HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2020-021 N.C.S. 02/03/2020Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT,
AND ADOPTING 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 Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to R4 (Residential 4 and a Planned Unit Development (PUD)) and a PUD
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
1 As the tentative parcel map proposes to create three parcels, its approval would be conducted administratively, anticipated to occur
following SPAR approval.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 1
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
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
directed preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final 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 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 conceptual site plan for evaluation in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project proposed 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 Petaluma River Plan Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Project also proposed 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 2
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 Cleric 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 February 3, 2020; and
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, an Errata to the Final EIR (Exhibit 3) was prepared to clarify information
presented in the Final EIR including minor text edits and corrections, clarification on the location
of the floodway line, and post processing of raw hydrologic data, which demonstrates that the
special flood zone A99 is located outside of the 100-year floodplain consistent with FEMA
mapping; 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 information presented in the Final EIR, accepted public
testimony, and approved Resolution No. 2019-021 recommending the City Council certify the
FEIR; and
WHEREAS, in response to comments received at the November 19, 2019 Planning
Commission hearing, the Applicant further refined the conceptual site plan, now the Newly
Revised Project, reducing the development to 180 units, providing 3-story structures for all
buildings not adjacent to existing single family dwellings, committing to a Zero Net Energy all -
electric Project, preserving all protected -status trees both within the River Access and
Enhancement Plan's River Plan Corridor and within the RODZ-subject APN-009 (Tree Numbers
39, 59, 60, 61, and 200), retaining the two isolated wetlands closest to the river, including 10%
onsite inclusionary units (18 units) affordable to low-income households for a term of 55 years,
and further pulling development away from the Petaluma River; and
WHEREAS, the Newly Revised Project at 180 units as presented in the conceptual site
plan is fully within the scope of analysis considered in the DEIR, which analyzed a 278 unit
concept, and the Final EIR, which analyzed a 205 unit concept; 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 Newly Revised Project will require adoption of Findings on Impacts and Mitigations as set
forth in attached Exhibit 1; and
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 3
WHEREAS, the Newly 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 Final EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts of
the 205-unit Revised Project and therefore no statement of overriding consideration is required
for approval of the 180-unit Newly Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, with mitigation the Newly 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 Newly 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 Petaluma City Council City at a duly
noticed hearing on February 3, 2020, at which time the City Council accepted public comment
and reviewed and considered the information presented in the Final EIR prior to making a
decision on the project; 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, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma
that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council herby certifies the Final
EIR for the newly revised 180 unit concept plan (from here on referred to as the "Project") and
finds as follows:
1. The Final EIR for the Sid Commons Apartments Project, inclusive of the Draft EIR and
references and all attachments thereto, have been completed in compliance with CEQA,
the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines; and
2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the Findings
regarding potentially significant effects of the Project and mitigation measures contained
in the attached Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct
and represent the independent judgment of the City; and
3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) set forth in the attached
Exhibit 2, which is incorporated herein by reference, ensures that all mitigation measures
relied on in the Findings are fully implemented and adequate to reduce project impact to
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 4
levels below significance, and compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any
subsequent Project approval; and
4. 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.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the C'-,ApproVtd as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 3ra day of February f for:
2020, by the following vote:
City yAttorney
AYES: Healy; Kearney; King; Miller
NOES:
Mayor Barrett; Vice Mayor Fischer; McDonnell
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 5
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
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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 6
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-lOB: 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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 7
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 (CARE) 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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 8
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 I 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.
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 9
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 diy 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 Proj ect's reconstructed river terrace and implementation of the Proj ect'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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 10
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.
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 11
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.
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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 12
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 now 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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 13
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.
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 14
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-1111, 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
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-1 lA 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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 15
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 diy, 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.
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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 16
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.
Archaeological 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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 17
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.
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 18
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-2B, 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.
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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 19
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
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-l: 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 20
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-1A, 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-113, 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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 21
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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 22
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 -
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-211, 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 23
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
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-lOB: RODZ review at SPAR
Mitigation Measure Bio-11A: Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees
Mitigation Measure Bio-11B: 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 24
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.
Mitigation Measure Noise 413, 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 41), 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 25
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 alaim 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 GraylawnBernice
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
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.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 26
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.
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.
3. 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 313: 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.
5. 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 27
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
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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 28
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 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 42 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.
9. Alternative 313: 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
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. 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 equates to approximately a 152-unit multi -family
residential project, at a trip rate of approximately 7 daily tips per unit. With 152 apartment
units spread over the approximately 16 net acres of developable portions of APNs -006 and -
009, Alternative #4 would yield a density of approximately 10 units per 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.
Alternative #4 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;
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 30
(b) this alternative may not be financially feasible as it would add only 29 more units relative
to Alterative 3B, 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 Alterative #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 44, 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 modified design enables retention of more protected trees, increases development
setback from the Petaluma River, and avoids 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
Alterative #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 does 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 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 180 units on the approximately 16 net
developable parcel (approximately 11 units per acre); (b) provide a river trail as envisioned
by the River Plan and General Plan as well as associated amenities such as a publicly
accessible play structure and small dog park; (c) achieve a central objective of realizing flood
control improvements through terraced grading as directed through the City's General Plan;
(d) preserve all protected -status trees both within the River Access and Enhancement Plan's
River Plan Corridor and within the RODZ-subject APN-009 (Tree Numbers 39, 59, 60, 61,
and 200) and exceed the River Plan Corridor setback identified therein; (e) retain the largest
onsite wetland and the two isolated wetlands closest to the river; (f) realize a Zero Net
Energy and all -electric development; (g) provide inclusionary housing onsite for 10% of the
units at the low income level as authorized by Resolution 2020-XX; and (h) achieve the
objectives for the Project.
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 31
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.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page I
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 32
7. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
8. The applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference with the construction
contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions
of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Monitoring and Reporting
The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the Engineering, Planning and Building
Divisions, as well as the Office of the Fire Marshal. Responsibilities include the following:
l . 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 Page 2
Resolution No. 2020-021 N.C.S. Page 33
Sid Commons Apartment Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Completion:
Responsible Date
Mitigation Measure Party Implementation Signature Completed
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure Visual-2, Implement Mitigation Bio- See Biology,
10A: Limitations on Improvements within the Petaluma below
River Plan Corridor (see Biology section for details)
Mitigation Visual-3A, Inclusion in SPAR:
The Site Plan and Architectural Review process for the
Revised Project shall include evaluation and review of the
Revised Project for:
a) Creation of a lush landscape plan planned to
accommodate significant trees in a manner consistent
with the Oak Creek Apartment complex (see also
Mitigation Bio-9: Incorporation of Native Plants in
Landscaping Plans).
b) Adequate setbacks and/or landscaping between existing
abutting residential structures in the R2 zoning district
(addressed from Graylawn Avenue and Bernice Court).
c) Extent of desirability of utilizing a single -loaded street
near the River corridor, as the means of ensuring the
creation of linear open space corridors with maximum
public accessibility, visibility, and opportunities for
stewardship pursuant to GP 2-P-8.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, N2vMP
Applicant:
Planning
Division /
Planning
Commission:
See Biology,
below
Demonstrate required
SPAR criteria on Site
Plan
Review and approve
Project's Site Plan
pursuant to SPAR
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 3
Mitigation Measure
Visual-313, Implement Mitigation Bio-1013 (as amended):
RODZ review at SPAR (see Biology section for details)
Mitigation Visual-3C, Implement Mitigation Bio-11A (as
amended): Ensure Preservation of Existing Trees (see
Biology section for details)
Mitigation Visual-4, Glare Minimization Design
Standards: The following measures shall be applied to
reduce light and glare at the Project site:
a) Lighting designs shall employ fixtures that would cast
light in a downward direction, and building materials
should not be sources of substantial glare.
b) Lighting should generally occur at intersections, areas of
pedestrian activity, and building entrances, and be
minimized elsewhere.
c) Ornamental, pedestrian -scale fixtures shall be utilized to
the degree possible. Lighting shall be designed to
minimize glare and the direct view of light sources.
d) No lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high
intensity or brightness.
e) Lighting shall utilize energy -efficient fixtures that
provide a balance between energy efficiency and pleasing
light color.
f) High pressure sodium fixtures shall be utilized for street
lighting. Metal halide, incandescent, or color -balanced
fluorescent fixtures may be used for other lighting
systems. Low-pressure sodium fixtures are prohibited.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NIMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Applicant/ Prepare Outdoor
Architect: Lighting Plan for
SPAR review, Sign. Date
demonstrating
implementation of all
measures
Planning Review and approve
Commission: Project's Outdoor Sign. Date
Lighting Plan pursuant
to SPAR
Planning/ Verify final SPAR -
Building approved Outdoor
Division: Lighting Plan prior to Sign. Date
issuance of building
permits
Page 4
Mitigation Measure
g) All streetlights shall utilize cut-off fixtures to minimize
visibility from adjacent areas.
h) Parking area lighting fixtures shall be no higher than
necessary to provide efficient lighting of the parking
areas.
i) Landscape lighting fixtures shall be hidden from direct
view unless designed as an integral part of the area.
j) Landscape lighting sources shall be shielded from view
at night, with the emphasis being on the object or view
being lit.
See also Mitigation Measure Bio-7A.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-ZA, Basic Dust Control: The
Project shall comply with the following `Basic" mitigation
measures as recommended by BAAQMD for reducing
construction related emissions:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas,
soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall
be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose
material off -site shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public
roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Applicant:
Include all measures
in project construction
documents Sign. Date
Planning/
Verify construction
Building
documents prior to
Division:
issuance of grading Sign. Date
permit
Engineering/
Conduct periodic
Building
inspections during
Division:
construction to ensure Sign. Date
that measures are in
place
Page 5
Mitigation Measure
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to
15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall
be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified visible emissions evaluator.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number
and person to contact at the City regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Mitigation Measure AQ-213, Enhanced Dust Control:
Because of the size of the site and the proximity of nearby
sensitive receptors, the Project shall also comply with the
following `Enhanced" mitigation measures as recommended
by BAAQMD for reducing construction related emissions:
W
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant: Include all measures
in project construction
documents
Planning/ Verify measures are
included in
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NEVIRP Page 6
W
Mitigation Measure
a) All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency
adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12
percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples
or moisture probe.
b) All excavation, grading and demolition activities shall be
suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
c) Windbreaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the
windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of
construction. Windbreaks should have at maximum 50
percent air porosity.
d) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native
grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as
possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
e) The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and
ground -disturbing construction activities on the same
area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be
phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any
one time.
f) All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be
washed off prior to leaving the site.
g) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved
road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer
of wood chips, mulch or gravel.
h) Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be
installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from
sites with a slope greater than one percent.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MIvIRP
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Building
construction
Division:
documents prior to
Sign. Date
issuance of grading
permit
Engineering/
Conduct periodic
Building
inspections during
Division:
construction to ensure
Sign. Date
that measures are in
place
Page 7
ON
Mitigation Measure
i) Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered
construction equipment to two minutes.
j) The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the
off -road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be
used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and
subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide
fleet -average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent
PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet
average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions
include the use of late model engines, low -emission
diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit
technology, after -treatment products, add -on devices
such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such
become available.
k) Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local
requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural
Coatings).
1) Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks and
generators be equipped with Best Available Control
Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
m) Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets
CARB's most recent certification standard for off -road
heavy-duty diesel engines. All exposed surfaces shall be
watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum
soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be
verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NINIRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 8
Completion:
Responsible Date
Mitigation Measure Party Implementation Signature Completed
Mitigation AQ-4, Construction -Period DPM Emission
Applicant:
Include all measures
Reductions: All off -road construction equipment greater
in project construction
than 25 horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed
documents Sign. Date
either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or
California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off -road
Building/
Verify that measures
emission standards. The Contractor may use the next
Planning
are included in
cleanest piece of off -road equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with
Division:
construction Sign. Date
Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy
documents prior to
[VDECS], Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS, or Tier 3
issuance of grading
Engine with alternative fuel), if
and building permits
a) a particular piece of off -road equipment that meets these
Building/
Conduct periodic
standards is technically not feasible;
Engineering
inspections during
b) the equipment would not produce desired emissions
Division:
construction to ensure Sign. Date
reduction due to expected operating modes;
that measures are in
c) installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard
place
or impaired visibility for the operator; or,
d) there is a compelling emergency need to use off -road
equipment that does not meet these standards; and
e) The Contactor develops a Construction Emissions
Minimization Plan (CENT) to describe the process used
to identify the next cleanest piece of off -road equipment
and the steps that will be taken to reduce emissions of
criteria air pollutants to the greatest extent practicable.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Pre -Construction Nesting Applicant:
Surveys. If grading operations or construction is scheduled
during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 1
0
Retain qualified
biologist to perform
nesting survey/call Sign. Date
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP Page 9
Completion:
Responsible Date
Mitigation Measure Party Implementation Signature Completed
through August 30), trees in the Project site shall be
survey, as required per
surveyed including call surveys as appropriate for nesting
measure
migratory birds.
Applicant:
Notify Planning
a) Surveys shall be conducted within the following buffers
Division and CDFW
of the construction site: 1) 150 feet for nesting raptors,
in the event of active Sign. Date
and 2) 500 feet for nesting passerines.
nest discovery
b) The surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days
Qualified
Perform survey in
prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities.
Biologist:
event of active nest
c) If an active nest is found prior to construction or during
discovery consult with Sign. Date
g
construction activities, a qualified biologist, in
CDFW and establish
consultation with CDFW, shall determine the appropriate
buffer. Submit
buffer size and delineate the buffer using ESA -approved
findings to City.
fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow -caution tape. A buffer
zone shall be maintained around all active nest sites until
Building/
Review findings prior
the young have fledged and are foraging independently.
Engineering/
to issuance of grading Sign. Date
d) In the event that an active nest is found after the
Planning
permit and verify that
buffers are maintained
completion of preconstruction surveys and after
Division:
(if required) duringconstruction
construction begins, all construction activities shall be
through
stopped until a qualified biologist has evaluated the nest
periodic site
and erected the appropriate buffer around it.
inspections
Mitigation Measure Bio-2b, Pre -Construction Tree Roost
Surveys: For all tree removal and vegetation management
activities the following measures shall be implemented to
protect bats:
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Applicant: Schedule and perform
tree removal in
conformance with Sign. Date
measures, or retain
qualified biologist to
perform a bat roost
Page 10
It
SW
oq
CD
.1
N
Mitigation Measure
a) Tree removal shall be conducted between September Ist
and March 31"in order to avoid the bat maternity periods
and ensure protection of bat species. Should maintenance
activities necessitate tree removal during the maternity
roosting season (April 1 st — August 31 st) then a qualified
biologist shall first perform a bat roost survey of trees
within 7 days to determine if roosts are present. If no
evidence is found, activities may proceed. In the event
that an active roost is observed within the work area than
a work exclusion zone of 50 to 250 feet shall be
established. Work within the exclusion zone shall not be
permitted until the maternity roosting season has
completed. The appropriate size of the exclusion zone
shall be determined by a qualified biologist based upon
the species and its susceptibility to disturbance.
b) Any tree removal with breast diameter height (dbh)
greater than 12 inches or with complex bark structures or
with cavities shall be felled and allowed to rest on the
ground overnight prior to removal.
c) Maintenance activities shall avoid the dust and dawn
period to preclude impacts to emerging bats. Rather,
activities shall occur between 1 hour after sunrise and
one hour before sunset.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NIIvW
Responsible
Party Implementation
survey within 7 days
prior to tree removal
Applicant: Notify Planning
Division and CDFW
in the event of
protected bat
discovery
Qualified Perform
Biologist: Preconstruction
surveys and submit
results and
recommendations to
the City.
Building/
Review findings prior
Engineering/
to issuance of grading
Planning
permit and verify that
Division:
exclusion zones are
maintained (if
required) during
construction through
periodic site
inspections
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 11
Completion:
Responsible Date
Mitigation Measure Party Implementation Signature Completed
Regulatory Requirements, Bio-3: 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 any and all conditions of approval as required
by these resource agency permits and authorizations, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented,
representing the City of Petaluma (as lead agency) baseline
mitigation requirements.
Applicant: Obtain all required
agency permits and
authorizations (e.g., Sign. Date
from U.S. Army
Corps, USF&WS,
RWQCB and/or
CDFW) for River
terrace grading
Planning Verify that all
Division: required agency
permits have been Sign. Date
obtained prior to
issuance of grading or
building permits
including for River
Terracing
Mitigation Measure Bio-3A, Limitations on the Grading
Applicant:
Schedule terraced
Period: To the extent feasible, limit grading in the river area
grading and vegetation
to the dry season, between June 15 and October 15, when
removal as prescribed Sign. Date
low flow conditions are present in the River. Limit
vegetation removal to the period between June 15 and
Building/
Limit issuance of
November 15 to avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish
Planning
grading permit for
fo
species and nesting birds, and to avoid interfering with adult
Division:
River terracing to Sign. Date
spawning migrations or the outmigration of smolts.
schedule as prescribed
Mitigation Measure Bio-313: Pre -Construction Surveys. Applicant: Retain a qualified
b
A qualified USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct pre- biologist to perform
W
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NIMRP Page 12
Completion:
Responsible
Date
Mitigation Measure
Party
Implementation
Signature Completed
construction surveys of all ground disturbance areas within
pre -construction
suitable habitats in the Project site to determine if California
surveys
Sign. Date
red -legged frogs and Western pond turtles are present prior
to the start of grading operations. These surveys shall be
Qualified
In consultation with
conducted within 48 hours prior to the initiation of grading
Biologist:
CDFW, establish
activities in habitats where these species have the potential to
exclusion zone buffer
Sign. Date
occur.
in event of discovery.
a) Preconstruction surveys to detect western pond turtles
Submit results and
should focus on suitable aerial and aquatic basking or
recommendations to
nesting habitat such as logs, branches and riprap, as well
the City.
as the shoreline and adjacent warm, shallow waters
Planning
Verify results of pre -
where pond turtles may be present below the water
Division
construction surveys
Sign. Date
surface beneath algal mats or other surface vegetation.
prior to issuance of
b) Where feasible, preconstruction surveys to detect western
grading permits for
pond turtle nesting activity should be concentrated within
River terracing
0.25 mile of suitable aquatic habitat and should focus on
areas along South- or west -facing slopes with bare hard -
packed clay or silt soils or a sparse vegetation of short
grasses or forbs.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3C, Relocation: If any special
status species are found, either they shall be re -located, 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.
a) Any re -location efforts shall be pre -approved by the
resource agencies.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Applicant/
In the event of
Biologist
discovery of special
status species, contact Sign. Date
Planning Division and
CDFW
CDFW (if
In the event of
special status
discovery of special
species are
status species, Sign. Date
found):
determine whether
Page 13
b
CD
CD
Mitigation Measure
b) If CRLF, WPT or their nesting sites are found, the
biologist shall contact the CDFW to determine whether
relocation and/or exclusion buffers and nest enclosures
are appropriate. If the CDFW approves of moving the
animal, the biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to
move the animal(s) from the work site before work
activities begin.
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. These
measures shall include, but not be limited to:
a) A USFWS-approved biologist shall be present during
grading and clearing activities that could result in harm to
these species. The approved biologist shall have stop -
work authority in the event that a California red -legged
frog or Western pond turtle is found within the Project
site.
b) Install exclusion fencing around grading and clearing
zones to keep out special -status. The areas approved for
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NDvW
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
relocation and/or
exclusion buffers and
nest enclosures are
appropriate
Building/ In the event of
Planning discovery of special
Division status species, Sign.
authorize construction
activity only after
CDFW authorization
Applicant: Retain USFWS-
approved
biologist/Biological Sign.
Monitor
Biological Erect required
Monitor: fencing, conduct
periodic surveys, Sign.
ensure implementation
of all required BMPs
during grading.
Maintain a log of
activities and make
available to USFWS
and City upon request.
Date
Date
Date
Page 14
b
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party Implementation
grading and clearing shall be delineated with temporary
Building/
high -visibility orange -colored fence at least 4 feet in
Planning/
height, flagging, or other barriers. Signs shall be posted
that clearly state that construction personnel and
Engineering
equipment shall not move outside of the marked area.
Division
The fencing shall be inspected by the USFWS-approved
biologist and maintained daily until project completion.
The fencing shall be removed only when all construction
equipment is removed from the site. No construction
activities shall take place outside the delineated project
site.
c) Have the Biological Monitor survey each zone
periodically and relocate species as necessary.
d) Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct
training sessions to familiarize all construction personnel
with:
• identification of California red -legged frog and their
habitat, Western pond turtle and their habitat and
identification of protected salmonids and their
habitats,
• general provisions and protections afforded by the
Endangered Species Act,
• measures implemented to protect the species, and
• a review of project site boundaries
e) To avoid attracting predators, food -related trash shall be
kept in closed containers and removed daily from the
project site.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NDW
Verify presence and
maintenance of BMPs
during construction at
site inspections
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Page 15
z
n
b
Mitigation Measure
f) At the end of each day, all construction -related holes or
trenches deeper than 1 foot shall be covered to prevent
entrapment of potential California red -legged frog.
g) During the process of reviewing the USACE permit
application, the USACE will determine the need to enter
into consultation with the USFWS for impacts on the
federally listed California red -legged frog. If consultation
with the USFWS for the California red -legged frog is
needed, the City of Petaluma would comply with all the
terms and conditions required by the USFWS.
Regulatory Requirements, Bio-4: Pursuant to existing
regulations, the Applicant is required to obtain all required
authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 and/or Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. For the fill of wetlands, waters of the US and/or
the State).
In addition to any and all conditions of approval as required
by these resource agency permits and authorizations, the
following mitigation measures shall be implemented,
representing the City of Petaluma (as lead agency) baseline
mitigation requirements.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Applicant:
Obtain all required
agency permits and
authorizations (e.g., Sign. Date
from U.S. Army
Corps, and/or
RWQCB) for
wetlands fill
Planning/
Verify that all
Building
required agency
Division:
permits have been Sign. Date
obtained, and all
conditions have been
met prior to issuance
of grading or building
permits for project
activities, terracing
and fill to wetlands
Page 16
b
oq
ltl�
00
Mitigation Measure
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, providing new, higher quality wetlands habitat value
than the low value habitat lost due to Project fill and terrace
grading.
a) Final site plans should seek to avoid and retain wetland
features where feasible
b) Compensatory wetland habitat shall ensure no net loss of
habitat functions and values.
c) Compensatory ratios shall be based on site -specific
information and determined through coordination with
the Corps and RWQCB.
d) A Restoration and Monitoring plan for the compensatory
wetlands shall be developed and implemented by the
applicant. The Restoration and Monitoring Plan shall
describe how the new wetlands shall be created and
monitored over a minimum establishment period of five
years.
Regulatory Requirements, Bio-5: 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
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant/
Qualified
Biologist:
Planning
Division /
Planning
Commission:
Demonstrate all
required on -site
compensatory
mitigation in
Landscape Plan for
terrace grading
Prepare Restoration
Habitat and
Monitoring Plan
Review and approve
Landscape Plan for
terrace grading and
HMMP, pursuant to
SPAR process
Building/ Verify that on -site
Planning compensatory
Division: mitigation locations
are provided on
grading and
improvement plans for
terrace grading prior
to issuance of grading
permit
Applicant/ Obtain all required
Biologist: agency permits and
authorizations (e.g.,
from CDFW for loss
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 17
z
n
b
P)
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
development of the property. Any substantial change or use
or disturbance of on -
of any material from the bed, channel or bank of the River or
site riparian vegetation
any change that may substantially adversely affect existing
planning/
Verify that all
fish or wildlife resources will require CDFW issuance of a
Building
required
uired agency
Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Fish and Game
Division:
permits have been
Sign. Date
Code 1602.
obtained and
In addition to any and all requirements of these resource
conditions met prior to
agency permits and authorizations, the following mitigation
issuance of grading or
measures shall be implemented, representing the City of
building permits for
Petaluma (as lead agency) baseline mitigation requirements.
River terracing and
upland development
Mitigation Measure Bio-5A, Riparian Preservation Zone:
Final grading plans for the Project's proposed terraced
grading concept along the Petaluma River shall include a
Riparian (Willow) Preservation Zone comprising the
approximately 0.30 acres of high quality riparian habitat
along the River. Preservation of existing high quality
riparian vegetation shall be achieved in these zones while
accommodating widened channel designs that provides
acceptable flood control containment. The River Plan calls
for all development (including grading and flood control
alterations) to be severely restricted within high priority
Riparian Preservation Zones, all development, including
trails, grading and flood control alterations, shall be
prohibited in these Zones. Minimal intrusions in a carefully
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Applicant/ Demonstrate all
Biologist: required on -site
compensatory Sign. Date
mitigation in
Landscape Plan for
terrace grading,
Prepare Restoration
and Monitoring Plan
as part of HMMP for
the Project
Planning Review and approve
Division / Landscape Plan for
Planning terrace grading and Sign. Date
Commission: HMMP, pursuant to
SPAR process
Page 18
Mitigation Measure
selected location could be authorized by the City for
interpretive purposes only.
Mitigation Measure Bio-513, Riparian Tree Preservation:
A consulting aborist shall review preliminary grading plans
for the river terrace and for the riverside path, prior to
issuance of grading plans. The aborist shall recommend tree
preservation measures (i.e., protective fencing, grading
limits and tree pruning plans) to ensure preservation of
individual riparian and oak woodland trees within and
abutting the riparian zone. This measure shall also apply to
those riparian zones as expanded by the river terracing
project, including trees #65-68, 70-73, 80, 106-107, 209-212
and 205-208, and the 0.30-acre willow thicket designated as
the Riparian (Willow) Preservation Zone.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Building/ Verify that on -site
Planning compensatory
Division: mitigation locations
are provided prior to
issuance of grading
permit for terrace
grading
Applicant: Retain consulting
aborist for review of
preliminary grading
plans. Ensure
protection of all trees
to be retained pursuant
to Mitigation Measure
Bio-11C (below)
Professional Review preliminary
Arborist: grading plans prior to
issuance of grading
permits, and
recommend specific
tree preservation
measures to ensure
preservation of
individual riparian and
oak woodland trees
within and abutting
the riparian zone
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 19
Mitigation Measure
Completion:
Responsible Date
Party Implementation Signature Completed
Planning
Review and approval
Division /
of Tree Removal
Planning
pursuant to SPAR Sign. Date
Commission:
Engineering/
Verify that final
Planning/
SPAR -approved Tree
Building
Removal and all Sign. Date
Division:
conditions thereof are
included in Frontage
Improvement Plans
and grading permits
Mitigation Measure Bio-5C, Habitat Mitigation and
Applicant:
Finalize HMMP for
Monitoring Plan: A final Habitat Mitigation and
review by the
Monitoring Plan (HMMP) shall be submitted for review and
regulatory agencies Sign. Date
approval by the regulatory agencies and the City. The City
and the City
shall authorize the HMMP prior to issuance of the terrace
Planning
Coordinate and ensure
grading plans. The Final HMMP shall be implemented. The
Division:
review and comment
HMMP shall include a landscape and biological restoration
on HMMP b y Sign. Date
plan prepared and signed by a licensed landscape architect,
applicable regulatory
either experienced in environmental restoration or with
agencies prior to City
appropriate consultation and input from wetlands biologists,
approval
soil scientists and hydrologists. The goals and objectives for
the HMMP must be clearly stated, and the plans must be
Planning
Review and approval
developed based on a thorough analysis of existing biologic,
Division /
of HNEVIP pursuant to
soils, and hydrologic conditions, including a consideration of
Planning
SPAR Sign. Date
the historic plant community.
Commission
a) When stabilized and restored, the Restoration Zone shall
be designed and constructed such that it contributes
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 20
Mitigation Measure
significantly to the wildlife and fishery habitat values and
water quality of the greenway.
b) Restoration treatments shall include re -grading, slope
stabilization and planting with genetically local native
riparian and upland species.
c) Access shall be generally restricted from the banks and
bank -top areas in this zone, except at carefully selected
and controlled points where overlooks and interpretive
areas are permitted.
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Mitigation Measure Bio-6, Terraced Grading Erosion
Applicant:
Prepare final Erosion
Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The
Control Plan for all
Project applicant shall prepare and implement a specific
terrace grading work Sign. Date
Terraced Grading Erosion Control Plan for all terrace
and trail construction
grading work and trail construction within and abutting the
within and abutting
Petaluma River floodplain. The discharge or creation of
the Petaluma River
potential discharge of any soil material including silts, clay,
floodplain
sand, or any other materials to the waters of the State is
prohibited.
a) Install and maintain silt fences adjacent to the perimeter
Engineering /
Review and approve
of the work area and immediately downstream of
City Engineer:
Erosion Control Plan
as being in
disturbed areas and install and maintain erosion control
Sign. Date
conformance with all
blankets on all disturbed ground to prevent inadvertent
applicable City and
transport of sediments into the Petaluma River. The
regulatory agency
Project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that
design standards prior
sediment -control devices are installed and maintained
to issuance of grading,
correctly. The devices shall be inspected frequently (e.g.,
river
permits for river
p
daily) to ensure they are functioning properly. Controls
terracing
shall be immediately repaired or replaced or additional
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMI2P
Page 21
It
W
Mitigation Measure
controls shall be installed as necessary. Sediment that is
captured in these controls may be disposed of onsite in an
appropriate approved area or off -site at an approved
disposal site.
b) Soil materials stockpiled at the site must be covered with
plastic sheeting at the end of each workday until
permanently protected with rock ballast materials.
c) Spill prevention and control BMPs shall be implemented
throughout grading activities. Train onsite personnel in
spill prevention practices, and provide spill containment
materials near all storage areas. All contractors are
responsible for familiarizing their personnel with the
information contained in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
d) Spills, leaks, and other problems of a similar nature shall
be resolved immediately to prevent unnecessary impacts.
A plan for the emergency cleanup of any spills of fuel or
other material shall be available on -site, and workers
shall be trained in techniques to reduce the chance for
spills, contain and clean up spills, and properly dispose of
spilled materials for the potential pollutants. Adequate
materials for spill cleanup shall be maintained on -site and
readily available to the employees of each contractor or
subcontractor for immediate response should a spill occur
on -site.
e) Maintain all construction equipment to prevent oil or
fluid leaks, use drip pans or other secondary containment
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NEVIRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 22
Mitigation Measure
measures beneath vehicles during storage, and regularly
inspect all equipment and vehicles for fluid leaks.
f) Water down all disturbed ground surfaces as necessary to
minimize windblown dust.
g) Fuel and service vehicles and equipment that are used
during the course of the proposed grading operation, and
park all grading equipment overnight on the upland
portion of the site and in a safe area outside of sensitive
habitats. Wash vehicles and equipment off -site.
h) Implement the HMMP immediately after grading
operations are complete to re -vegetate all disturbed areas.
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Mitigation Measure Bio-7A, Hooding or Shielding of
Applicant/
Prepare Outdoor
Outdoor Lighting Fixtures: All outdoor lighting including
Architect:
Lighting Plan for
any lighting along the river trail shall be focused and
SPAR review, Sign. Date
directed to the specific location intended (e.g., walkways,
demonstrating
sidewalks, paths). Such fixtures shall be hooded or shielded
implementation of all
to avoid the production of glare, minimize up light and light
measures
spill. All light fixtures shall be located, aimed, or shielded to
minimize spill -light into the riparian corridor and associated
Planning
Review and approve
trees; this shall be demonstrated as a component of SPAR
Division /
Project's Outdoor
review. (The River Plan Design Guidelines states that some
Planning
Lighting Plan pursuant Sign. Date
portions of the river trail may be lit.)
Commission:
to SPAR
Mitigation Measure Bio-713, Pre -Construction Surveys
(see Mitigation Measure Bio-IA): This measure requires
Building/
Verify final SPAR -
pre -construction biological surveys and determination of
Planning
approved Outdoor
avoidance measures as necessary during construction.
Division:
Lighting Plan prior to Sign. Date
Mitigation Measure Bio-7C, Avoidance and
issuance of building
permits
Minimization see Mitigation Measure Bio-3 : This
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NIN RP
Page 23
b
CD
CD
VI
Mitigation Measure
measure requires avoidance and minimization measures to
be employed prior to and during all grading and construction
activities within the Petaluma River, as required and/or
approved by subsequent permitting agencies, to protect
special status species and sensitive habitats. These measures
include, but are not limited to 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.
Responsible
Party Implementation
Mitigation Bio-9, Incorporation of Native Plants in
Applicant/
Prepare final
Landscaping Plans: As part of the Project's Site Plan and
Landscape
Landscape Plan for
Architectural Review process, the Project applicant shall
Architect:
SPAR review,
submit a Landscape Plan for review and approval by the
demonstrating use of
City. The landscape Plan shall incorporate planting of native
City -approved native
trees and ground cover plants consistent with the goals and
riparian plant species
objectives for this reach of the River as described in the
for landscaping within
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
the Petaluma River
a) The Landscape Plan shall only include plants from the
Preservation and
City's approved list of commonly occurring native
Restoration zones
riparian plant species for landscaping proposed within the
planning
Review and approve
Petaluma River Preservation and Restoration zones.
Division /
Project Landscape
b) In the Buffer Zone (including 200 feet from the River
Planning
Plan, including use of
centerline and its extension 50' from oak drip lines and
Commission:
native riparian
wetlands and 30' from constructed river terrace top of
species, pursuant to
bank), the Landscape Plan shall incorporate riparian
SPAR
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNIItP
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 24
Mitigation Measure
buffer zone plantings as recommended from the City of
Petaluma's approved list (including River Plan page 165
and Chapter 5, Table 1). The planting objectives in this
riparian buffer will be to minimize removal of native
vegetation and re -plant, where appropriate, with native
plants species.
c) Landscaping within the River Oriented Development
Zone (i.e., the Project's upland development area on
existing Parcel -009) shall include use of "compatible"
plants, as defined in the River Plan (Chapter 5, Tables 1
and 2).
d) Although not included as part of the River Plan's River
Oriented Development Zone, landscaping within existing
Parcel -006 should be similar to that in the RODZ.
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, see Corridor mapped
at Figure 2-5). 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.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NDARP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Building/ Verify that final
Planning SPAR -approved
Division: Landscape Plan,
shows all required
native riparian species
prior to approval of
final grading plans for
terraced grading
within River
Preservation and
Restoration zones,
including Buffer Zone
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Applicant: Prepare final Site
Plans demonstrating
no encroachment of Sign. Date
residential structures
into Petaluma River
Plan Corridor
Site Plans shall
specifically indicate
any requests for minor
encroachments into
River Plan Corridor
Planning Verify no
Division / encroachment of
residential structures Sign. Date
Page 25
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Bio-1013, RODZ review at SPAR: The Site
Plan and Architectural Review process shall include
evaluation and review of the Revised 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.
Mitigation Measure Bio-11A, Ensure 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 located within the Petaluma River
Plan Corridor and those oaks isolated 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.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NINIRP
Completion:
Responsible Date
Party Implementation Signature Completed
Planning
Commission
into Petaluma River
Plan Corridor, and
specifically itemize
any approved minor
encroachments for
associated
improvements
Building/ Verify that final
Planning SPAR -approved Site
Division: Plan conditions of
approval are included
prior to issuance of
grading and/or
building permits
Applicant/ Prepare a Landscape
Professional Plan for SPAR review
Arborist: demonstrating best
efforts to preserve the
most desirable and
significant healthy
trees on site, per
measures
Ensure protection of
all trees to be retained
pursuant to Mitigation
Measure Bio-11C
(below)
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 26
b
oq
CD
00
Completion:
Responsible
Date
Mitigation Measure
Party
Implementation
Signature Completed
a)
No protected tree shall be removed unless a tree removal,
planning
Review and approval
grading or building permit is issued by the Community
Division /
of Tree Protection
Development Department.
Planning
pursuant to SPAR
Sign. Date
b)
As the Revised Project concept plan depicts, the
Commission:
residential structures shall not extend into the Petaluma
planning/
Verify that final
River Plan Corridor. Protected healthy oak trees located
Engineering/
SPAR -approved Tree
within the Petaluma River Corridor (trees 469, 75, 77 and
Building
Removal is accurately
Sign. Date
79) shall be preserved. Within the Petaluma River Plan
shown on the grading
Corridor, the small California bay (#74) shall also be
Division:
and Building Permit
preserved as a native tree within the Corridor. The
and all conditions
eucalyptus (#76) shall be removed as an exotic species
thereof are included in
undesirable near a riparian setting.
Public Improvement
c)
As the Revised Project concept plan depicts, not more
Plans and grading
than three mature oak trees shall be removed from the
permits
RODZ (i.e., within APN-009) to accommodate the
Project. The Revised Project's concept plan shows these
as oaks 459, 60 and 61. Younger oaks #101 and 202 shall
also be preserved. Should the updated arborist review
(per Mitigation Measure Bio-1 le) find that any of the
large oaks proposed to be preserved by the concept plan
is not healthy and a good candidates for preservation, the
site plan designed for SPAR shall instead preserve
another of the large oaks on APN-009.
d)
The Site Plan and Architectural Review process shall
further consider site design modifications to preserve
protected trees to the greatest extent possible at APN-006
generally (as directed by the Tree Ordinance). Each
Protected tree shall be further considered for
reservation; oaks #1, 13, 17 and 100 shall be
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 27
b
oD
CD
Mitigation Measure
particularly pursued. Tree protection on APN-006 shall
be equal to that depicted by the Revised Project's concept
plan. Thinning of the redwoods along Crraylawn may be
authorized by SPAR if recommended by the arborist. The
EVA shall be designed to accommodate oaks 1 and 2, but
should the Fire Marshal and the arborist fmd this
impossible, SPAR is authorized to allow their removal
pursuant to Mitigation Measure Bio 11-B.
e) During preparation of the site plan for SPAR, the
applicant shall work collaboratively with the arborist and
the civil engineer to design a site plan that addresses Bio
11B through 11D. The arborist shall provide further tree
preservation analysis as part of the SPAR submittal, and
shall ensure that all trees over 4 inches at breast height
are included in the analysis.
Mitigation Measure Bio-11B, Protected Tree
Replacements: For all protected trees permitted by the City
to be removed, the project applicant shall provide
replacement trees at the following ratios:
a) All protected trees determined by the Project arborist to
be in good or excellent health, and/or with moderate to
good structure, shall be replaced on a one-to-one trunk
diameter basis. (Example: A 24-inch protected tree in
good or excellent condition must be replaced with new
trees totaling 24 inches in trunk diameters.)
b) All protected trees determined by the Project arborist to
have fair or marginal health, and/or with marginal
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNW
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Applicant/ Prepare fmal
Landscape Landscape Plan for
Architect: SPAR review, Sign. Date
demonstrating all
required tree
replacement measures
have been met
Planning Review and approve
Division / Project landscape
Planning Plan, including tree Sign. Date
Commission replacement plans,
pursuant to SPAR
Page 28
Mitigation Measure
structure, shall be replaced on a two -to -one trunk
diameter basis. (Example: A 24-inch protected tree in
fair -to -marginal condition must be replaced with new
trees totaling 12 inches in trunk diameter
c) Replacement tree ratios shall be applied as follows:
24-inch box replacement tree = 2-inch replacement
trunk diameter
• 36-inch box replacement tree = 3-inch trunk
replacement diameter
• 48-inch box replacement tree = 4-inch trunk
replacement diameter
d) Replacement trees shall be at minimum 24-inch box size.
e) All protected trees determined by the Project arborist to
have poor health or poor structure are not required to be
replaced.
f) Replacement trees shall be planted within the Project
boundaries to the extent feasible, and the applicant shall
find suitable off -site location(s) for the required trees if
on -site replacement is found infeasible.
g) If the location of replacement tree planting will remain as
a natural area suitable for the healthy and long-term
growth of native trees, replacement of protected trees
should occur in -kind. If the location of replacement tree
planting will be part of an irrigated, ornamental
landscape area, replacement of protected trees may occur
with a species as identified by the project arborist and
approved by the City Planning Department
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Engineering/ Verify that final
Planning/ SPAR -approved
Building Landscape Plan,
Division: which shows all
required replacement
trees, is included as
part of final Public
Improvement Plans
and landscape plans
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Page 29
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure Bio-11C, Tree Protection Plan: All
trees designated for preservation must have a good chance of
long-term survival; specific recommendations to avoid
firstly construction and then long-term impacts shall be
included for each to -be -preserved tree. Simply preserving a
tree does not excuse it from designated mitigation
requirements. Preserved trees must have a good chance to
survive after all the impacts of construction are considered.
Consistent with the recommendations for tree protection as
listed in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan
(RASP), a tree protection plan for the Project 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 Project to protect them during on -site
grading and construction. A conceptual tree protection plan
for the Project shall be provided for SPAR review, and a
final tree protection plan for the Project shall be included as
part of all Public Improvement Plans and grading permits
issued for the Project. The following tree protection
measures from the River Plan shall implemented:
a) All trees over five feet tall, or with a diameter over six
inches measured at 4.5 feet in height over ground level,
must be drawn to scale on plans, including species,
approximate age and height, diameter at three feet and
drip line. Also, show trees on adjacent property if the
property line abuts or goes under drip line. Oaks to 4" in
diameter, within 50' of the property line should be called
out separately.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant/
Licensed
Landscape
Architect,
Arborist or
Certified
Forester
approved by
the City
Planning
Division /
Planning
Commission:
Engineering /
Planning/
Building
Division:
Prepare conceptual
Tree Protection Plan
for all trees to be
preserved within the
Project, and to protect
them during on -site
grading and
construction
Review and approval
of conceptual tree
protection plan
pursuant to SPAR
Verify that final
SPAR -approved tree
protection plan is
included in Public
Improvement Plans
and grading permits
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 30
Mitigation Measure
b) Plans shall indicate clearing, stripping and grading limits.
Clearing and stripping limits must be staked on -site by
the project engineer.
c) All utility plans must be included and their location
relative to trees shown on plans.
d) Specific trees to be saved must be noted on the grading
plans and shall be clearly marked on all plans and in the
field.
e) Trees within the clearing areas (including exotics) noted
to be removed shall be clearly marked on plans and in the
field.
f) Applicants are encouraged to work closely with City staff
to decide which trees, if any, must be removed.
Convincing and compelling reasons must be provided for
the removal of any native species.
g) Bulkheads or tree wells may be used around trees where
grading may be detrimental to the tree's preservation.
h) No grading shall be done within the drip line of trees to
be saved except where noted on approved grading or
landscaping plan.
i) Construction equipment is prohibited from areas of the
site where no grading will occur. Storage of equipment,
vehicles, topsoil or materials shall not be permitted
within the drip line of trees to be saved. Areas of natural
vegetation shall be protected as necessary.
j) Trees to be saved shall be fenced or protected to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to start of
Sid Commons Apartment Project, M IRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 31
Mitigation Measure
construction, and maintained throughout the construction
period.
k) If grading is permitted under a drip line, once grade has
been established, a temporary six-foot tall chain link
fence should be installed around the tree at a distance of
six feet minimum (or at a distance to be determined by
arborist), from the trunk. This fence is to remain until
construction is complete. Nothing may be stored inside
this fence.
1) All excavation within a tree's drip line should be done by
hand with a shovel and pick. If a woody root is
encountered, care should be taken not to split the root, as
this would create an entrance site for disease that can
destroy the root and grow into the tree via the root. The
roots should be wrapped in wet burlap to protect them
from drying out while they are out of the soil. If a root
needs to be cut, a very sharp hand -pruning saw should be
used. Again, be careful not to split or twist the root or
allow it to dry out.
m) If a utility line must be installed within a drip line, drill or
bore the conduit through the soil rather than digging a
trench. Less root damage will occur. Place all utility lines
in the same passage, if possible, to avoid disruptions to
the root zone.
n) There should be no trenching, drilling, or boring within
six feet of the trunk. In parking lots, irrigation and
airification devices must be installed.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 32
CD
CD
Mitigation Measure
o) If paving is necessary within the drip line, use porous
materials such as gravel, cobbles, brick with sand joints,
wood chips or bark mulch.
p) Non -oak trees should be irrigated before construction
starts. Oak trees should be irrigated prior to August 1.
This will ensure that the trees can better withstand the
stress of construction. Irrigation is extremely important
during spring and summer for stressed, mature non -oak
native species.
q) After construction, do not fertilize the native oak trees
until the following season's leaf is matured. This prevents
a construction stressed tree from further decline by over -
expending its energy reserves in response to the fertilizer.
r) During the course of construction operations, any
pruning of trees designated on plans as "to be saved",
shall be performed under the supervision of a qualified
arborist. No pruning by construction personnel is
permitted. Care shall be taken to ensure that proper
pruning, thinning and treatment for disease prevention
shall be employed.
s) Any additional tree removals necessitated during the
course of construction operations, but not shown for
removal on approved plans, shall be inspected and
approved by the Planning Department prior to such
removals. Planting of specimen trees (36-inch box) at a
compensation rate of at least 3:1, or as determined by the
City will likely be required to replace trees damaged or
removed during construction.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 33
Mitigation Measure
t) On -site inspections by the project engineer and landscape
architect shall ensure that there is no encroachment into
the areas beyond the "limits of grading" as shown. Trees
outside the grading area or designated "to be saved" are
to be adequately protected during construction
operations.
u) Landscaping under native oak trees should consist of
drought tolerant plants or California native plants that are
drought tolerant in nature and must not require
supplemental water so as to be detrimental to the trees.
There is to be no landscaping within the drip line.
Chipped bark, mulch or cobblestones are suitable for this
area. No lawns should be planted within the drip line.
v) Permanent irrigation systems should be bubbler, drip or
sub -terrain only. No sprinkler systems should be allowed
within six feet of trees, except for Oaks. Oaks may have a
temporary drip only.
w) A manually operated drip system is the preferable
method of irrigation within the drip line, although
irrigation is not recommended under established native
oaks at all, and especially not in the summer. Never
allow irrigation water to seep into the six-foot radius or
pool around the root crown
Mitigation Measure Bio-12A, Infected Tree
Identification: Pursuant to the City's Tree Removal Permit
process and prior to Public Improvement Plan approvals and
grading permit issuance, all trees of "at -risk" species
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NURP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant/ Survey all trees of "at-
Arborist: risk" species proposed
for removal for
sudden oak death
pathogens
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Page 34
Mitigation Measure
proposed for removal shall be surveyed for sudden oak death
pathogens and individual treatment methods identified.
Mitigation Measure Bio-12B, 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 from a property is only recommended if it is the
first infected tree to be detected in the area, 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.
a) Whenever possible, the tree debris should be left on -site
in a safe area where large woody debris will not move,
endanger the public, contaminate uninfected hosts or
constitute a fire hazard.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MIVIRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Develop individual
treatment methods per
measures, include
measures in grading
plan and implement
during tree removal
Planning /
Verify treatment
Engineering /
measures and approve
Building
Tree Removal prior to
Division:
Public Improvement
Plan approvals and
grading permit
issuance
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Page 35
Mitigation Measure
b) When infected oaks are cut down and left on site,
branches should be chipped and larger wood pieces cut
and split. Woodpiles should be stacked in sunny locations
to promote rapid drying.
c) Firewood and chips should not be left in an area where
they might be transported to another location (e.g.
trailside, parking areas, etc.).
Cultural Resources
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Mitigation Measure Cultural-1: Monitoring of Well
Applicant/ The Applicant shall
Abandonment. When the two existing wells on the site are
Qualified retain a qualified
removed, a qualified archaeologist shall be present to record
Archaeologist: archaeologist to record Sign. Date
and recover any potentially significant historic -era deposits
and recover any
that may be uncovered. If historic materials are observed,
potentially significant
they shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR forms and
historic -era deposits
such forms filed with the CHRIS and the Planning Division.
and submit records to
In the event that the onsite wells are abandoned and capped
CHRIS and Planning
in place, then monitoring would be unnecessary, as no
Division
disturbance to potential resources would occur.
Mitigation Measure Cultural-2: Discovery of Unknown
Archaeological Resources and Tribal Resources (as
amended). To reduce potential impacts on prehistoric site
deposits and or Tribal cultural resources that may be
discovered during construction:
a) 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
b
Applicant: Retain qualified
archaeological
consultant approved Sign. Date
by the City of
Petaluma and from the
Federated Indians of
Graton Rancheria's
list of qualified
archaeologists
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MM" Page 36
Mitigation Measure
demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with the
Tribe, to monitor ground -disturbing activity near the
Petaluma River; that is during the river terrace grading
work. The archeologist shall monitor ground -disturbing
activities according to a schedule agreed upon by the
archeological consultant and the City of Petaluma. The
monitor need only be present during activities that could
affect significant archeological deposits or Tribal cultural
resources. After considering the types of project activities
and the probabilities of encountering a significant
archaeological deposit or Tribal cultural resource, the
City and the archaeologist shall adjust the monitoring
frequency accordingly, or implement a cessation of the
monitoring schedule altogether.
b) 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 cease. The archaeological
monitor shall have the authority to stop work and
temporarily redirect crews and heavy equipment until the
resource is evaluated. The archaeological monitor shall
immediately notify the City of Petaluma Planning
Division of resources encountered. The archeological
monitor shall, after making a reasonable effort to assess
the identity, integrity and significance of the encountered
resource, present the findings of this assessment to the
City and provide treatment recommendations.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Qualified
Monitor ground -
Archaeological
disturbing activity
Consultant
near the Petaluma
Sign. Date
River during the river
terrace grading work
Stop work and notify
Planning Division in
the event of
potentially significant
archaeological
resource discovery —
develop appropriate
resource treatment
program. Submit a
record of monitoring
and findings to City
FIGR THPO:
If resources are
encountered, review
find, assess
Sign. Date
significance, and
provide input of
treatment plan
Planning /
Review record of
Division:
monitoring and
coordinate with FIGR
Sign. Date
on treatment plan
Page 37
Completion:
Responsible Date
Mitigation Measure Party Implementation Signature Completed
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.
a) 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 (per Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards (SVP 1995). 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.
b) 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.
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 the following measures
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NEVIRP
Applicant:
Include measure on
project construction
contract and
Sign. Date
improvement plans
Construction
Notify Planning
Contractor/
Division in the event
Applicant:
of potentially
Sign. Date
significant
archaeological
resource discovery
Paleontologist:
In event of discovery,
prepare and
recommend to the
Sign. Date
City an excavation
plan for mitigating
effects to the resource
Planning /
In event of discovery,
Division:
review and approve an
excavation plan for
Sign. Date
mitigating effects to
the resource
Applicant/ Include measure on
Construction project construction
Contractor: contract and Sign. Date
improvement plans
Page 38
0
0
z
0
N
0
N
0
0
h
iA
Mitigation Measure
shall be undertaken in accordance with the Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5:
a) The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted to
determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required.
b) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native
American, the coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
c) The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified
archaeologist to provide adequate inspection,
recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate.
d) The Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons believed to be the most
likely descended from the deceased Native American,
and shall contact such descendant in accordance with
state law.
e) The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that
human remains and associated grave goods are reburied
with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to
the most likely descendent.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NINIRP
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Notify Planning
Division and County
Coroner in the event
Sign. Date
of discovery - If the
Coroner determines
the remains to be
Native American,
contact the Native
American Heritage
Commission
Applicant:
In event of discovery,
retain qualified
archaeologist to
Sign. Date
provide inspection,
recommendations and
retrieval, if
appropriate
Native
In event of discovery
American
of Native American
Heritage
remains, contact most
Sign. Date
Commission
likely descendent and
develop disposition
plans
Planning /
In event of discovery,
Division:
review and coordinate
on recommendations
Sign. Date
and treatment
Page 39
It
PO
UP
CD
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party Implementation
Mitigation Measures Cultural-2 through -4 identify See above
procedures should any unknown tribal cultural resources be
disturbed, and impacts of the Project on currently unknown
Tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure Geo-2A, Compliance with California
Building Code: Project development shall meet all
requirements of the California Building Code Vols. 1 and 2,
2016 Edition or the most recent edition at the time of
development. These standards include the California
Building Standards 2015 Edition published by the
International Conference of Building Officials (or most
recent edition at the time of development), and as modified
by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by
the City of Petaluma.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2B, Incorporation of
Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations: The
recommendations of RGH Consultants' Geotechnical
Engineering Report Update for Sid Commons (January 20,
2015) regarding foundation and structural design, or
equivalent measures, shall be incorporated in the final design
of 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
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNAP
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Applicant:
Incorporate all
Building Code and
Geotechnical Sign. Date
Investigation
recommendations into
project construction
and improvement
plans
Building
Review and approve
Division:
all building permits in
accordance with Sign. Date
required measures
Project
Inspect construction
Geotechnical
work and certify to the
Engineer:
City, prior to issuance Sign. Date
of a certificate of
occupancy that the
improvements have
been constructed in
accordance with the
geotechnical
specifications
Page 40
Mitigation Measure
constructed in accordance with the approved Geotechnical
Investigation specifications.
Completion:
Responsible Date
Party Implementation Signature Completed
Building Verify at site
Division: inspections Sign. Date
Mitigation Measure Geo-5A, Soil Treatment: The
Applicant:
Incorporate soil
detrimental effects of expansive soil movements can be
treatment and/or
reduced by pre -swelling expansive soils and covering them
Foundation design Sign. Date
with a moisture fixing and confining blanket of properly
measures into project
compacted non -expansive engineered fill (select fill). Select
construction and
fill can consist of approved non -expansive on site soils,
improvement plans
imported non -expansive materials or lime stabilized on -site
Building
Review and approve
clay soils. In building areas, the blanket thickness of select
Division:
all building permits in
fill required depends on the expansion potential of the soils
accordance with Sign. Date
and the anticipated performance of the foundations and
required measures
slabs. In order to effectively reduce foundation and slab
heave given the expansion potential of the site's soils, a
blanket thickness of 30 inches shall be utilized in building
areas at the Project site. In exterior slab and paved areas, the
select fill blanket need only be 12 inches thick. On -site and
imported select fill materials shall have a low expansion
potential (El less than 50), and conform in general to the
following requirements:
a) Sieve size of 6 inches —100% passing (by dry weight)
b) Sieve size of 4 inches — 90% to 100% passing (by dry
weight)
c) No. 200 —10% to 60% passing (by dry weight)
Mitigation Measure Geo-513, Foundation Design: The
Project's proposed structures shall be supported on either
post -tensioned slabs or mat slabs. These slabs shall be
designed using the expansion characteristics of the soils.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 41
Mitigation Measure
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.
�t Mitigation Measure Geo-6, Erosion Control Plan: Prior to
o 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,
o backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in
o accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision
Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma
N Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control
z 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.
a) The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization,
dust control, erosion control and pollution control
measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control.
b) The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best
management practices" (BMPs) to be used during and
following construction to control pollution resulting from
both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant/
Contractor/
Geotechnical
Engineer:
Prepare Erosion
Control Plan for
review and approval
by City Engineer,
including all
applicable measures
City Engineer / Approve Erosion
Building Control Plan prior to
Division: issuance of grading
permit
Periodic site visit to
verify compliance
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 42
b
oD
CD
Mitigation Measure
identify locations for vehicle and equipment staging,
portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and access routes.
c) Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel
construction entrance areas or other control to prevent
tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains.
d) Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site
during grading and construction to ensure compliance
with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any
violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Mitigation Measure Haz-1A, Soil Testing and Regulatory
Applicant:
Conduct soil testing
Compliance (as amended): Prior to issuance of building or
program and
grading permits, the project applicant shall conduct a soil
investigations per Sign. Date
testing program to identify the potential for agricultural
measures
chemicals, agriculture -related petroleum hydrocarbon spills,
Applicant/
Submit to the City
lead -based paint or elevated levels of contaminants near the
Applicable
proof of clearance
rail tracks to be present in the soils at levels exceeding
RegulatorySign.
from all appropriate Date
recommended health screening levels. Should any impacted
Agency:
agencies prior
soil be discovered that exceeds human health screening
issuance of a grading
levels for residential soil as noted in DTSC's HERO HHRA
permit- Or — submit
Note 3 criteria and/or Environmental Screening Levels
approved Soils
(ESLs), such soils shall be excavated and removed for
Management Plan
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 43
Completion:
Responsible
Date
Mitigation Measure
Party
Implementation
Signature Completed
appropriate off -site disposal prior to development pursuant
Applicant/
Comply with all
to existing regulatory requirements.
Grading
requirements and
Mitigation Measure Haz-1B, Discovery of Unknown
Contractor:
conduct construction
Sign. Date
Contaminants (as amended): If unknown contamination,
in conformance with
underground tanks, containers or stained or odorous soils are
measures
discovered during construction activities, appropriate
Building/
Review proof of
investigation, sampling and comparison of data collected
Planning/
clearance or Soil
with health -based screening levels and/or consultation with a
Management plan and
Sign. Date
regulatory oversight agency shall be conducted.
g g g y
Engineering
verify through site
Division:
inspections
z
N Specific design requirements and implementation measures
See MM
o for minimizing Project -generated erosion and for controlling
Hydro-1,
b fuel/hazardous material spills to be set forth in the applicant's
below
zSWPPP are identified in Mitigation Measure Hydro-1:
SWPPP Requirements (see Chapter 11: Hydrology).
in
Mitigation Measure Haz-5, Fencing (as amended): As
Applicant:
Prepare detailed fence
demonstrated in the Revised Project's conceptual design, the
design plans
Project shall include an open -design appropriate fence along
Sign. Date
the edge of and parallel to the rail tracks, with consideration
provided to the protection of existing trees, to limit access
Planning
Review and approval
onto the railroad right-of-way. The final fence design shall
Division /
offence design
be subject to SPAR review and approval.
Planning
pursuant to SPAR
Sign. Date
Commission:
Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Requirement Hydro-1: Pursuant to existing
Applicant:
Obtain all required
regulations, the applicant is required to obtain coverage
agency permits and
under the NPDES General Construction Activities Permit
Sign. Date
alp
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 44
b
Mitigation Measure
from the RWQCB. In accordance with NPDES regulations,
the Project applicant is also required to prepare a site -
specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
per General Construction permit requirements.
In addition to any and all requirements of these resource
agency permits and authorizations, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented, representing the City of
Petaluma (as lead agency) baseline mitigation requirements.
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
authorizations (e.g.,
from RWQCB)
Building/ Verify that all
Planning/ required agency
Engineering permits have been Sign.
Division: obtained prior to
issuance of grading or
building permits, and
Improvement Plans
Date
Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, SWPPP Requirements:
Applicant:
Prepare final SWPPP
Design requirements and implementation measures for
for all construction
minimizing Project -generated erosion and for controlling
phases of the Project Sign. Date
fuel/hazardous material spills shall be set forth in the
applicant's SWPPP, in accordance with State and RWQCB
design standards. It is recommended that the SWPPP, at a
City Engineer/
Review and approve
minimum, include the following or similar provisions:
Engineering
SWPPP as being in
a) Leave existing vegetated areas undisturbed until
Division:
conformance with all Sign. Date
applicable City and
construction of improvements on each portion of the
RWQCB design
development site is ready to begin;
standards prior to
b) Immediately re -vegetate or otherwise protect all
issuance of grading,
disturbed areas from both wind and water erosion upon
building and Frontage
the completion of grading;
Improvement Plan
c) Collect storm water runoff into stable drainage channels,
permits
from small drainage basins, to prevent the buildup of
large, potentially erosive storm water flows;
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Page 45
Mitigation Measure
d) Direct runoff away from all areas disturbed by
construction;
e) Use sediment ponds or siltation basins to trap eroded
soils before runoff is discharged into onsite or off -site
drainage culverts and channels;
f) Install straw rolls, straw bales or other approved
materials below all disturbed areas adjacent to the
Petaluma River and surrounding all wetland areas to be
retained, to prevent eroded soils from entering the river
channel. Maintain these facilities until all disturbed
upslope areas are fully stabilized, in the opinion of the
City Engineer;
g) To the extent possible, schedule major site development
work involving excavation and earthmoving for
construction during the dry season;
h) Develop and implement a program for the handling,
storage, use and disposal of fuels and hazardous
materials. The program should also include a
contingency plan covering accidental hazardous material
spills;
i) BMPs shall be used for preventing the discharge or other
construction -related NPDES pollutants beside sediment
(i.e. paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters.
j) Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site,
except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff;
and
k) After construction is completed, inspect all drainage
facilities immediately downstream of the grading site for
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNIIZP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed.
Page 46
Mitigation Measure
accumulated sediment, and clear these facilities of debris
and sediment as necessary.
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 -
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.
a) The report shall delineate individual drainage
management areas (DMAs) within the Project site, and
provide analysis to show compliance with the volumetric
or flow -based treatment criteria as described in the Small
MS4 General Permit.
b) The Projects SWCP must provide the capacity to either
infiltrate or evapotranspire all runoff generated by the
85th percentile storm event.
c) Treatment measures must be provided for runoff that
cannot be diverted to the site's storm water system, using
specified Best Management Practices able to remove or
otherwise neutralize identified pollutants.
d) Water quality improvements shall not be placed so low in
the floodplain that they are inundated by a 2-year storm.
Mitigation Measure Hydro-2B, SWCP Monitoring and
Maintenance Agreement: Prior to public improvement plan
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NINTRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant: Prepare final Storm
Water Control Plan
for all phases of the
project's operations
Engineering / Review and approve
City Engineer: SWCP as being in
conformance with all
applicable City of
Petaluma's
Stormwater
Management and
Pollution Control
Ordinance
requirements
Verify the selection
and design of BMPs
as being consistent
with City's
Stormwater Policy and
Design Standards, and
per the applicable
NPDES permit issued
to the City and other
available guidance
documents
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 47
Mitigation Measure
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.
a) Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be
carefully described including vector control, clearing of
clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media
filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paved
areas, etc.
b) Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous.
Therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to
include disposal at a proper site.
c) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be
conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB
and/or City of Petaluma. Monitoring and maintenance
shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB.
The SWCP may be adjusted as necessary to address any
inadequacies of the BMPs.
d) Provide maintenance funding in perpetuity for
maintenance of all stormwater related improvements,
subject to City approval. Funding mechanism shall be by
taxation, not subject to repeal through property owner or
renter action.
e) The Project applicant shall prepare informational
literature and guidance on residential development BMPs
to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to all
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Bate
Signature Completed
Page 48
b
CD
CD
cc
0
Mitigation Measure
adult residents at the Project site. At a minimum, the
information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial
cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping
chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of
hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals
into storm drains.
f) The terraced flood plain shall be inspected at least
annually, prior to the onset of the rainy season, by a Civil
Engineer licensed to practice in the State of California, to
ensure that the terracing is performing as designed and
required in project approvals. The Civil Engineer shall
prepare a signed and sealed report of the inspection
including findings, photo documentation, any necessary
proposed modifications and a statement indicating that
the system is operating as designed and required by
project approvals. The annual report shall be submitted to
the City of Petaluma Planning Division and Department
of Public Works and Utilities no later than October 15th
of each year.
Land Use
The following Mitigation Measures for the Project set forth
in throughout this DEIR, primarily in Chapter 6: Biology,
would mitigate impacts to biological resources and would
serve to minimize conflicts with objectives, policies and
programs of the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
Plan:
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
See individual
Mitigation
Measures
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 49
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure Bio-4: Compensation for Seasonal
Wetlands Fill
Mitigation Measure Bio-5A: Riparian Preservation Zone
Mitigation Measure Bio-5B: Riparian Tree Preservation (as
amended)
Mitigation Measure Bio-5C: Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan
o Mitigation Measure Bio-6: Terraced Grading Erosion
o. Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
z Mitigation Bio-9: Incorporation of Native Plants in
N Landscaping Plans
o Mitigation Bio-10A: Limitations on Improvements within
N the Petaluma River Plan Corridor (also listed as Mitigation
z Measure Visual-2)
Mitigation Bio-10B: RODZ review at SPAR
Mitigation Measure Bio-11A: Ensure Preservation of
Existing Trees (as amended)
Mitigation Measure Bio-11B: Protected Tree Replacements
Mitigation Measure Bio-11C: Tree Protection Plan
00
Noise
Responsible
Party Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Mitigation Measure Noise-4A, Construction Hours: Due Applicant: Incorporate all
to the proximity of sensitive receptors (residences) to the mitigation measures
development areas, construction activities shall be required into construction and Sign. Date
grading plans
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NIMRP
Page 50
�c
0
00
N
Mitigation Measure
to comply with following, and shall be noted accordingly on
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
planning Review and verify
construction contracts:
Division:
construction and
a) Construction activities for all phases of construction,
grading plans for all
Sign. Date
including servicing of construction equipment shall only
noise measures
be permitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Applicant:
Provide notice to
Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
surrounding properties
p.m. on Saturdays. However, when construction is
in accordance with
Sign. Date
occurring within 100' of new occupied residential units,
it shall not begin until 8 a.m. during weekdays.
measures
b) Construction is prohibited on Sundays and on all
C
Conduct construction
C
holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma.
conformance with
c) Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck
measures
Maintain delivery,
traffic coming to and from the site is restricted to the
hauling and
same construction hours specified above.
construction in
Mitigation Measure Noise-413, Construction Engine
accordance with
Controls: The Project Applicant shall implement the
measures
following engine controls to minimize disturbance to
adjacent residential uses during Project construction:
Building/
Periodic inspection
a) Construction equipment shall utilize the best available
Planning
during construction to
noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake
Division
ensure that measures
Sign. Date
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically
are in place
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.
b) If impact equipment such as jackhammers, pavement
breakers and rock drills is used during construction,
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNW
Page 51
Mitigation Measure
hydraulically or electric -powered equipment shall be
used to avoid the noise associated with compressed -air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
c) 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.
a) 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.
b) The construction contractor shall not stage equipment
within 200 feet of the existing residential land uses to the
west and north of the project site.
c) 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-41), Miscellaneous
Construction Noise: The contractor shall minimize use of
vehicle backup alarms and other miscellaneous construction
noise.
a) A common approach to minimizing the use of backup
alarms is to design the construction site with a circular
00
W
Completion:
Responsible Date
Party Implementation Signature Completed
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NWIRP Page 52
Mitigation Measure
flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and
other heavy equipment.
b) 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.
c) Construction worker's radios shall be controlled to be
inaudible beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.
Mitigation Measure Noise-4E, Noise Barriers (as
amended): The construction contractor shall erect
temporary walls, sound curtains or other similar devices
along the southerly property line adjacent to the existing Oak
Creek Apartments and neighbors along Bernice Court,
Graylawn Avenue and Jesse 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
It
measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Completion:
Responsible Date
Party Implementation Signature Completed
Page 53
b
00
Mitigation Measure
The construction schedule and telephone number for the
Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be conspicuously
posted at the Project construction site.
Traffic and Circulation
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. The plan shall include at least the
following items:
a) Development of a construction truck route that would
appear on all construction plans to limit truck and auto
traffic on nearby streets.
b) Comprehensive traffic control measures, including
scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid
peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure
procedures if required, sidewalk closure procedures if
required, cones for drivers, and designated construction
access routes.
c) Evaluation of the need to provide flaggers or temporary
traffic control at key intersections along the truck route(s)
d) Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and
public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries,
detours, and lane closures would occur
e) Location of construction staging areas for materials,
equipment and vehicles if there is insufficient staging
area within the work zone of the proposed project.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, NEvIRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant: Prepare Construction
Management Plan
including all measures
Comply with all
measures during
construction
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign.
Engineering Review and approve
Division: Construction
Management Plan Sign.
Periodic inspection to
verify compliance
Date
Date
Page 54
It
(PQ
Mitigation Measure
f) Identification of truck routes for movement of
construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety;
provision for monitoring 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 proposed project
applicant.
g) A process for responding to and tracking complaints
pertaining to construction activity, including
identification of an on -site complaint manager
h) Documentation of road pavement conditions for all
routes that would be used by construction vehicles both
before and after proposed project construction. Roads
found to have been damaged by construction vehicles
shall be repaired to the level at which they existed prior
to construction of the proposed project.
Non-CEQA Recommendations to be Implemented at
SPAR
Recommendation Haz-7, EVA Design: To ensure that the
Bernice Court EVA is continuously available for emergency
use, the EVA connection at Bernice Court shall include
design measures including, but not limited to bollards, red
curb or red pavement striping, no -parking signage, etc.,
intended to prohibit parking and other obstructions at this
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Applicant: Prepare final, detail
design plans for
Bernice Court EVA
Engineering / Review and provide
Fire Marshal recommendations on
Bernice Court EVA
design
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Page 55
b
o�
cc
Mitigation Measure
EVA access. Final EVA design measures shall be subject to
review and approval by the Fire Marshal.
Recommendation Noise 1A, Ensure "Conditionally
Acceptable" Noise Levels: No residential structure should
be located closer than the calculated 65 dB CNEL contour.
Based on existing rail noise levels, the 65-dBA CNEL noise
contour is estimated to occur at approximately 30 feet from
the center of the near set of railroad tracks. Based on
potential future conditions (assuming increased freight rail
traffic), the calculated 65 dB CNEL contour is estimated to
be at 54 feet from the center of the near set of railroad tracks.
The final design of the Project, to be reviewed at SPAR,
should maintain a 54-foot setback from the center of the near
set of railroad tracks.
Recommendation Noise 1C, Ensure Normally Acceptable
Outdoor Noise Exposure: No primary outdoor use area
(i.e., the swimming pool and courtyard or active play areas),
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNIRP
Completion:
Responsible
Date
Party
Implementation
Signature Completed
Planning
Review and approve
Division / Fire
Bernice Court EVA
Marshal/
design, incorporating
Sign. Date
Planning
City Engineer and Fire
Commission
Marshal
recommendations,
pursuant to SPAR
City Engineer/ Verify that final
Building SPAR -approved EVA
Division: design is included in Sign. Date
Public Improvement
Plans
Applicant: Prepare final Site
Plans demonstrating
that: a) No residential
structure is located
closer than the future
condition 65 dB
CNEL contour,
estimated to be at 54
feet from the center of
the near set of railroad
tracks. b) No primary
outdoor use area is
located closer than the
calculated future
condition 60 dB
CNEL contour,
Sign. Date
Page 56
B
C
0
z
0
N
0
N
O
0
N
b
cc
cc
Mitigation Measure
should be located closer than the calculated 60 dB CNEL
contour. Based on existing rail noise levels, the 60-dBA
CNEL noise contour is estimated to occur at approximately
60 feet from the center of the near set of railroad tracks.
Based on potential future conditions (assuming increased
freight rail traffic), the calculated 60 dB Ldn contour is
approximately 109 feet from the tracks. The final design of
the Project, to be reviewed at SPAR, shall not locate any
primary outdoor use areas (i.e., the swimming pool and
courtyard or active play areas) closer than 109 feet from the
center of the near set of railroad tracks. Alternatively, the
Revised Project's final design should incorporate noise
attenuation into the design of any primary outdoor use areas
closer than 109 feet that may include a fence or wall
measuring at least 6 feet high and subject to SPAR approval,
or placing primary outdoor use areas on the opposite side of
a residential structure from the rail line.
Recommendation Noise-113, Noise Insulation: Prior to
approval of building permits, a qualified acoustical
consultant shall review final designs for floor plans and
exterior elevations for construction of all residential
buildings within the Project site. The design level acoustical
report shall provide specific noise control treatment to
achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA or lower. The
acoustical consultant shall identify and include on the plans
and specifications for the Project, those specific noise
insulation treatments (i.e., sound rated windows and doors,
sound -rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
estimated to be at 109
feet from the center of
the near set of railroad
tracks.
Planning
Review and approval
Division /
of Site Plan and
Planning
setbacks from rail
Commission:
centerline, pursuant to
SPAR
Building/ Verify that final
Planning SPAR -approved Site
Division: Plan setbacks from
rail centerline are
maintained in building
permit applications
Applicant: Retain Acoustical
Consultant
Acoustical Identify and include
Consultant: on the plans and
specifications for the
Project, those specific
noise insulation
treatments to be
applied to achieve
interior noise levels of
45 dBA or lower
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 57
Mitigation Measure
ventilation openings, stucco siding, thicker walls, bedroom
orientation, etc.) that are to be applied.
Recommendation Noise 2, Avoidance/Vibration
Attenuation Measures (as amended): The Project should
incorporate the following vibration avoidance or reduction
strategies as part of its final design and/or construction.
a) The Revised Project's proposed 54-foot residential set
back from the centerline of the nearest set of rails more
than adequately meets the FTA 75 VdB criteria for the
"occasional" SMART train events that now occur and
that is expected to occur in the future (i.e., between 30
and 70 SMART trains per day), and should be retained.
b) The Revised Project's proposed 54-foot residential set
back from the centerline of the rails is also adequate to
meet the FTA 80 VdB criteria for the "infrequent" heavy
freight rail traffic that now occurs and that is expected to
occur in the future. This 54-foot setback also
accommodates an additional "penalty" threshold (down
to the "occasional event" criteria of 75 VdB) to address
the potential for longer duration and/or nighttime
vibration events, and should be retained.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
Building/ Verify that noise
Planning insulation treatments
Division are included in
building permit
documents prior to
issuance of building
permits
Building Review and approve
Division: all building permits in
accordance with
required measures
Applicant: Prepare final Site
Plans demonstrating
that: a) No residential
structure is located
closer than the
established VdB
criteria, OR
b) Identify special
building methods to
be incorporated to
reduce groundborne
vibration in excess of
established criteria
from being transmitted
into project structures
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Sign. Date
Page 58
b
UP
0
Mitigation Measure
c) To address an even more conservative vibration criterion
as was applied in the NCRA Russian River Freight EIR,
the City of Petaluma could consider an additional
"penalty" threshold to meet the "frequent event" criteria
of 72 VdB, which occurs at approximately 100 feet from
the rail centerline. To meet this more stringent criterion,
structural design measures could be incorporated into the
design and construction of residential buildings located
closer than 100 feet from the tracks, as necessary to
reduce groundbome vibration to below the 72 VdB
criteria. Special building methods can be incorporated to
reduce groundborne vibration from being transmitted into
project structures.
Recommendation Transp-B, Introduce Traffic Calming
and Enhance Livability along Graylawn Avenue and Jess
Avenue: The Revised Project shall 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.
Prior to SPAR review at the Planning Commission, the
applicant shall coordinate with City Public Works staff on
the preferred Traffic Calming approach and design
(anticipated to be similar in nature to Concept 3 as shown in
the conceptual Traffic Calming Plan of Appendix A). The
preferred Traffic Calming Plan shall be shown on the plan
set for SPAR review. The Public Improvement Plan set for
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MNIIZP
Responsible
Party
Implementation
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Planning /
Review and approval
Building
of Site Plan and
Division /
setbacks from rail
Sign. Date
Planning
centerline, pursuant to
Commission
SPAR
Verify that final
SPAR -approved Site
Plan setbacks and/or
Sign. Date
special building
methods incorporated
in building permit
applications
Applicant:
Applicant to
coordinate with Public
Works staff on the
Sign. Date
preferred Traffic
Calming approach
Planning
Review and approval
Division /
of preferred Traffic
Planning
Calming Plan,
Sign. Date
Commission
pursuant to SPAR
Applicant:
Include the finalized
Traffic Calming Plan.
On the Public
Sign. Date
Improvement Plan set
City Engineer:
Verify that final
Traffic Calming Plan
Page 59
a
Mitigation Measure
the Revised Project shall include the fmalized Traffic
Calming Plan.
Sid Commons Apartment Project, MMRP
Responsible
Party Implementation
is incorporated into
Public Improvement
Plans prior to issuance
of permits
Completion:
Date
Signature Completed
Sign. Date
Page 60