•
d
co
G-
CD
"' (D
°
CD
o °
CD
o
D
o
* O O No (D C O O
¢ ° r + CD O CD ¢ C
CD
N OCD U4 - CD O O CCD N `OC O R
* O CD CD
CD cD c
° ¢ �°
0 CD
D 0 d ° (D
CD
O W
O W O 6 O CD
O N� n O p O, p v' O CD
CL C' CCD ��+ CD "2 '0 U4 r (D O
�•
uq
Rr Ot C`�D a vi PUQ
(D (D y ¢ � d
(A t O °
N `.0 0 " CD
CD
o N
U�Q �
CD
CD
CD
CD
h
� o
C(Dcr
O �
N
U�Q
CD
Cn ¢ C COD¢ ¢ 00 CD r+ ¢ CD
o¢CD tZI
UIQ � �. � ¢ � v,• � � � C• � Q -
CD C)
G
CD
CD
Cn ¢ C COD¢ ¢ 00 CD r+ ¢ CD
o¢CD tZI
UIQ � �. � ¢ � v,• � � � C• � Q -
CD C)
G
v
Q
lD
W
c ?:
O Sv r* cn (� 'z3 O tv cD d 8 y
r• ¢ ¢ CD
C) o O C
0(D CD
LA C¢D P'¢p.chi 0.rn c CD dC
N~ n N C ¢CD
C/� r ~ • � . CdD C�D 6• ¢ ''� O p) rOi- �f O
O d O rn cn d o W CD v' CD N CD
{ CD CDcn
CD CD
(D cn t CD CD �, �'* lJ�CD
CD CD r+ �i O
CD CD
CD
n
_ Q C O p C) R. I --h p
N O¢ �O d C SCD ¢ N
OO C O O o~ N"c7 0~ C2. D 5 d
CD EL 5 ¢ o ma `"
%O cn O f r ¢ cn N N
CD CD t ¢ O CD Uw 0 CD + o o ,
R ¢ �S O CD CD .:F' CD UQ O CD
pdi d d �r . 3C CC) � CD tL 'd
07' CD
¢ CDcn O 'Z -+ O pCCD
O CD C O N G. SCD cdD
CD CD
d CD n v,
O CD ¢ CD ¢ -r
>
4'
O CDCD R r CD
v0
, O CD
�
� Or �
N
n
vOi�
�
�
�
O
d
� o
N
`O
cn r
C�C
P U' ~.
O
O
O
C0D
r�r
5
-- r•
C
n CD
r�
r`
CD
Vi
Q�
CD
CD
O
b
o
rte.
O
ca,C
~
CD
C1
¢
CD
r
-+
e¢!
P. O
¢" O
CD
¢
¢
O
�0
CD
"
�s �q
CD
cn
CD r, g
i..+.o
0
d
'"'t,
n 0'
d�
CD
G
�
Q•�
UQ�
N
O
h
d
CD
CD
2
U�4
dl
d
N
CSD
d
CD
CD
2
WP
m
O CD
19
CD O � ¢ W "'h O - pCD
'7
CD
t O CD CD UQ O CD d
CD 0 CD CD
rA
o 00 U4 O 0
" r+ C9 (fl
O "t • O �+ 0Cj
(D on
CD
Com➢ v N C� 8D `� W c0+ v `CD
CD (n c.- � CD O vl
CD
O" C(D r� ryp� sz
• A✓ n CD �-! C CD p) — O
O O O ti CD �O+ v, v Cr
�h -t p Oqq O UQ ~ ` . O .rt CD rr
¢CD
P-G�G rpt CD
O N O 6 G �..
Ln Q -i a UQ
0 q p• CD
�� a
CD
b
�. 10 1
CD (D o ¢(D Cay . o 0
a CU4 + q �. C � � n ¢ R 0 CD � CCD � CD
CD �- ' 0 G CD CLcn
�+ L/1 �v CD
CD Vii ¢, N 0 SCD . C M ' P y O. cD
30 h CD CD CD 6 n O GG,
cn h O n N O (CDD " G `C CD It
cn CD
CD ¢0' O
L3 A�
� n
p> W O O
CD CD d
C9 CD
C9
R.
m
Cn
o
o
o
r
N
CD P
o
o,�.�
p .0
�•
�
(7 � • cn rt
D
00
D 0
r�'�sCDc
O
O
�' N n, C�
o'
CD
CDO�CD
(D
CD
0
d �'
O,
'
CSD
Ln
°D
�'
Q
o0
(D
(D
ID
Q
O
0�
�
0
�.
o
(D 0 °
�•
O
0
N
CD n
~ (Ds
�c
('D
a4
0
CD
n
CD
LQ.
0
P�
�
C
O
p a
O
((D
N
CRD
(D
�t
CCD
0
P
O•
p
0
1 o `C
CCDcy,
CD
,
° FL O
o
�a
(D CDo
Q
u- 0
CD P
o
o,�.�
w
�•
(� °
(D
D
00
(D
r�'�sCDc
P �
P;
Ca b
Q
u- 0
cn CD
C
(D
o,�.�
0
�•
(� °
C
D
00
(D
r�'�sCDc
l�
Cs
��CDc
CD
o'
CD
CDO�CD
(D
o o
0
d �'
O,
'
CSD
Ln
°D
�'
CD
N
°�
ID
Q
O
0�
�
0
�.
�
�•
0
�c
�
a CD
(DD
d
CD b
CD
n lNlt �h N �-*, ° n
C, O NCD 0
Vi UQ �' vii
CD It
a o 0
v4 Q
00
CD
Cl
rA 0 2 v4 o
CD C
CD
O CD
0 CODO N
O
rn O N O
°CD
¢
P O.
N
• CD (D
u- 0
cn CD
C
(D
o,�.�
0
�•
(� °
cn
D
00
(D
l�
Cs
CD0
o'
o o
o
o o
0
�. OSD
o
CA
C
CD
CD
Ln
¢¢��
N� • O C�D
O
CD
N
ID
Q
O
0�
P O.
N
(D 00
u- 0
o
'('D
C
(D
.j
P O.
N
(D 00
u- 0
d
C
(D
.j
0
�•
(� °
O
c
0
o
o
l�
Cs
o'
A�
0
o
o.
U� o
0�
0
�c
d
a CD
(DD
CD
D
CD h
P
Fz-
F
0
0
�q
l�
Cs
A�
CD
d
d
n
CD
D
C
p
b
CD M
Mo O cD UfMQ a
P7' CD
co, yrs
CD
SCD CD
CD CD
n p(D tlq ¢ O, 0CD
CD eD
CD
4. o
CD
CD
N ¢ cDCD
¢ !�
o
CD by
p, -r CA CD
N U4
0 h N
D CD ¢ CCD CD' �+
O `id C H �n
• �. m O CD
n ��' CD O �.
O
O
O
�
cPPOCD ��mZ�7o
C . F- n cD o o r+
R c+.
�y o b7 CD
CD � N •
� � O
V
i
n P P w CL
C
0
c
0
�n
.,
UOQ
� o 0
(� n CDN
O' C N
o
�- CD
co CD
O �
N
CD
G
Q
m
CD 0
x �'o CD y a o • • • • o C C o(D �+(fp
CD
• n C CD PP) CCDDcn N vCi CD n n CD `..
(D CD' U4 �+ CD tZ
UQ viup cl.
i UQ fD
CD CD C) C N p� O cn
+ tl4 O rS p p O O CD O CS" r� CY O�
• C3 p' CD CD CD P� 0�+ p UQ UQ
in
CD (D' v' O W+ OCD
O O f)
RL Cl
O O CCD
(D(D CDSD A� CD ID¢ CD �' O N
C P. N O, ¢ C O p
CCD N
-t C) O O — F3 CD ra CD f -h CD U�-'
(D CD C '� UCQ 0 O CD CD Py Z t 1 N r r, 0
Or - ch � CD UQ a, C CD C) CSD O CD �O � CD O0 cn
n• N ¢ UOQ CPD
CD
0 RCD P -
En CJ' (D', � no vii z� Q- ¢
CD �' CD
d t� d tz1
C q
O CD 0' p
CD
CD CD
r3'gC`'
eCD o
o CD m
CD w
cn
o
d �
c 0
CD d
b
C
tj td d
>
¢
cD
�.
N rr
°0
o7�
CD CD
Ln
CD Cn
o
�
�o
cn
CD
a
o ncn o
~'�•�
cD
�•o
ono
C) CD
0
�.
°.
CD U4 CD
CD CD
co
(D
�.
CD
CD
CD
cl
o
tj td d
>
¢ (u o cY cD CD (��D G�G o o U D �
° CD
C O C —h O
— n O gCD
arl O n .
R (DD ¢, Q-
� O �
v
cQ
(D
co
CD
o' CD °
�CD
U)
CD
as
CD
CD
o• Cl
CD
CD
o CD
CD
pt 0 r+
CD
(D
CD
CD
o D
CDCD
CD
moo"
� o �
opC)
P d
8 CD C7
CD (,O 0
�.
Q -
CD CD
uc CD
uq
CD
¢ o CD
o
a
v4 C o
CD
9
CrQ
w
b
CD
to
F
v
Q
n
0
3
3
0
m
0
0
z
0
N
O_
N
�+, COD Qm IQ
wo
r7 .7
CPD P
CD
IO Cr ¢ O O CD � IDCD
eO
O O ` CD �n rt �. vii 0i, (D c �' P� tom+ O CT'0 CD M CD
O ' CD �rOr�� n� A� iil
CD CD
v� `c� vii +� v, � ul O U4 S ►t
p CD ¢ RCCD ' 3'' p ro CD CD
CDr-CRD CCD. C r� C $=L�_ sem+ UQ O P� O O CD 00
O CD CCD CD
CD
^ O r p .p n
�' ri.;� ��'� P h .B.5 5,�'C
pi CD `d 6 cn — rA O O O En p rr
0 00 O �71 O ~ O ~ COD N
cn =r o cn CD
C 0 CD
CD 5 " '~ * a p
CD OqO
o CSD �+ b En
00� CDP� d Oh
�" X ri. CD p _. CD p R 0 C O o
CD
CD En CD 0
0 CD
o0 CDEn
b7
U4 �h n
CDo
D o C FD r� x b r o d
p + UQ :r CD CD CD b C p CD g CD
CD
O f+ COD O 0 A� CD `C cD v' O A� CD n P. O !CD
P CD N p, O 'i� PI CD CD CD
P CD O RO '"t p¢ !� O C, o�rOr�� O COD b 0- 0� CD CD
Ln
tto U4 `d P+ a, r� �C R CDCD
A+
p
gip, a o.
cn Ln W
� .:
W O
'C
CD CD CD d
�o �
c% USG O N R CD
o a (D CD o O `O `d P' c* N � pi CD O
�T cn W ° n f1 (D 0
a"!O ~ R UQ A� ' `d O O O
cin C D °� CCD O W^ O A p O N¢ �+ CD p
Er ID
CD CD fD CD
CD
O CCD ¢ O C A) CCD
CD
C) O CCD '� q CD � cn C3 (D
C �cyD n CD U4 n
(D Q- N - ° C C N CD O. iC CD o �_ A CD SCD
CD P.
i o' CD 't qqo n'
CD
' CCD t* vO a CCD ►�• CSD CC"D QC ~
O. OCD
p Ur.34
Oq
O
• A� O CDd O CD UQ v� �' (D
CD
D CDR -CD
O
+ CD O OncCD n &R
� O
CD
O
U4CD
oq
O CD
�D CD
�d
O CD
cn
It CD CD gt
y� W CD r CD r , O d cn O Cr (D CD CD t
��CD pd O CD � I CD U4 O °cnCP CD
Q rr
CD 0
� � qa u' teap?� , CD ua o
o o b o p CD rL
uq
CD 0
CD
'C
CD CD CD d p
M CD
r•r
N)
N
CSD
N
0
10�'��a
ZJN� �.CIA+ CD
OOO CD
CD
0.�
CD O 0�1 � CD
CD 0- a,
�° °
N0 W�CD
C.
� o
° aCD�CACDC)
ID�.
c o, UP
a1 CD
nq
N.�
� � o
N
a
O `d
C R.
4
CD
8
0 o
�.,
N¢
�
m o o R �_,R
O/ O, O
vCDi
6'
P
O
`CS
C) g
N
2
CD
O
rn
vn
n U'Q
CD
`_ n
qq
¢ CL � �,
°
N
CD
o'
���a'C)CD
CD cru o
o�a�CD
�
g
¢-
' (D
°
B
n4
o
UPo
a
�I
m
qm
9.
O
Eli
O
CD
CD
C O
O n
o'
o �
cn C)
CA rZ
cr
rZ
0
a
CD
0
G
d
°
C
O
CD
-o
O
m
N
CD CD °
o
O
CD
CD
CSD Q Vii v' O CD G1 N b Qro a
p� CD
O O R f7 R n` r CD
CD O . O 6 Or a CD CD Uq
n n O �,
R o
� rp It
� O r•.
cn
0' CD a-
a)- M
p, N ''d CD '� F+�
C) n CDIOD CD
�71 a.
-+ O O O SCD Ca.¢
-} a — P,
o o o P.CD
CD
?_' CD o
+ K° o CD 0 p
O CD CD CD
CD ¢
CZ b d b
d b
d tz1 't
n 'b d 'b
A UQ
UQ
U4 f�4
UQ U4
p
\
0
ro°t(D
via
oma'o
Uq
CD
CD
o
Q,
CD ~
o p o �j
IbcCD
CD
R.
p��,
CDN
p,
C CD C
' CD
C
CD
0 CD
CD
CD
OO
CD
CD
C�
K
CD
d
d
d
d
d
n
N
O
N
ChD
CD
CD
CD
CD
=W
W
w
p
rn C -L 'dam cr CL 0
� cr rnr O
CL 0
0
O
CD
14
CD r�F ~ ~+
O O �
CD r -L
CD 10,
CD O n
� ¢
O 0 CD O N O
" r+
a C7 �Z p O
¢ K
� •-n � C
o
a
p
�a
°ID
oCD
w
F
0'
o cD
CD
p
CD
n
� •-n � C
o
a
p
°ID
oCD
w
F
0'
o cD
p
CD
n
r
d
o CORD
n
pv p
�'
(D R-
a �
m
OP
u4 �
d
O
d
O
ar
�a 0
P n i O
CD
SCD° C
CD
-r
CD
CD
NO
CD
CD
CD
o CD
a' C -D
CD a a
CD
N'
o.
CD
CD
� •CD
UQ
C
CD
a(D
o �
N.
�o
CD
CD P O UIQ
G2 �' 0CCD
D CD - CD C O CD - O p ►..
cr
CD
CD
(D nCD CD O O t O O O�Q V)O
O `a CD
� Q Cn CD = d P� p o r CD r
d��v n (:rO'Q CD n ¢' I 0
ID `d
O CD O CD R A� n UIQ �. O O CDs O N
UQ CD
O p, .-
CD
CD CD
-t `d v� r+ O `d
CD
fat
CDCD
0 0 phi CD r; o CSD
CD CDCD
pi �
NCD�•
01
° a
CD
O ~ C O c0r — C+ UA O F � O QtQ
`o
CD "CD on
`CDFA
rn A� A+ C O A- A+ CD
CD
S W c -D — O
y¢�O
C (� vCDi � � � p W. � O
rA CD
CDC O
CD P
I -D CD
IQ
'+
eD r, UQ �n {�' p� N p. O r+ O O f+ P> 0 O
cD n CD �d O .-. o O+ O p. CD C w
Fz 0 CDD � � o o (D r- °O n ' O r/1 � �t O � . � ��' � CD � UOQ
w f+ w c+ ° cu 0 ¢
CL P
on- CD
TZ CD
CD
c �c
¢ UQ o
C7 d td c�bd� > °a 7
� o
UQ W''
UQ UQ
o
0�CD CDID C�q
ID rorCD
n O cn O ,00 �s
cr
0
�t o b o o o
uq • O �-s � v, C �+, C
O O CD
b �
f~D fD
rt
<D
C.
0
N
crop & (pot F t � �a ° �p n ��-r c0 CD
�!00 C, �-�• 2
CD
CDO O• o P D CCD CD d C
^� �D p�' G a+ r+ i�+ to ° " O
0 0 CD CD
I•d O O CD ro CD
cD CD O v'
Q o r o QCD r C C �cD CD cCDCD' a 'c CD O o
CD
0 17D
° �, ° tai o CD ° C)
r+NO 0 �S n Cp o tb CD o o h r CD
V' U4
• CD' p `C CD t` t ro d il4
° C • '•� � CD MCD
0 tl4 n pr CD CD
,��.� N ►�`* vii CD
O �ID
CDy 00 � 'ro0 �; CD c�n� � CD
�31 CD
P� TS CD p,CD M
- A? CD CD o � T� o cD
cCDD CDDj p ¢ Oy o Uq d r+ ro cCn -0. D " o CD 0
' CODGam. • N P °� �� R CD CD + ID
5 CD�0 (D co. p o
°
CD
cn
nrodro �r' y
°
bb0 Croom ° a CD t7' "'d
0. CD 0 C CD CD
CD
�y O no � O � �. O
r -L CD
UQ n UQ
W
j CD
O CD C �' C O
0 CD CD �-t
d
CD
d
CD
E
m
� o
Q
m
V
72-
C
o N C
O CD .
CD o ro
C CD
ID CD
C
nCDo0
a.
o h CD
CD
N ar
CD
G
G
v
M
C'
COD
� n
W:
n
� U�4
b
nCD
CD
C
(D
~�CDCl..
CD
�
� ,
A�
O
`�
O
b O
�
CDCD
CD
CD n O
�•
CD
C¢D
`C
R
CD
4
CD r+
O
CD ID
o
.5
0 Cr CD
� cn
�O b_
p., �•
'r17'
n
o
� � .
CD
CDCNO
U
CD
G
G
v
M
C'
COD
� n
W:
n
� U�4
b
CD
G
G
v
M
C'
COD
� n
b
b
CA
CD
C
(Dn
D
�
� ,
A�
O
`�
O
b O
�
CDCD
� �
O �
�•
o
C¢D
R
CD
4
O
O
� cn
O
p., �•
�
n
o
� � .
~n
10-
C
*
CD
O
CD
U4
O
CD
G
G
v
M
C'
Q
m
00
ID
5
d w
� uq
o
o
CD
ID
CD C ro
CD CD Mt
�d'-d CD a M
ID
qua
0
(D C' O
r h
N d ID
CD
O "
o'
o °
CD
CD
IDCD
Q CPQ �I� ��C
�- CD
o ° CD N
CD
110�Oj p. � COs
o d N CD
pi. CD
CD p
�.CD
CD 00 CP 0CL0
CD o ro CD O "�
ado ..
P. b p 00 N
CD
10 cn
CD
NCD
CD
CD
n
5
id
CDrL -dCD CD
�
CD
CD
O
o
�
CND
D
°
ID
CD
tdo
o"
oD
xC
�
�'+br
CD
cn
CD
,
CD d
(:'D7'
CD CD
ro C
°CD ¢
uq
O
¢ CD
-*
O CD CCD
CD
CD (D O N
+
IID
(D
cD
CD
ID
5
d w
� uq
o
o
CD
ID
CD C ro
CD CD Mt
�d'-d CD a M
ID
qua
0
(D C' O
r h
N d ID
CD
O "
o'
o °
CD
CD
IDCD
Q CPQ �I� ��C
�- CD
o ° CD N
CD
110�Oj p. � COs
o d N CD
pi. CD
CD p
�.CD
CD 00 CP 0CL0
CD o ro CD O "�
ado ..
P. b p 00 N
CD
10 cn
CD
NCD
CD
CD
n
5
d
CD
d
CD
id
CDrL -dCD CD
�
CD
O
0 CSD �
�
° CD
D
°
ID
tdo
o"
oD
r+��•'�
ID
�'+br
o
CD
,
� CD CUD'u4
r17'
(:'D7'
8
�
+
(D
cD
d
CD
d
CD
v
Q
m
Cm
(gyp F
OCD
CD + CD
Ot `N p O N
CD
0
Cco C�
nCa ➢ �N 'p U4rO °
Cyd
Vii y CD RCD
CD �
v'D CD 0 11 cD `d O r-', P CD
cin c, Q' d p cru
cD ro cn CD 'Y
UP
CD 0 CD
cr
O P, d CDt 0 o rL
p> r -
lo g a
0 CD°
COD I'D
n CD `D O' Fa �' �' N CD
W CCD p CSD b J° CD cr
CD
CD CD
CD
' CD g ' o
'a 0 pd
0 CD CD CD
' 0 C C -D hd
rl 00 cc)
CD
O, b N CD l
C -D UA '—' O r -t
CD CD
a CDD CD C�
. p
A'+
o
b
d d
w
CD (D o p
ee ce
CD
a
(D
CN
0
cr .P, 85P�4
y as a- va pry ('D 't@d •-
C cD o o cD cD .— cn b7CD
.— cnCD ., .
4. a
-s (D p cD cCD G o �' �
p 0 (D CD O
t3 O UQ O 7 r O''
.
¢ C it O `C I
.mss
cn
UQ N N
ID
O O NCD
cr
cD- (D pOpH� P- b Ot (DCD
P CD R S O P car C•`d N o O¢ (D
CD
N O N tS O (D A. 0 b `C OR � O �. �� Uq E O
CA
,O, tv c+ (D �* 40, O
cD n cD O C p. `C
~ N �+ �D . O CSD r� • O n
cn `� O � UQ C N r+ -, o
p (D p Q (DD
�rodro r a
Ow
v' U4 UQ n+
O
d
O
d
O
F
72
CD
rAC