HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 03/01/2004 Part 1T
"'. 4
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL. March 1. 20
Aui daJitle
Meeting Date:
ID iscusson and Possible Action Regarding a Recommendation from
.March 1,'2004
the Planning Commission to Adopt a Revised Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Approve a Request for a General Plan Amendment-to
Meeting Time ❑ 3:00 PM
amend the land use designation from "Specific Plan. Area" and
7:00 PM
"Transit Terminal" to "Urban Diversified "; to Rezone the property
from ``S -Study District" to "PUD- Planned Unit Development ";
approve a Vesting Tentative Mag to' subdivide the property; and to
approve the Unit Development Plan and PUD Development
Standards for the Southgate Residential Development, proposed on
a 40 -acre site at the. corner of Frates Road and Lakeville Highway;
APN 017- 030 -022 & 017- 1.50 = 01°9. File 03TSM0417.CR.
(Moore /Allsep)
Category (check one) ❑ Consent Calendar Publie- Hearing New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
415:7.89.0736
Community
Michael C. Moore
Jayni:Allsep
Development
Project Planner
Cost of Proposal
Account Number
N/A
N/A
Amount Budgeted
Name of Fund:
N/A
N/A
'; n
is
jI
r
-Attachments to Agenda Packet item
1. Location Map
2. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting; January 27, 2004
3. Staff Report from the December 9,. 2003 Planning Commission meeting (without attachments).
4. Staff Memorandum to Planning Commission, dated December 11, 2003 for Special Meeting of
December 16, 2003 (without attachments).
5. City Engineer Memo 'to Community Development Director dated December 3 2003, revised
February 2 -3, 2004
6. Memorandum from Jim Carr; Director of Parks and. Recreation, December 16, 2003
7. Email from Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation, February 19,2004
8. Letter from Basin Street Properties, February 6, 20.,04 (with attachments)
9. Letter from Basin Street Properties, February 13, 2004 (with attachments)
1.0. Correspondence
11. Pub'l'ic Notice
12. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
13. Draft Resolution.Arnending the'General Plan land use d'esi'gnation from "Specific Plan Area" and
"Transit Terminal" to "Urban Diversified"
14. Draft Ordinance to Rezone the subject Study District to PUD- Planned Unit
Development
15. Draft Resolution Approving the Southgate Unit Development Plan and PUD Development
Standards
16. Draft Resolution Approving the. Vesting Tentative Map (includes conditions of approval)
17. Revised Initial Study
I& Plans (City'Council menibers only)
Summary Statement
The Plannin g Commission reviewed the p project y O g ,
taking publictestimony, the Commis"sionforwarded a recommendation t heCityACouncil, to p t he
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications for the proposed Southgate: Residential
Development with the condition that certain additional information be submitted by 'the applicant and
revisions to the project be made prior to the project being considered by the City Council. The details of
the changes,, which were agreed to by the applicant, are outlined in the attached minutes of the January 27,
2.004 Planning. Commission meeting.
Recommended City'Council .Action %Su22ested Motion
Should the City Council wish to .approve the Southgate project at this time, the Planning Commission and
staff recommend 'that the 'City .Council: 1) adopt resolution adopting the revised Mitigated Negative
Declaration; 2) adopt;resolution amending the General Plan land use designation from "Speci"fic Plan Area"
and "Transit Terminal" to "Urban Diversified"; 3) introduce, an ordinance to rezone the property from
Study- District to PUD- Planned Unit Development; 4) adopt resolution approving the Southgate Unit
Development Plan and PUD Development Standards; and 5) adopt resolution approving the Vesting
Tentative Map for the Southgate Development:
Reviewed by Finance Director:
Reviewed by City.Attorney
Date:
AppmAdby Cit.' Manner
Date:
Date:
Today's Date
Revision #` and Date'Revised:
File/Code:
February 24, 2004
i w
CITY OF ; PE'TALUMA 9 CALIFORNIA.
MARCH 1, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
SOUTHTGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY
The applicant, Basin Street Properties, has submitted applications for the Southgate Planned Unit
Development. The current plan proposes a _total of 216 detached single- family homes and
includes. a 2.51 -acre future affordable senior /disabled housing site (Parcel A) that could be
developed with a maximum of 80 units. Proposed land dedications to the City include a 1.09 -
acre public park (Parcel B),,,a'stormwater detention facility /linear open 'space along the south side
of the site within the Urban Separator and adjacent to the City limits (Parcel C), a 1.12 -acre
parcel at the comer of Frates Road arid. Lakeville Highway (Parcel b), and several linear parcels
along Frates and South Ely .Road -to be used for entry landscaping (Parcels E -K). Vehicular
access to the site is proposed at two points along Frates Road. that coincide with the existing
Calle Ranchero and Lakeville Circle intersections with ` Frates Road. An additional access is
proposed along the South Ely Road frontage between.Lots 209 and 210.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project at its January 27, 2004 meeting. After
considerable discussion the project, the Planning* Commission, by-a vote of 4/3, forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the project applications on the condition that
certain additional information, be, submitted by the applicant and revisions to the project be made
prior to the project being considered' by the City Council. The details of the changes, which
were agreed to by the applicant at the meeting, are outlined in the attached minutes of the
January 27, 2004 Planning.Commission meeting.
While many of the Planning Commission. recommendations are reflected in the attached plans
and materials not all of the information requested by the Planning Commission has been
provided. In addition, tsome of the projectrevisions are not consistent with staff's, understanding
of the Planning Commission recommendation. The Initial : Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigation Measures and Draft Conditions of Approval have been revised to reflect
the current proposal and to ensure that all Planning Commission recommendations and
mitigation measures are implemented.
2. BACKGROUND
For a discussion of site history, conformance with ' General Plan policies, and project issues,
please refer to the staff report prepared for the December 9 2003, Planning Commission meeting
and memorandum prepared for December 16, 2003 meeting.
Plannin- Commission Review
As .noted above, on January 27, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
thep project (please see 'Pl'anning Commission Staff Report and minutes, Attachments 2 and 3).
• The Commission voted 4%3 to forward. a recommendation to the City Council to approve the
project applications on the condition that certain additional information be submitted by the
applicant and revisions o the project be made prior to the project being considered by the City
Council. The Planning Commission recommendation is detailed in the minutes of the January
27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, and is discussed further. below. It should be noted that
the. Commission's recommendation is based in large part on commitments made by Basin Street 1
at the Planning Commission meeting.
Revised Plans
• The applicant was provided a memorandum which contains staff's understanding of the
consensus items reached by the Planning Commission that were, to incorporated into the
project presented to the .City Council (Memo from Jayni Allsep to George White, dated
January 29, 20.04).
a The applicant submitted a packet of materials on February 6, 2004, which included some
useful information regarding their revised proposal, however, the plans were not
complete in that they did not` include a revised grading and utility plan, conceptual
landscape plan, and much of the information typically required for a proposed vesting
tentative map.
® Staff prepared•.:a list of revisions and information to be provided with the complete set of
plans and materials to be reviewed by the City Council (Memo from Jayni Allsep to
George White, dated February 10, 20.04). This.list was based on staff review of the packet
of information submitted by the applicant on,February 6, 2004.
• The , applicant 'submitted one revised set of plans on Friday, February 132004, which
were more complete. Additional copies: of these plans were provided -on Tuesday,
February 17, 2004, for distribution to staff and other agencies for review and.comment.
It is staff's opinion that the revised plans submitted by the applicant do not provide all of the
Commission. In addition, some of the project revisions are not consistent wi g
Information .requested, nor does It address all of the changes directed b the. Plannm
p ) with staff s
understanding of the Planning Commission recommendation. Due to the applicant's desire for
the Southgate project to be heard at the City Council meeting held on March 1, 2004, the revised
plans are being. forwarded'' to the City Council al'orig with a staff analysis that focuses- on the
extent to which the revised :proposal conforms to the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Please note that proposed conditions of approval would.require changes that could
affect the size and/or the number of single - family lots within- subdivision. An applicant is
usually required to make these changes before a Vesting Tentative Map "is presented to, the City'
Council forxeview and approval. Should'the City Council wish fo approve the Vesting Tentative
Map at this time, these changes would need to be reflected on the Final - Map submitted to the
City.
3. STAFF ANALYSIS OF REVISED. PLANS
Gateway Elements
The Planning Commission recommended that the revised plans submitted for 'City Council
consideration include:
® Landscaped ` elements at the Prates /Lakeville corner, 'and. at other end of
the Lakeville n6ise wall, near ,PG&E easement /Urban Separator. These gateway
elements are to be constructed by `the developer as part of the project.
The attached plans for the project provide' fora .1.12 -acre parcel .at the corner of Lakeville
Highway and Frates Road (Parcel D). The Conceptual Master Plan submitted with the revised'
proposal shows this parcel being landscaped with a variety of trees and groundcover, as "well as a
2
turf area and. path that connects to an off - street path proposed along Frates Road. At the other
tr end of the property along Lakeville: Highway, within the PG &E easement/Urban Separator
(Parcel C), the 'Conceptual Master Plan shows a circular landscape /path feature that terminates
Within the proposed °detention area. Several linear parcels along Frates Road and South Ely Road
• are ,also 'identified as "Landscape Entry Features" on the Vesting. Tentative Map (Parcels E
through K).
Staff has included , a. condition of approval which requires that a Master Landscape Plan be
reviewed and approved by SPARC. This plan shall include details of the "Gateway" elements
and landscape entry features In addition, staff has included conditions that require dedication of
Parcels B through K to. the City; 'and the establishment of a .landscape assessment district for the
maintenance of these parcels, except for Parcel B, the public park, which would be maintained
by an annuity established by the ,applicant (see attached memo from Jim Carr, Director of Parks
and Recreation, February 19, 2004).
Noise Barrier /Aesthetic Issues
The Planning Commission made the following recommendations regarding the proposed noise
barrier:
® Modify the project to provide for an 8 to '10 -foot wide landscaped area between
Lakeville highway and the noise wall. In addition, the Commission encouraged the
applicant to pursue_ obtaining an encroachment permit from Caltrans to provide
additional planting area along Lakeville highway.
The revised street sections for Lakeville Highway (Sheet C 71.3) provides for an eight -foot foot
wide planting area between the outside of the noise wall and the Lakeville Highway right -of -way
i (ROW), and a 24.5 -foot landscaped area with a path along Frates Road. The Conceptual Master
Plan shows a solid line' that presumably represents the location of the proposed noise wall,
although there is no legend that identifies it as such. A climbing vine (Virginia Creeper) and
variety of trees are proposed to be planted along Lakeville Highway and Frates Road, in the
landscape areas on the outer -side of the' noise walls: Although the planting area in front of the
wall has been widened to eight feet, there does not appear to be any planting area proposed along
the inside of the wall facing the proposed homes.
As noted above, a.proposed condition would require the establishment of a landscape assessment
district for the maintenance of all .landscape areas (Parcels C through K) of the subdivision. In
addition, ;staff has included a condition that would require the sound wall and landscaped area
adjacent to Lakeville Highwayright -of -way be dedicated to the City and included in the area to
be maintained by4he landscape assessment district.
The Planning Commission also recommended that:
The noise study shall include hard data (not just conclusion), which demonstrates
that project conforms to General Plan noise standards for residential development.
The applicant's February 10 letter indicates that due to changes to the development plan,
approximately 560 linear,feet of sound wall has been removed. The street sections provided with
• the engineering, plans depict an eight -foot sound wall atop a retaining wall along Lakeville
Highway, and a sound wall along Frates Road (height is not specified), According to the one -
page noise study addendum prepared by Rosen Goldberg & Der, dated February 6, 2004, noise
wall heights are 6 -10 feet; however, this may not include proposed retaining wall heights that
would result in greater total wall heights in some areas.
The Noise study addendum attempts to provide information requested by the Planning
Commission, a table which indicates the calculated sound levels along.Frates and Lakeville that
would be acceptable, ;assuming a 6 to. 10 foot tall noise barrier (emphasis added). The
addendum .further notes that this data is based on the acoustical consultant's review of a site plan
sent to them on , 6 February 2004 (which did not included revised engineering ,plans) and the
previous grading plan.
Given the lack of information provided in the revised plans regarding: the proposed, noise, tamer,
mitigation measures contained in the revised Initial Study have been revised to require that:
1) The applicant submit an acoustical :report which demonstrates that the specified location,
construction and height of the proposed noise walls will provide °the mitigation necessary to
comply with •the Ldn 45 .(interior) and Ldn 60 (exterior use areas) noise standards established
in the .City. of Petaluma General Plan. The condition requires that the.study be submitted prior
to approval of the improvement plans, shall be subject to peer review, and shall be approved
by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of the Final Map; and
2) The noise wall design and landscaping be reviewed and approved 'by SPARC prior to
approval the Improvement Plans.,
Public Park/Open Space.Parcels
ThePlanning 'Commission requested that the public park, initially proposed adjacent to the
Senior
Commission n site Parcel .A be relocated, adjacent to the Urban Separator/PG &.E easement.
OF
also requested that the plan address issues raised in a memo from Jim Carr,
Parks Director dated December 16, 2003 (Attachment 6).
Revised plans submitted for City Council , review shows the park;being relocated along the Urban
Separator /PG &E easement, as recommended' by the Planning Commission. These revised plans
were submitted to Jim Carr and were reviewed by the Recreation, Music and Parks, Commission
at their .meeting held on February 18, 2004. The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission made
the recommendations for the Southgate_project, as outlined in the email from Jinn Carr dated
February 19, 2004 (Attachment 7),. and summarized. below:,
• The park shall,be developed with a playground along the same scale as the playground
recently approved for the Gatti Subdi ision, and plans for the playground shall be
reviewed by the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission prior to subm=ittal to SPARC
• The applicant shall provide an annuity to cover the annual .maintenance, costs of the park;
estimated to be $10,000 per year:
The bike /pedestrian path located. in the urban separator currently terminates in a turn .
around at the southwest edge of the property. The path is to connect to the residential
street that parallels Lakeville Highway possibly traversing between parcel 33 and the
proposed sound wall. 0
4
® All landscape maintenance on Frates Road, Ely Road, Lakeville Highway and in the
urban' separator is to be maintained through a landscape assessment district.
These recommendations have been incorporated into the 'proposed conditions of Vesting
Tentative Map.
Urban. Separator
The Planning Commission recommended that:
® The Urban' Separator along South Ely 'Road ,be increased to a minimum of 35 to 40
feet by decreasing the lot°dimensions.
The revised plans show open space parcels along South' Ely that would provide for a
landscape area in ranging froml6.5 to 19.5 feet in width along the South Ely Road ROW
(Parcels J and K). An additional 26+ feet of landscaped area is proposed within the South
Ely Road ROW.. This is not. consistent with staff's understanding of the Planning
Commission recommendation, which directed that lot dimensions be modified in order to
provide a wider landscape area that would serve as the Urban Separator along South Ely
Road. In addition, frontage improvements to Ely Road., as required by the Municipal Code,
could limit the opportunity for landscaping within the right -of -`way. Furthermore, landscaped
areas within a streetright =of- -way have not historically qualified as Urban Separator.
Setbacks /Development Standards
The Planning Commission recommended that:
• The Southgate Development Standards be amended to provide for a minimum 20-
'. _ foot rear yard setback :except for lots with rear yards that `back up to Urban
Separator, which shall have a. minimum rear yard of "15`feet; and
• The exceptions noted in the previous PUD Developmenf.standards, which addressed
encroachments permitted with the minimum setback area, be deleted from the table
in the Development Standards.
The revised Development Standards submitted with the current application stipulate a minimum
20 -foot rear yard setback. However, the proposed Development Standards still provide for
exceptions to Tallow front porches to encroach"into the front and side yard setbacks.
Staff has included a condition of approval' which requires that revised Development Standards be
submitted concurrent with plans for SPARC review which address the following:
1. Clearlyspecify 411 permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the site.
2. Clearly specify permitted !and conditionally permitted accessory structures
3. No encroachments /exceptions- for yard isetbacks
4. Revise: Development Standards to be consistent with approved Vesting Tentative Map,
lot /parcel numbers and access points, as amended by conditions of approval.
Access /Circulation
After reviewing;the: initial application, Staffrecommended and the Planning Commission agreed
that a project access be provided on South Ely Road, and a signalized intersection at Ely Road
and. Frates Road be provided to mitigate traffic issues and p' rovide for increase bicycle and
pedestrian ;safety on Frates Road.
5
The, revised plans provide: for a project access. on South Ely .as recommended. In addition, the
applicant proposes the following intersection controls at the project:
Frates Road at Calle Ranchero — Traffic signal
Frates Road at. Lakeville Circle - Stop control on sidet street
Frates Road at South Ely: Road - Four -way stop control
Although the traffic level of service (LOS) seems to be met with the revised ,prop_ osal, staff
continues to recommend that a signal be installed at the Frates /Ely Road intersection in order to
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, especially for students, walking and biking to school.
Conditions,, approval recommended by the 'City Engineer require that 1) traffic signals be
constructed at both 'the Calle Ranchero /Frates Road .and .Ely Road /Frates Road'. intersections; and
2) the proposed entry street to he Southgate project at Lakeville Circle be eliminated and a, cul-
de -sac constructed near lots 143 -146.
Affordable Senior.Housing Site
The Planning Commission recommended that:
® Development of the future senior housing site (now labeled as; Parcel. A require a
Conditional.Use Permit subject to approval by the Planning Corhmission'prior to SPARC
approval.
• Plans presented to the City Council for approval be revised to provide a;second access to
the affordable housing site.
The applicant, revised the PUD •Development, Standards to identify, senior housing as a OF
conditionally permitted use. In ,addition, staff is recommending a condition. of approval which
requires that the. developer provide a signed disclosure to property owners .of the single- family
lots within the Southgate development, .indicating that they are aware of the maximum density,.
building height and setbacks for the future senior, housing site, identified, on the 'Vesting
Tentative Map as Parcel "A ":
Regarding access to the senior housing site, revised plans propose access from two interior
streets on. the southeast side of the senior housing site: The cross - section .submitted. for these
two streets, which are identified as alleys propose 'a� total street width of 30 feet, with two 1.2.5
feet travel lanes and a sidewalk on one side of the street. Conditions of approval recommended
by the City Engineer would require that these streets be at least 32 -feet wide with sidewalks on
both sides. In addition, a proposed condition of approval would require that ,a temporary a11-
weather turnaround be provided on Parcel A (senior_, Housing .site) for thoset two streets that
dead -end at Parcel A until the parcel is ultimately developed.
Environmental Review
It was the recommendation of the Planning, Commission that the Initial Study, which serves as
Q P J
the CE QA document for the ro 'ect be revised to reflect the revised project to. be presented to
the City Council. Staff has revised the project description contained.in the Imfial. Study to reflect
the proposed project presented to the City Council, as reflected' on plans submitted February 17,
2004. In .addition, the checklist and mitigation measures have been revised accordingly. Since •
the changes; to the Initial Study are minor, re- circulation of the CEQA .document is, not
warranted provided that that applicant agrees to implement the adopted mitigation measures.
6
� 4. ALTERNATIVES'.
a. The City Council may approve the proposed project with modifications to the
• conditions of approval and /or to the conditions previously modified by the Planning
Commission; or
b. The City Council may continue the :application. and request that the applicant make
additional revisions to the project applications and provide additional information, as
recommended by the Planning "Commission.
c. The City Council may deny the request for the PCD Amendment and Modified
General Development Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a private development. project subject to standard cost recovery fees and any applicable
City Special Development Fees.
6. CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council :approve the project applications
for Southgate on the condition that certain revisions were made to the project, and additional
information provided prior to the project being considered by the City Council. Should the City
Council wish to approve the project applications at this„ time, staff recommends that the
conditions contained in the attached resolutions be adopted to ensure that all Planning
Commission recommendations and mitigation measures are ;implemented.
• 7. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT'WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
The Planning Commission found that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
PUD Development Standards contained in the Southgate Neighborhood Plan, with recommended
modifications, would not create any significant environmental impacts and that the proposed
project, would be consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Municipal Code,
and recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to their revisions.
7. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission' and Staff recommend that the City Council 1) adopt resolution
adopting the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) adopt, resolution amending the General
Plan, land use designation from "Specific Plan Area" and , "Transit Terminal" to "Urban
Diversified"; 3) introduce an ordinance to rezone the property from Study District to PUD-
Planned Unit Development; 4) adopt resolution approving the. Southgate Unit Development Plan
and PUD Development, Standards; and 5) adopt resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map
for the Southgate Development.:
•
Aw
T, �0
l liti..�•r.
r
i
�
,
4$*
vi,L A.....
AFA
jr
Q
• r
m " ' °a O�, 0
zo
SOUT'MATE
PROJECT SITE
CITY OF PE-TAI_LIMA
CALIFORNIA
Legend
Parcel Boundaries
Q Building Outlines
. EIAG
\
GIS Division
Dale 12/3/2003
700 450 eat
Fecl
�i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
p, L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 1 1 English Street
r
Petaluma CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/77 84498
E -Mail pianninit(t;ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http : / /Nvww.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
.January 27,2004 - 7 PM
Commissioners: Present: Assdlmeier, Barrett, Dargie, Harris, McAllister, Rose, von
Raesfeld
* Chair
Staff. George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
Jayni Allsep, Project Planner
Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES': Minutes of January 13, 2004 were approved as amended.
M/S von Raesfeld /Dargie, Harris abstained.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT None
CORRESPONDENCE: None
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
Public hearing'began: @ 7:00
PUBLIC HEARING:
OLD BUS'INESS:
L SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, Frates Road and Lakeville
Highway
AP No.: 017- 030 -022, 017- 150 -019
Filer 03TSM0417CR
Planner: Jayni Allsep
ATTAC'HNEENT 2
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1
2
Request for a. recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative
•
3
Declaration and to approve a 40 -acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) which
4
proposes 221 detached single - family ;homes, a 1.34 acre park and a 3.04 acre .
5
parcel to be retained for future affordable housing.
6
7
Continued from December 9, 2003 and December 1.6, 2003. Please note that
8
packet materials were included under previous cover. If duplicate materials are
9
needed, please contact Community Development at 778 - 431.6. Attached are:
10
Letter dated December 9, 2003, from Adobe Del Oro Action Group; Memo dated
11
December 16, 2003, from Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation.
12
13
Jayni Allsep presented the staff report.
14
15
Matt White, Basin Street Properties: Gave a history of the property and presented the
16
current proposal. Mr. White addressed the following issues: Urban. Separator, noise
17
high retaining walls, vehicular and pedestrian's access and safety, non - residential
18
component to the project,
19
20
Chair Barrett: Is the alternative site plan shown here this evening what the Commission
21
should be considering?
22
23
Matt White: Yes.
24
•
• 25
Council Member Harris: Asked if the applicant had support of the Del Oro group for the
26
alternative site plan?
27
28
Matt White: Yes.
29
30
Commissioner McAllister: Will retention areas be a site amenity or engineered retention
31
areas?
32
33
Vin -Smith: They will be both and more natural in the final design..
34
35
Chair Barrett: Asked for clarification of the paths in the retention area.
36
37
Vin Smith: Have not been fully designed ,yet — the concept is that the drainage from the
38
subdivision would flow through there before going to the storm drains, howevet.the area
39
will also serve as a park with walking paths.
40
41
Commissioner McAllister: How many months would the area actually be usable as a
42
park?
43
44
Marty Parissenti: In large storms, you may get 18 inches of water over portions of the
45
area. Do not know .if it would be suitable for a baseball field, however, would be suitable
46
for walking paths most of the year.
47
2
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
•
1
2
Commissioner McAllister: You would see it as more of a passive park, only used
approximately 9 months of the year.
3
4
Marty: Possibly could have, soccer fields.
5
6
Matt White: The intent is apassive'park.
7
,8
Commissioner von Raesfeld: According to the December 9` site plan, the affordable
9
housing area would need additional access for emergency services, how would this be
10
achieved?
I1
12
Matt White: Has been addressed on the alternative site plan.
13
14
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do you have solutions to Jim Carr's memo dated
15
December 16, 2003?
16
17
Matt White: No.
18
19
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do you have a City Council date?
20
21
Matt White: February 23, 2004.
22
23
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked what the affordable units would look like?
•
24
25
Matt White: Don't know yet — are just beginning the design.
26
27
Commissioner Asselmeier: Are there restrictions to what can be put on the PG &E
28
easement.
29
30
Matt White: For overhead transmission lines only.
31
32
John, North Bay Construction:- According to PG &E they have no future uses for it. All
33
PG &E requires is access on the easement.
34
35
.Matt White: We own the land; they have an easement for poles and lines.
36
37
Barrett: What deten-nines the number of units for the affordable units.
38
39
Matt White: Is up to PEP — they will design the project. As part of approval we are
40
asking for this zoning.
41
42
Public Hearing opened:
43
44
Art Kerb el, Adobe Del Oro,Action Group: Neighborhood is in support of the project.
45
Current -plan is a result of the developer and the neighborhoods working together. Urged
•
46
the .Commission'to think about where the City wants to go. Residential is the key to the
47
project. If project is something other than residential, there will be more residents to
3
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1 protest; a density of 21.6 houses is the maximum. the community agrees to. Regarding ,
2 Frates Road — this is the most adaptable solution for the traffic on this road. This will •.
3 slow the truck traffic down. Urge the commission to approvethe plan presented tonight.
4
5 John McGinns, President Adobe Creek Homeowners: Agree with everything Mr. Kerbel
6 has said.. The current plan mitigated most of the neighborhoods concerns. We support
7 the project as proposed tonight.
8
9 Mark Albertson, 1676. Calle. Ranchero: Live directly adjacent to the project; Chair of the
10 Adobe Del Oro Neighborhood Group. Group has advocated for a low impact and low -
11 density project. If other land uses are discussed during deliberation, would .like public
12 comment opened up again. Focus of the applicant and the neighborhood is now on Frates
13 Road. When Lakeville Road was widened it changed the traffic patterns on Frates Road.
14 The most significant impact is truck traffic. Goal is to reduce the speed of truck traffic
15 'and provide safety for the neighborhood to cross Frates Road. Want a 4 -way signal at
16 Calle Ranchero, and a 4 -way stop at Frates and Ely. Asked to reclassify Frates and keep,
17 as a two -lane street, posting speed limit and providing pedestrian cross walks: Want to
18 encourage a well- designed sound wall on Lakeville. If you do traffic calming and have
19 trees on the street and make it unfriendly to trucks, it will reduce the noise. Reduce the
20 traffic generating the noise. Action Group endorses the current proposal as conditioned
21 regarding Frates Road.
22
23 Vera Ciamnietti, Director PEP: Thanked the Commission for the questions tonight.
24 Consider this a great opportunity for affordable housing. More than likely , there will be •
25 78 to 80 units. Will build larger units to accommodate people with special needs. Will
26 hope that public transit will be available by the time the units are built. Current PEP
27 residents are served by volunteers and Petaluma People Services. Retail is not ,necessary
28 for the residents that we serve. I am not in favor of 3- stories, is cost prohibitive and not
29 as user friendly to seniors. Would like it more like our Edith Street project as opposed to
30 the Lieb Apartments on Douglas Street.
31
32 Mark Ferguson, 112 Rancho Bonito: Am a neighbor who has followed this project.
33 Want future developers work with neighborhoods such as Basin Street did. Urge the
34 Commission to approve the project.
35
36 - Christopher Costin:. Represent property owners south of the project. Support the project.
37 Applicant has spent a lot of time with the neighborhood., Have a concern ,about a revision
38 in the site plan shown tonight: My client's property is outside of the City limits. This
39 property is designated as a potential expansion area. Do not want to restrict future
40 development with the design of this project. The new design leaves a street along PG &E
41 access. Want the potential for two access, routes into the open separator for a potential
42 expansion area. Could be done possibly with the loss of 1 or 2 houses.
43
44 Jack Osman, 1890 Falcon. Ridge Road: Agree with the .comments . of the other
45 neighborhoods. The- proposal is a dramatic improvement over the previous proposals.
46 Thanked the applicant for working with, the neighborhood. I have one : issue regarding •
47 access on Frates Road. Want effective traffic calming, clearly identified cross walks, and
4
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
'Y
1
2
a reduction in the speed limit. Support the proposal.
3
Dev Goetschius, Housing Land Trust: Southgate is an opportunity for Housing Land
4
Trust to. build 3 homes in Petaluma. We are pleased to collaborate with Basin Street
5
Properties on this project.
6
7
Public Hearing closed:
8
9
Chair Barrett: Would like to hear from traffic and noise consultants before discussion by
10
the Commission.
11
12
Vin Smith: The consultants are not here this evening. I will answer any questions.
13
14
Chair Barrett: Asked why there was no noise assessment on Frates Road closer to
15
Lakeville.
16
17
Vin Smith: Showed where monitors were placed for the noise assessment. Follows the
18
recognized criteria.
19
20
Chair Barrett: Asked for rationalization of timing of traffic counts which took place at
21
non -peak hours and on a holiday but not during am and pm peak periods. Have the same
22
comment for the noise readings.
®
23
24
Vin Smith: We relied on the experts to conduct the noise and traffic studies.
25
26
Chair Barrett: Referred the Noise Mitigation Study dated November 13, 2003. There is
27
no hard data in the study supporting the summary.
28
29
Vin Smith: Summary states interior and exterior noise will be in compliance with the
30
City's goals.
31
32
Commissioner Asselmeier: To avoid 10 -ft sound wall on Lakeville and Frates, what
33
would set backs have to be?
34
35,
Vin Smith: We did not ask that in the analysis of the noise.
36
37
Commissioner Asselmeier: I have concerns that this project is a gateway to the City.
38
How could the soundwalls be adjusted to deal with this concern?
39
40
Vin Smith: There is 8 ft. of wall on Lakeville and 8 ft. on Frates. There will be a
41
significant amount of landscaping against the 10 -foot wall on Frates. Will be planting on
42
both sides of the wall on Lakeville — will be a green living wall.
43
44
Commissioner Rose: Regarding interior noise levels — will particular models be
45
mitigated according to their location?
®
46
47
5
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vin Smith: The standard Title 24 building code requirements will take care of interior •
noise issues.
Committee identified project issues for discussion:
• Gateway visual quality
• Sound wall /noise
• Feathering/Urban Separator /Access from Ely Road
Jim Carr memo
• Access
• Housing types and lot sizes
• Frates Road/traffic issues
• Infrastructure issues
• PEP site /Interface and access
• Land Use /Smart growth
• Density
Break.at 9:00
Resumed at 9:1.0
Commissioner. von Raesfeld: Believe there are process issues — the Initial Study does not
match the plan presented this evening. How can findings be made? •
Chair Barrett: The studies presented in the; staff report must consider new ,plan and
address issues. Do not believe the data presented can be imposed on this alternative plan.
Council Member Harris: Do not want to bury this plan in process.
Paul Andronico: The Initial Study looks at impacts — there are extremely minor
differences between the two plans. The new plan has less impact — do not believe there is
a legal issue. The noise study was revised — is not a legal issue from CEQA standpoint.
George White: The applicant will need to agree to the mitigation measures.
Vin Smith: We agree to most of the mitigations and made some minor adjustments. We
would sign any differences.
Commissioner Asselmeier: If we are giving staff further direction, it may be premature
to discuss the issues.
Commissioner McAllister: I do not think we are close enough to make a
recommendation.
•
6
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
t 2
1
Chair Barrett: Do not want to be pushed on this process because the applicant has a
Council date. To be fair, we need to .look at what is being proposed and look at it
3
carefully. Believe it would be wrong to push it through.
4
5
Council Member Harris: Believe that we should plug through this evening, do not want
6
to slow down the process — believe it is a win -win for the City. Would like to poll the
7
commission on going forward.
8
9
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Would like to discuss the issues.
10
11
Traffic /Noise:
12
13
Commissioner McAllister: Want staff to weigh in on the traffic calming proposed this
14
evening and the issue of noise.
15
16
Craig Spaulding: I have not reviewed or evaluated this alternative plan. I have read the
17
initial traffic report. I suggested access on Ely and controlling Ely intersection.
18
Pedestrian safety is paramount. They have proposed a signal and a 4 -way stop.
19
20
Commissioner McAllister: Is the unsignalized, free intersection of a concern to staff?
21
22
Craig Spaulding: Yes.
•
23
24
Commissioner McAllister: How does the City weigh in on the requirements of the
25
County's memo.
26
27
Craig Spaulding: Do not feel there is an issue of capacity.
28
29
Chair Barrett: Regarding a stop sign instead of traffic light — is that better or sufficient to
30
bring LOS up from an E?
31
32
Craig Spaulding: I have not evaluated that.
33
34
Jayni Allsep: In reviewing a study of traffic engineering, Attachment C the conclusion is
35
cumulative traffic plus project, would make LOS go to E. Staff referred to General Plan
36
policy that level; of service C has to be maintained. The Initial Study uses the level of
37
significance of the General Plan. If there were changes to circulation and access - traffic
38
could be more evenly distributed and reduce the LOS.
39
40
Commissioner Asselmeier: What is density across the street as compared to the project?
41
42
Jayni Allsep: I;do not know the answer to that question.
43
44
Commissioner Asselmeier: Are there other situations where there are variations from the
•
45
46
required urban separator — .other projects that do not comply.
47
7
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1 George White: On the 'West side it varies, the East side is almost entirely 300 feet. The •
2 sports ,complex on East Washington is the first project to allow a structure on the Urban
3 Separator.
4
5 Chair 'Barrett:. Regarding Mr. Albertson's letter addressing traffic calming — has there
6 been any study done?
7
8 Jayni Allsep: Would need to be a Council policy decision to reclassify Frates Road.
9
10 Chair Barrett: If you eliminate a signal -at Ely Road and put in 4 -way stop', have a four -
11 way signaled intersection at Calle Ranchero and Frates Road then the only safe crossing
12 would be at Calle Ranchero.
13
14 Jayni Allsep: That's correct.
15
16 Council Member Harris: What do we need to give direction on this tonight?
17
18 George White: Want direction on the new plan, apparently there is a time issue regarding
1.9 Basin Street's: council date.
20
21 Matt White: LOS is B at; Calle Ranchero intersection. Our alternative plan was
22 submitted December 9, 2003. We did not support access on Ely Road because it supports
23 urban sprawl. The City Council asked us to make the urban separator less than 30.0 feet.
24 •
25 Gateway /Noise Barrier /Aesthetic Issues:
26
27 Commissioner McAllister: I share the concerns of Commissioner Rose regarding the
28 southwest corner of the project. It is problematic to have a sound wall all the way-down
29 Lakeville. Having houses right up against Highway 116 would repeat mistakes. I am
30 supportive of the process with the neighbors; however, I believe their needs to be a
31 compromise in the corner that would be a gateway to our community? Maybe another
32 use on there is more appropriate.
33
34 Chair Barrett: In the General Plan Lakeville is called out as a scenic corridor and a
35 gateway to the .City. Project does hot promote either of these. Sound wall needs to be
36 treated well, the southeast corner of the PG &E easement and the southwest corner of
37 Lakeville Frates Road needs to.be used a gateway.
38
39 Matt White: Is acceptable to me to do a gateway at the corner of Lakeville & Frates and
40 on the PG &E easement.
41
42 Chair Barrett: How will landscaping be maintained along Frates Road? The City is cash
43 strapped.
44
45 Matt White: Will allocate some funds to the park to be maintained by the City.
46
47
8
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
•
1
2
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Believe there is a win -win situation here. If three lots at
the comer of Lakeville and Frates can be reconfigured, a gateway can be established as
3
well as the elimination of 100 -feet of sound wall. Is problematic that you only have 2-
4
feet to plant something against the sound wall on the Cal Trans right -of -way.
5
6
Matt White: Can establish an acre and a half of gateway. The project is not a perfect
7
solution, however, sound wall on Lakeville is now down to 8 feet.
8
9
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Suggested putting a more rnultilayered element of street
10
segment on the CalTrans side of the sound wall instead of development side.
11
12
Matt White: Can take the 4 -feet from the inside and put it on to the sound wall
13
(Lakeville) side of the wall to achieve an8 -10 foot landscape area between Lakeville and
14
the soundwall. Can put the 3 corner lots somewhere else.
15
16
Commissioner Rose: Do note feel we need to design the comer — could possibly be
17
developed into a transit center. It is the City's future to deal with that corner as a
18
gateway.-The details of the gateway are SPARC issues.
19
20
Commissioner Asselieier: Still have 600 -feet of sound. wall at 8 -feet. If sound wall is
21
moved, how does that effect noise levels?
22
23
Vin Smith: The noise threshold for backyard is driving the design.
•
24
25
Chair Barrett.: Want to see data to support the effect moving the sound wall will have on
26
the noise levels.
27
28
Commissioner McAllister: Still has a concern about the gateway issue. Landscaping as a
29
gateway element — do not think we really know what it is we are negotiating here. Do
30
not feel this will accomplish,goals of a gateway to the City. Do not have an image of the
31
gateway being proposed.
32
33
Commissioner Asselmeier: Suggested these items be addressed, plan updated and
34
brought back to the Commission.
35;
36
Chair Barrett: T agree this should come back to the Planning Commission while Basin
37
Street is preparing to go to the Council. The project has been designed without 'the
38
gateway in it.
39
40
Public Park/Jim Carr Memo of December 16,2003:
41
42
Chair Barrett: How will the issue of the house abutting the park be dealt with?
43
44
Vin Smith: ,.Believe it is probably a security issue. Don't share Mr. Carr's concern and
45
do not know if it constitutes a redesign of the project.
.•
46
47
Matt White: Will reconfigure to adhere to Mr. Carr's standards.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
2
Access /Circulation:
•
3
4
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Access will be an issue when the PEP site is developed —
5
believe emergency services will want another access.
6
7
Commissioner Asselmeier: I- do not debate PEP's reputation, however, I would like an
8
opportunity to view the PEP plan.
9
10
George White: If PUD is adopted as .proposed, the PEP project will not come back to the
11
Planning Commission, it will go to SPARC.
12
13.
Chair.. Barrett: Want houses that abut the affordable housing piece of the project to have.
14
written statements disclosing this information.
15
1'6
George White: Could require that the affordable .housing component be a conditionally
17
permitted use that would come back to Planning Commission as a CUP. .
18
19
Urban Separator /Feathering:
20
21
Chair Barrett: One of the best things about the East side is the urban separator — it
22
enhances the area — would like to. see. it carried on at more than 120 .feet. Urban separator
23
on Ely is non - existent — is a recipe for disaster. Believe 300 -feet is essential on both
24
sides of the project.
•
25
26
Commissioner McAllister: Share the concerns regarding the 300- foot urban growth
27
boundary. Do not know why we are making an exception here. Part of what can make
28
this project special is having that open space.
29
30
Commissioner Dargie: There was a project ,approved. a few years ago that did not have
31
strict 300 -foot urban separator. Can understand why the applicant feels there is
32
flexibility. Do not support access on Ely Road.
33
34
George White: Point of clarification, City code requires Ely Road to be improved from
35
middle of the street to the property line regardless of access.
36
37
Commissioner Rose: General Plan alternatives shows :Ely Road as urban growth
38
boundary — this may be vacated and the road maynot continue to be a point of access.
39
40
Craig Spaulding: There are some roads that go to the urban growth boundary.
41
42
Commissioner Asselmeier: General Plan states this is a potential urban growth boundary;
43
want to observe 300 -foot urban separator. The current plan does not show any urban
44
separator on the'Ely side. Would want to support staff's recommendation to have access
45
from Ely, which- woul'd'- lessen the traffic impact on Frates Road.
46
• 47
Council Member Harris: Agree with Commissioner Dargie on this issue.
10
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
•
2
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Am comfortable with the 120 -foot urban separator. Would
3
like to see what the :Ely Road separator would look like. Want to make sure SPARC
4
looks at this carefully. Needs to be an amenity for the project.
5
6
Matt White: I am fine with 'a condition. We can make improvements and dedicate to the
7
City.
8
9
Chair Barrett: Discussion on the last proposal gave up some of the urban separator
10
footage because it was a mixed -use project. This project is strictly residential and
11
therefore should adhere to the 300-foot urban separator.
12
13
Commissioner McAllister: One hundred twenty feet does not meet the urban separator.
14
The neighborhood is trying to dictate community issues and not just neighborhood issues.
15
The rules applied to the mixed -use proposal do not apply here.
16
17
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked if some lots sizes could be reduced to gain 15 extra
18
feet for the urban separator along Ely Road.
19
20
Matt White: Agreed that he 'could do that.
21
22
Commissioner McAllister: What if the interior open space were put on the exterior of the
23
24
project to create more urban separator: Then it would be seen` by the rest of the
community as they drive by.
25
26
Matt White: Would be happy to explore.
27
28
Commissioner Asselmeier: If we expand the twenty feet on the Ely Road side to 38 feet,
29
does that get us closer to the continuity of the urban separator?
30
31
Commissioner Dargie: The 300 -foot urban separator is not on all sides of the
32
development.
33
34
Chair Barrett: This property has that obligation because it is on the urban growth
35
boundary on two sides.
36
37
Circulation to Ely:
38
39
Consensus of'the Commission: If it makes sense to the circulation of the project, will
40
leave up to the developer.
41
42
Chair Barrett: Need to be able to get to the LOS and need safety .issues addressed by
43
staff.
44
45
46
47
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1 Setback/Development Standards:
2
3 Commissioner McAllister: Houses are too large. for the lot sizes — need to .establish some
4 other parameters.
5
6 Matt White: The commission can dictate setbacks - can we agree to a 15 -foot back yard?
7
8 Commissioner McAllister: Would like 2.0 -feet and would compromise on the side yard
9 such as zipper lot configuration, however, that is SPARC issue.
10
1 l Matt White: How about a combined 30 -foot setback, with a minimum of 15 in back and
12 10 in front and 5 feet to play with.
13
14 Chair Barrett: How about 15 feet for property that backs onto the separator.
15
16 Commissioner McAllister: Support a larger back yard — 20 feet except 15 -feet where it
17 backs up to the urban separator.
18
10 George White' Do you want these issues to be dealt with before going to Council?
20
21 The consensus was that all identified issues and /or modifications should be finalized prior
22 to Council reviewing the project.
23
24 Infrastructure:
25
26 Chair Barrett: Water issues were dealt with in the Initial Study.
27
28 Matt White: Roads will be designed to City standards and dedicated to the City.
29
30 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Seems inappropriate to impose street maintenance on this
31 subdivision.
32
33 Commissioner Asselmeier: Believe this subdivision is different — the General Plan shows
34 that we do not need this housing ,at this time and therefore was it possible to create some
35 sort of private assessment to pay for street maintenance. Acknowledged that.some sort of
36 policy would need to be established first before imposing this as a condition 'on
37 development applications..
38.
39 Commissioner Dargie: Believe this project should adhere to current standards. that other
40 subdivisions adhere to.
41
42 Chair Barrett: Can see both sides of the argument.— do not the have the answers.
43
44 Council Member Harris: Do not believe we should change the standards midstream.
45
46 Commissioner McAllister: Would like to see the final synthesis before recommending to
47 council. Realize this is a. unique application and it's urgency. Feel hesitant to
12
13
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
•
1
2
recommend forwarding without seeing the project again. Do not want to set a precedent
here.
3
4
Chair Barrett: Hesitant to approve something that we are have not seen. Many
5
improvements have been made — would not feel comfortable forwarding the
6
recommendation.
7
8
Commissioner Rose: What are logical consequences if it .came back to Planning
9
Commission.
10
11
George White: Probably could not schedule until March 9"
12
13
Matt White: Will work on the changes you proposed this evening while getting it ready
14
to go to the Council.
15
16
M/S Dargie /von Raesfeld to recommend adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
17
approving a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to PUD with the following to be
18
finalized, as agreed to by the applicant, prior to City Council review and approval:
19
20
Prior to the public notice for City Council review:
21
22
1. Gateway /Noise. Barrier /Aesthetic Issues — The site serves as a gateway to the
•
23
24
City. Noise wall along the road, as proposed, is not an appropriate gateway.
a. Fix the "problem corner" near Frates and Lakeville by reconfiguring the
25
awkward lots in that corner. Relocate 3 lots elsewhere on site to maintain
26
same unit count for single-family homes.
27
b. Design a landscaped "Gateway" element at Frates /Lakeville corner.
28
Developer would be responsible to build the improvement as part of the
29
project_
30
c. The above redesign would allow the height and' length of the noise wall
31
along Lakeville to be substantially reduced.
32
d. Design a "Gateway" element at other end of Lakeville noise wall, near
33
PG &E easement/Urban Separator. Developer would be responsible to
34
build the' improvement as part of the project
35
e. Provide' for wider planting area along the outside of the wall (toward
36
Lakeville). The proposed two -foot wide planting area is not adequate.
37
Modify yards within the project to achieve' an 8 -10 landscaped area
38
between Lakeville and the soundwall: Pursue the idea of an encroachment
39
permit with Caltans to widen the planting area.
40
f. The noise study shall include hard data (not just conclusion), which
41
demonstrates that project conforms to General Plan noise standards for
42
residential development.
43
44
2. Public-Park
45
a. All items in the memo from Jim Carr, Parks Director dated December 16,
46
2003 shall be incorporated into the project.
13
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
1 b. Relocate park to connect to Urban Separator /PG &E easement, per Urban
2 Separator discussion..
3 c. Eliminate lots backing up to park.
4
5 3. Urban Separator /Feathering
6 a. Decrease lot dimensions in order to increase Urban. Separator to 'a
7 minimum of 35 -40 feet along Ely Road.
8 b. Relocate park adjacent to PG &E easement /passive open space to,provide
9 more useful open space area/Urban Separator.
10
11 4. Setbacks /Development Standards
12 a. Amend Development Standards to provide for a minimum 20 -foot rear
13 yard setback, except for lots with rear yards that back up to Urban
14 Separator, which shall have a minimum rear yard of 15 feet.
15 b. Delete exceptions to minimum setbacks in Development Standards..
16
17 5. Access /Circulation
18 a. Per Municipal Code frontage improvements to Ely Road are,-required as
19 . condition of project approval whether or not access on Ely is proposed..
20 b. Per staff suggestions in 'the 1/27/04 staff report, access to /from Ely Road "
21 and a signalized intersection at Ely Road and Frates Road should. be
22 considered to mitigate traffic issue and provide for increase bicycle and
23 pedestrian safety on Frates Road. .
24 •
25 6. PEP /Affordable Housing Site
26 a. Amend development standards to make affordable housing a conditionally
27 permitted use. Details of the affordable housing project will return to
28 Planning Commission for a Conditional Use permit approval prior to
29 SPARC approval.
30 b. Provide a second access to the affordable housing site.
31
32 7. Environmental Review It was the consensus of the Planning Commiss'ioi that
33 the Initial Study, which serves as the CEQA document for the project, should be
34 revised to reflect the revised project that will be presented to the City Council. All
35 necessary information, including but not, limited to the following, shall be
36 provided the applicant to support these revisions:
37 a. A complete "set of plans for the revised project, including civil drawings,
38 street sections, a landscape plan, etc.
39
40 b. Revised PDP .Development Standards that reflect Planning Commission
41 recommendations regarding setbacks, Use Permit for PEP site, and any
42 other changes necessitated by the revised project design.
43
44 c. A revised Traffic Study that addresses the revised project, including
45 changes to access and internal circulation. In addition, ITE trip generation
46 rates referenced for the PEP housing site should be consistent-with the use
47 designated in the PDP development standards, which is a ffordable
14
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2004
•
1
2
housing, not senior housing. Vin Smith revised project description to
delete "Senior" housing from project description and development
3
standards, and as you know, senior housing typically has a lower trip
4
generation rate. While the difference may not be significant, the traffic
5
study should use the appropriate trip generation rate.
6
7
d. A revised Noise Study that includes the following;
8
o An analysis which demonstrates that the specified placement and
9
height of the proposed noise wall (based on redesign discussed above)
10
will provide the mitigation necessary to comply with General Plan
11
noise standards for residential development.
12
o Noise contours for future noise levels along Frates and Lakeville, as is
13
typically provided in a noise study for residential subdivisions. This
14
will provide the hard data requested by the Planning Commission.
15
o Reference to the traffic study /data used to determine future noise
16
levels, including the percentage of truck traffic assumed for future
17
traffic volumes. Truck traffic can have a substantial effect on traffic
18
noise levels.
19
o Applicant to agree to the mitigation measures and sign the initial
20
study/Neg. Dec. prior to Council hearing being scheduled.
21
22
Motion carried 4 -3; Asselmeier, Barrett, McAllister — No.
23
•
24
25
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
26
27
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS /APPOINTMENT OF LIAISON
28
REPRESENTATIVES
29
30
Chair Barrett nominated Will Dargie for Chair, 7 -0. Asselmeier/ Harris nominated
31
Barrett for vice chair, 7 -0. Liaisons will be appointed at the next meeting.
32
33
34
III. LIAISON REPORTS:
35
36
a. City Council '
37
b. SPARC
38
c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
39
d. Tree Advisory Committee
40
41
42 Adjournment: 12:30
43
44
45
46 SAPC- Planning Commission\Minuies\PC Minutes 04 \012704.doc
15
1
'02 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
3 MEMORANDUM
4
5 Community Developmeni Department, Planning Division, 11 English,,Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
6 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E- mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
7
8
DATE:
9
ro
TO:
11
12
FROM:
13
14
SUBJECT:
15
16
17
18
19
20
C
21
December 9, 2003
Planning Commission
Jaym Allsep, Contract Planner
SOUTHGATE. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, REZONING AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP; FRATES
ROAD AND LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY (SRI 16); APN 017- 030 -022 & 017 -150-
019
RE,
AGENDA ITEM NO. III
0-22 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the content of the staff report and draft
3 Initial Study, and provide direction to the applicant 'regarding revisions to the project as
24 necessary to comply with or respond to identified issues, proposed mitigation measures and
25 applicable General Plan policies.
26
27
28 3 PRGJECT.,5UMMARY .
29
30 Project: Southgate Residential Development
31 Corner of Frates Road. and Lakeville Highway
32 APN 017 -030 -022 & 017 -150 -019
33 Project.Fi'le No. 03TSM0417CR
34
35 Project Planner: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
36
37 Project
38 Applicant /Owners:: Basin Street Properties
39
40 Property Size: 40 acres
41
42 Site Characteristics: The 40 -acre project site, which consists of two adjoining parcels, is
4 3 located on the east side of Frates Road between Lakeville Highway (SRI 16) and Ely Road. The
4 Old Lakeville Road. right -of -way (proposed to be abandoned) separates the two parcels. The site,
ATTAC H IVY E BSI T 3
Page 1
I which has a gentle north to south cross slope, is unimproved and is, sparsely vegetated with
2 remnant grasses. There are no trees on the subject property. In the past, the, property was used
3 as pastureland and for hay production. More recently, a portion of the site was used to stockpile
4 fill material from nearby construction sites for which muse permit was granted. A 120 -foot wide
5 PG &E transmission line right -of -way easement runs along the eastern edge of the project site: A
6 City pump station exists at the northwest corner of the site, near the intersection of Frates Road
7 and Ely-Road (see Location Map, Attachment B).
8
9
10
11,
12
13
14
15
16
17.
19
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Residential and Open Space
Current Zoning: S- Study District
Proposed Zoning: PUD- Planned Unit Development
Current. General Plan Land Use: Specific Plan Area
Proposed General: Plan Land Use: Urban Diversified (5 -1.0 dwelling units per acre)
Subsequent;Actions Required:
City Council review and approval of General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Vesting
Tentative Map
• SPARC Review and approval of Unit-Development Plan
• Site Plan , and Architectural Review of each phase of project
• Improvement.Plans /Final Map
• Building Permits
P1$ ®JEC'r DESCRIPTION
The Southgate Planned Unit. Development. proposes 221 detached single- family homes, a.1..34-
acre public park and a 104 -acre parcel to be retained for future affordable housing (25 to 80
units). A stormwater detention facility /linear open space area. totaling approximately 4.46 acres
is also proposed along the south side of the site adjacent to the City limits; Vehicular access to
the site is . proposed at, two points along Frates Road that coincide with the existing Calle
Ranchero and Lakeville Circle intersections with Frates Road.
38 The project entitlements include:
39 • A General Plan Amendment to 1) apply the Urban Diversified, land use designation,
40 which would allow residential densities of 540 units per acre; or 200 =400 housing units
41 on the project site; and 2) remove the "Transit" designation from the corner of Highway
42 116 and Frates Road;
43 • A Rezoning from the existing "Study" Zoning classification to Planned Unit
44 Development (PUD);
•
Page 2
"0 1 2 e A V e a stif g Tentative .Map that "would divide the site into 221 single- family parcels, one
fordable housing site and three separate open.space'Ipark parcels; and
3 ® An abandonment of the Old Lakeville Road right -of, -way that currently divides the
4 property into two separate parcels at the western edge of the site.
5
6 The application for the establishment of a PUD "is required to be accompanied by a Unit
7 Development Plan, which includes an overall site plan, development standards and development
8 schedule. The schedule submitted for this PUD indicates that the single - family homes are to be
9 developed in three phases over a five -year period. • Phase l is anticipated to commence in late
10 spring /early summer of 2004 and it is anticipated that development` will occur at a rate of 50
11 homes built per year. The applicant, estimates that all single- family home construction (Phases I
12 through III) will be completed by late 20Q9. Phase IV of the Southgate neighborhood is an
13 affordable housing project of up.to 80 units. The, applicant has indicated that this phase may
14 occur concurrently with one of the three . single- family phases or it may occur following the
15 completion of all single - family homes. Following .City Council approval, the proposal will be
16 required to receive final approval for site plan, architectural and landscaping approval as well as
17 approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan for the proposal by the Site Plan & Architectural
18 Review Committee.
19
20 BACKGROUND
21
22 The subject property was annexed into the City in 1985 along with the Adobe Creek Golf and
� 23 Country Club located northeast the project site. At the time of the: annexation the site's zoning
l4 designation, Study Distrid, was purposefully retained for future interpretation. According to
25 staff reports pertaining to the annexation, the site was being considered for the development of a
26 200 -unit residential development. The site was later considered by the Santa Rosa Junior
27 College for its Petaluma campus and by local school districts for °..an elementary or junior high
28 school site. Ultimately, the site was deemed' unsuitable'for their needs.
29
30 During the 1987 -2005 General Plan rewrite, the City Council considered designating the site
31 Special Industrial, since they found the site to be well suited for a campus -like development that
32 would have an appropriate land use intensity and the potential to provide an attractive gateway to
33 the_ City, as well as a transition from the agricultural lands to the east within the County.
34 However;. due.to concerns regarding° a proposed residential development, the site was designated
35 a& a "Sp"ecific Plan Area inthe 1987- 2005 General Plan and accompanying land use map.
36
37 In September 1;_999, the ,project sponsor submitted a preliminary application to request that the
38 City Council reconsider the Specific Plan' requirement for the property. At that time, the project
39 sponsor envisioned the property being developed as a business park and proposed a Special
40 Industri`a17Office Park fand•use:designation for the site. The Council determined that the site did
41 not have characteristics typical of.a Specific Plan area, and that it was not. necessary to prepare a
42 Specific Plan, particularly in light of the proposed single ownership.. The council indicated that
43 it was appropriate for"the project sponsor to :move forward with an application for a General Plan
44 Amendment for the property, and expressed a desire to see an analysis of the jobs/housing
45 balance and an economic analysis of the optimum use of the parcel.
06
Page 3
I In August 2000, applications for a Mixed Use project were submitted, which proposed office,
2 R &D, retail and residential uses. Following several hearings, the project received a positive •
3 recommendation from the Planning Commission. The. City Council, however; -Aster - Tiined that an
4 environmental impact report (EIR) would be .required to 'assess the environmental impacts *of the
5 mixed -use proposal. Applications for the mixed -use proposal were subsequently withdrawn, and
6 in the fall of 2002, the applicant ,engag_ ed in an interactive charrette process that was intended to
7 reach a consensus development plan.
8
9 In late 2002, the applicant submitted :a proposal for 4,00 residential dwelling,unit's and 20,000_
10 square feet of'commercial /mixed use space on project site. That proposal was also withdrawn.
11
12 In. July 2003,. the applicant submitted an .application, for the current Southgate. project, which
13 proposes single , family homes and a future affordable housing component, Th:e applicant -,has
14 indicated that the current. proposal is a result of "returning back to the , neighborhoods following
15 the charrette process,, listening to there and working directly with them to "respond -to their
16 desires."
17
18 STAFF ANALYSIS
19
20 General'Plan Consistency
.21 The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Petaluma General Plan:. As ;noted above,
.22 the applicant is requesting a, general plan amendment that would change the current "Specific
23 Plan Area and "Transit Terminal" designations' to an "Urban Diversif ed' designation, which
24 would allow residential densities of 5 to 10 units ,per acre, and invites flexibility in, site design and
25 single- family homes, duplexes, and multi- family units are permitted. The project,
which prop
. YP
es single- family homes as well as future affordable housing, would conform to the
27 proposed Urban .Diversified designation. General Plan Elements containing policies that: apply
28 specifically to the site and /or require more detailed analysis to determine compliance are
29 summarized below:
30
31 Community CharacterVement
32'
33 Policy 2 - Within the context that growth will occur; every effort shall be made to preserve and
34 enhance the views of surrounding lands, hills and ridges.
35
36 Policy_ 6 - Well- designed developments that will be harmonious with their setting and /or enhance
37 the city's image shall „be encouraged.
38
39 Preliminary architecture and landscape plans submitted with the project applications demonstrate
40 that the 'applicant has made an effort to design 'the proposed Southgate neighborhood as an
41 attractive ,residential development: The ;architectural plans show A. use of materials that would, be
42 harmonious with the area, and the preliminary, landscape plan proposes a. variety of trees, shrubs
43 vines and groundcover that would enhance the streetscap.e, parks, pathways ; and :entry areas,
44 including a generous landscaped area proposed at the corner: of Frates Road and Lakeville
45 Highway. However, the sound wall that ,is proposed to run along Lakeville Highway and Frates
46 Road would dominate public views oft project site. Furthermore, given that this site is located
47 at the gateway to the City, a 10 -12 foot high sound wall,. even with landscaping, may not be a
Page 4
I desirable entry to the City of Petaluma. As discussed further below under project issues, staff
• 2 recommends that the Planning Commission provide the applicant direction on how the project
3 should be.. modified to reduce'the height, or eliminate the need for a 10 to 12 -foot noise barrier so
4 that views of the surrounding lands and Bills can be maintained to a greater extent.
5
6 Policy 27 - The City shall ,require the provisions of privately owned open space in residential
7 developments of more than 15 units where made necessary by project density or design, or lack or
8 proximity to public parks and open space..
9
10 The applicant proposes'that the 1.34 -acre central park and the small island in the street (Lot A)
11 be dedicated to ,the City, and that 4.6 =acre open space along the southern boundary be privately
12 owned. and publicly accessible. The combination of both public • and private open space, totaling
13 more than, six acres, attempts to respond to the goal of the General Plan to provide open space
14 and useable recreational areas. It should be noted that Urban Separator lands in other parts of the
15 City have been dedicated to the City as open space and not held' privately.
16
17 Land Use and Growth Management Element
18
19 Policy 12 — The Urban Separator.shall continue to serve its function as a continuous chain of open
20 space on the East Side, while being intermittent on the West side.
21
22 Policy 14 — The City shall extend the length of the Urban Sep_ arator where feasible, at a maximum
23 width of 300 feet.
4
25 Policy 18 — Details of public access, pathways along the entire 'length of the Urban Separator shall
26 be established during the development review process, in concert with project design.
27
28 A band of the Urban Separator followed by the Urban, Growth Boundary follows the east
29 property line (along Ely Road) and the south property line (adjacent to County agricultural lands)
30 of the subject property. The General Plan describes the Urban. Separator as a visible band of
31 open space that marks the, edge: of allowable development. It is continuous on the east side,
32 intermittent on the west side and runs adjacent to the Urban Limit Line for most of its length.
33 The Urban Separator provides an edge that buffers farmland from urban land'. It can serve as a
34 recreation area and a key component of the City's open space' system. It prevents urban
35- development from extending; unchecked into surrounding open space,, since private development
36 cannot take;place within the, separator.
37
38 Along Ely Boulevard '(east boundary) where the Urban Separator is indicated on. the. General Plan
39 Land Use Map, the Southgate Development Plan proposes single= family homes, and a 20 -foot
40 wide landscaped area between the current edge 'of pavement and the rear- lot fencing. Proposed
41 conditions approval would require the applicant to construct % street improvements along the
42 entire Ely Road project frontage; including but not limited to: 'pavement construction and
43 reconstruction to provide for a 1.2 -foot travel lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, striping, streetlights,
44 six -foot wide bike lane, fi_re hydrants and landscaping. Additional improvements would be
45 necessary at the intersection of Frates Road to provide for both turn lanes and through lanes.
Page 5
I Along the southern site boundary where the Urban. Separator also exists', the Southgate plan shows
2 a 120 -foot wide, passive open space area, including °the proposed detention pond's, which is •
3 entirely within the existing ,120 -foot wide PG &E transmission easement, This .area, which totals
4 approximately 4.5 acres, is proposed to be privately, owned but accessible to the public.
5
6 The Land Use Map of the General Plan depicts the Urban, Separator as a, uniform width along the
7 north and east property lines. However, .General Plan, objectives related to 'the Urban Separator
8 indicate that the Urban Separator shall be a .maximum of 3.00 feet except in those areas where it
9 may be variable, or is already established at more than 300 feet, neither of are the case for
10 the subject property; Whi -le General, Plan policies appear to allow for some. flexibility in the width
11 of the Urban. Separator the City'has consistently required a 300 -foot wide Urban Separator along
12 the eastern City limits. In addition, one of the stated objectives under the discussion of the Urban
13 Separator in the, General Plan ;is to "[C]continue to' require dedication of open space. lands ;in the
14 Urban Separator as -a condition of development within the City limits." (Objective (i))
15
16 The applicant has 'indicated that= the 20-foot landscape area along the eastern edge (Ely Road) and
17 the 120 -foot wide open ,space /detention area along the southern edge are intended to provide
18 pedestrian and bicycle access along the; edges of the site consistent with the objectives of the
1.9 General `Plan Urban Separator. The applicant notes that the area along the south, side• of the site
20 provides the ;greatest opportunity for an open space experience, given the agricultural uses
21 immediately to the south. of the site. As noted further below under project issues, staff ' seeks
22 direction. from the Planning Commission regarding the project's conformance with general plan
23 policies regarding the Urban Separator.
24.
25 Policy 23'- Convenience . shopping in proximity to residential shall be encouraged :.
26
27 The project does not propose any retail or commercial uses, and there is. _no xetail (shopping) use
28 near the ; project site. Furthermore,, the site is separated from retail locations by major arterials,
29 which make access for seniors and youths more difficult. Given the lack of retail uses ins the area,
30 staff recommends; that the applicant be encouraged to consider a modest, neighborhood - serving
31 retail use that would serve Southgate residents, the :future affordable housing, facility and adjacent
32 neighborhoods and workers. While staff is aware that some neighbors were concerned about the
33 amount of,' development contemplated by the previous proposals for the site, it is staff's opinion
34 that neighborhood serving-retail use (in the 20,000 to 30,000 square foot: range) is appropriate to
35 consider in light,of this general plan policy. This issue is discussed further under the Project Issues
36 section of this report.
37
38 Policy 28 - ' The -City shall support residential development only in those areas inhere adequate
39 City facilities are available or will be provided with development:
40
41 Conditions to, ensure that adequate City services will be imposed at the appropriate ,stages of the
42 project entitlement and _building permit review process. Comments from various City
43 departments are included as Attachment E to this report.
44
45
46
•
•
Page 6
1 ,
• 2 Open Space, Conservation, and Energy Element
3
4 Policy 25 - Developers shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control during
5 construction.
6
7 1 The developer will be required to conform to City and State regulations by providing an erosion
8 control and storm water pollution prevention plan, which shall be adhered to throughout project
9 construction.
1' 0
11 Park and Recreation Element .
12
13 Policy 5 - The city should provide park sites to respond`to the needs of a diverse population. The
14 needs include creek side systems; trail ways for pedestrians, joggers and bicyclists, and non -
15 traditional' types of recreation such as habitat restoration projects, community gardens, and
16 skateboarding.
17
18 The Southgate development plan proposes a 1.34 -acre central park (proposed to be dedicated to
19 the City as a public park) and an open space area along the southern property line (to be held as
20 private property but made open to the, public as a passive recreational area). These open space
21 areas would provide an ,opportunity for,passive and active recreational uses. However, Planning
22 staff is not aware that the opportunity for °organized recreational uses such, as soccer, baseball or
3 softball, have been evaluated by the City's Park & Recreation Department. The applicant has
4 indicated that details of the recreational and open spaces will be submitted as part of a
25 .subsequent. Site Plan and Architectural Review packet following Vesting Tentative Map
26 approval.
27
28 Community Health and'Safety (Chapter 11)
29
30 Policy 25 — Strictly enforce local noise standards.
31
32 The Community Health and Safety Chapter of Petaluma General Plan, which includes the State
33 mandated Noise Element; establishes acceptable noise levels for different land uses. For the
34 purpose of assessing, noise impacts associated with the proposed project, an interior noise level
35 of La 45, and an Ld for exterior use areas in'single- family residential development were used
36 as the si gni esholds. As explained in Noise Section of the Initial Study (Attachment
ifcanoe thr,
37 C), this is with the criteria contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
38
39 A. Noise Mitigation Study prepared by the applicant's consultant, Rosen Goldberg & Der
40 Acoustical Consultants',, assumed the construction of a 10 to 12 -foot tall noise barrier along
41 Frates Road and.Lak'eville Highway. The noise study concluded that even with the noise wall,
42 future noise, levels in the backyards of 45 of the proposed lots adjacent to Lakeville Highway and
43 Frates Road are , expected to bel Ldn 60 to '64 dBA. This would result in noise levels 0 to 4 dB
44 above the significance' threshold for exterior noise levels established by the City's General Plan
45 policies. ,Based on the thresholds used in the Initial study, this would be considered a significant
�6 environmental. impact. To reduce or avoid this impact, the Initial Study includes a mitigation
Page 7
I measure which requires `that project revisions and modifications necessary to conform to
2 residential noise standards be reflected on plans submitted for review and approval by the City of •
3 Petaluma. Staff recommends that ;the Planning Commission provide the applicant direction on
4 how the project should'' be,modified in order to be consistent with General Plan Policies..
6 It should. be noted that the Noise Mitigation Study characterizes the interior Ldn 45 and exterior
7 Ldn 60 :noise, levels referenced in the City's General, Plan as "goals" rather than standards. In
8 addition, the study also references Caltrans', noise abatement criterion, If the: City of Petaluma
9 general plan did not specify any noisestandards, it might: be appropriate to consider the Caltrans
10 noise abatement criteria. However, that is not, the case. The, study further points out that
11 although.. the Ldn for these 45 homes is up to 4 dB above the City's outdoor ``goal' ; a 3dB
12 increase in noise levels is considered a just noticeable difference, while °a 5 dB change, is clearly
13 noticeable but not dramatic. Nevertheless, absent any clear policy by the City of Petaluma that
14 points to a different. interpretation of the general plan noise standards, staff considers the interior
15 Ldn 45 and exterior Ldn 60 noise levels referenced in the City's General Plan to be the ;most
1 appropriate thresholds for assessing noise impacts, in accordance with CEQA criteria.
17
18 The proposed sound wall and adhere_ nce to the General Plan noise standards is discussed. further
19 under Project' Issues..
20
21 General Plan AmendmentReq_uest
22 In ordeuto approve a :General Plan Amendment, the, following findings must be made:
23
prop
25 � General Plan and an Gener implementation lement tion Am t and co with the rest of the
y p p g rams that may be affected.
26
'27 ® Potential impacts of -the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been
28 determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
29
30 ® The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
31 provisions of the California Government, Code and the California Environmental Quality
32 Act (CEQA).
33
34 As discussed above; the project as `currently_ proposed. would not conform, to General Plan noise
35 standards. In addition, staff has raised other issues, such as a idesife to provide some
36 neighborhood- serving:retail, as part ofthe project that-woul_d require.a land use:designation other
37 than "Urban Diversified ". Therefore, staff recommen6 that the Planning Commission provide.
38 direction to staff and the applicant on 'how the project should be modf ed in order to be
39 consistent with General Plan. Policies.
40
41 Zoning Distrief Corisisteney
42 The;. proposed rezoning would replaceahe existing "Study District" with a Planned Unit ,District
43 (PUD).. The current "Study District" was applied to the property 'at the time the property was
44 ann exed into the City in "1,985 along with, the Adobe Creek Golf and Country Club located
45 northeast ,of the project site. The purpose of the Study District is to provide ;a means to permit
46 the study of appropriate future zoning in order that no actions. can be: taken during' the study
C
•
Page 8
i
I period, which might be prejudicial to the proper future development of the property. As noted
• 2 previously, the site ha& been considered for residential development, a community college
3 campus, and an elementary or junior high school site, a business park and amixed -use project.
4 However, the Study District designation remains as the current zoning for the site.
5
6 The proposed Planned Unit District is intended to allow a mixture of uses, or unusual density,
7 building intensity, or design characteristics which would not normally be permitted in a single
8 use district. Application of the creation of a PUD is required to be accompanied by a Unit
9 Development Plan. In recommending approval of such a plan, the. Commission must find that
10 the Plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than
11 would be possible under any single zoning district combination of zoning districts. The City
12 Council may approve the PUD with a recommendation from the Planning Commission based on
13 a series of findings (Article ° 1,9A, Section 19A -300 City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance). These
14 findings include:
15
16 e The PUD provides fora suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares with adequate
17 capacity to carry any additional traffic ,generated by the development;
1.8 ® The development would result in a unified and organized arrangement of buildings, facilities,
19 and landscaping to ensure -compatibility with nearby properties;
20 o The natural and, scenic u"
q alrties of the site are protected', with adequate available public and
21 private spaces; and
22 • Development of the property will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will be in
23 keeping with the general intent of the Petaluma General Plan; the Zoning Ordinance, and
0 4 other applicable plans adopted by the City.
25
26 Single Family Homes. The applicant has submitted proposed Development Standards as part of
27 the Unit Development Plan. (Attachment G) which specify three different lot widths for the
28 single- family lots: 45 feet; 55 feet and 60 feet. For each Lot Width Type, 4 to 5 different home
29 floor plans have been submitted, with three different architectural treatments for each floor plan.
30 The applicant has indicated that the architectural, styles for the homes, Craftsman, Victorian
31 Farmhouse and Italianate, focus on Petaluma History. The following yard setback requirements
32 are proposed, with certain encroachments for porches, bays, chimneys, etc. permitted:
33
34 Front Yard Setback - 15 feet
35 Side Yard Setbacks.— 5 feet/10 feet
36 Rear Yard Setback - T0; feet
37
38 The development standards stipulate'a 32 -foot height limit- for all single -- family residences, and
39 that each single; family home shall have a minimum .of a two -car garage served by a 20 -foot long
40 driveway,. allowing :for ,spaces on the driveway. Many of the homes feature front
41 porches and an emphasis has been 'placed on "pushing back the garage door from the front
42 house elevations; on some lots, the garage is set back over 40 feet from the front building
43 elevation.
44
45 Future Affordable Dousing. The 3'.04 -acre site labeled Parcel B on the Vesting Tentative
0 6 Subdivision Map is reserved for a future affordable housing development. The total number of
Page 9
I units permitted. for the site shall be between 25 and 80. No, site or architectural plans have been
3 b the a f �lcant u establsh r manimum s buildin We and landsca Development Standards submitted 0
P g; ,
y pp g p setbacks, as well as maximum
4 building height limits.
6 Project Issues:
7
8 The significant issues presented by the Southgate proposal include the following:
10 a Urban Separator
11 ® Proposed Sound Wall /Genera.l Plan Noise Standards
12 ® Grading
13 • Vehicular,Access /.Control and Circulation %Pedestrian Safety
14 Y Proposed Land Uses
15
16 These. issues are discussed further below, along with staff recommendations,
17
18 Urban Separator. This issue is discussed under General Plan Consistency. As -proposed; the
19 project does not, provide for a 300 -foot Urban ,Separator. While General Plan_ policies appear to
20 allow for some flexibility in width of the Urban Separator, the. City has consistently required a
21 300 -foot wide Urban .Separator along the eastern City 'limits. The applicant has indicated that the
22 20 7foot landscape, area along the eastern edge (Ely Road) and the 12'0 -foot wide open
23 space /detention area along the :southern edge are 'intended to provide pedestrian ;and bicycle
24 access along the edges of the site consistent with the, objectives of the General Plan Urban
25 Separator, The ,Planning, Commission, should determine whether the project; as proposed and
26 conditioned, would meet the intent of the General Plan objectives regarding the Urban Separator.
27 Specifically, the Planning Commission should consider the following:
28
29 ® Consider whether the proposed 20 -foot wide landscape buffer proposed along Ely .Road, and the
30 120400t wide.PG &E easement along the southern property boundary would provide an adequate
31 Urban, Separator.
32
33 o If appropriate; provide direction on modifications to the development plan in order to provide for
34 an adequate Urban Separator.
35
36 Proposed Sound Wall Plan Noise Standards
37 As discussed above, a Noise Mitigation. Study prepared by the applicant's consultant, concludes
38 that even with a 10, to 12 46ot tall noise barrier along Frates Road and Lakeville Eighway, 'future
39 noise levels in the; backyards of 45 of the 221 lots adjacent to Lakeville Highway and Frates
40 Road are expected to be Ldn 60 to 64 dBA. This would result in. noise levels 0 to 4 dB above the
41 significance threshold, for exterior noise levels established by the City's General Plan policies.
42 To avoid this impact, the Initial 'Study includes a mitigation measure which requires that all
43 residential uses conform to the. Ldn 45 (interior) and Ldn 60 (exterior use areas) noise standards
44 established in the City of Petaluma General :Plan, and requires that' project revisions and
45 modifications necessary to conform to residential _noise standards shall be reflected on plans
46` submitted for review and approval by the City of Petaluma. Staff recommends that the Planning
•
Page L`0
h General Plan Policies. Given that this site is located at the di in order C y ,
2 consistent wi
• I Commission provide the a licant direction on how the project should be modi
gateway to the City,
3 staff also seeks direction from the Commission on the desirability, from a visual and aesthetic
4 perspective, of a .10 -12 foot high souindwall along Lakeville Highway and Frates Road.
5
6 Grading. Engineering plans submitted for the Southgate project indicate that fill areas up to 7.5
7 feet in depth are proposed in the Southwest corner of the property adjacent to the lowest
8 detention pond. Since no encroachment into the Lakeville Highway . right -of -way is indicated, a
9 7.5 -foot high retaining wall would be required at this corner would be necessary to retain the
10 proposed fill area. Such a retaining wall, combined with a 10 to 12 -foot sound wall would create
11 a wall as high as 19.5 feet along Lakeville Highway. It is staff's understanding that the applicant
12 is revising the grading plan to address this concern; however, a revised grading plan has not been
13 reviewed by staff.
14
15 Vehicular Access. Mitigation measures are identified in the Initial Study (Attachment C) and
16 included in proposed Conditions of Approval that would .ensure acceptable levels of service (LOS
17 D) at all intersections within the project area. Under cumulative traffic conditions this project
18 would result in LOS E at the new intersections created'to serve this project. To reduce this impact
19 to an acceptable level, mitigation measures have been included that require the installation of
20 traffic signals at °the following intersectionsf
21
22 o Frates Road and Calle Ranchero (project entrance)
23 o Frates Road and Lakeville Circle (project entrance)
&4 o Frates Road and South Ely Boulevard/Ely Road
25 o Frates and Adobe Road (applicant would provide a fair share contribution to a future
26 County signalization project)
27
28 It should be noted that even though the 'traffic study for the project indicates that future traffic
29 conditions at the two proposed project entrances on Frates - Road (intersections at Calle Ranchero
30 and Lakeville Circle) would not meet the peak hour signal warrant criteria, a traffic signals
31 would be required to maintain acceptable .peak ;hour LOS D. It should also be noted that
32 signals at these locations will allow controlled access from the site to bicycle and pedestrian
33 traffic, particularly to students of nearby schools.
34
35 Staff also suggests that the Commission consider directing, the applicant to eliminate the
36 Lakeville Circle/,Frates� Road entrance to the project in favor of a new entrance off Ely Road,
37 approximately in the- ,location of Lots 199 and 20,0. A proposed :condition of approval would
38 require this segment of Ely Road to be improved to City Street Standards, and a mitigation
39 measure' identified in "the Draft Initial Study would require that the Frates Road /South Ely
40 Blvd /Ely Road intersection be signalized. Therefore,, a new access point on Ely Road would
41 serve to eliminate the need for a new signalized intersection at Frates Road and Lakeville
42 Circle, and would channel traffic from the project onto a relatively low -use street with
43 signalized access at the Frates Road /South Ely Blvd /Ely Road intersection.
44
45 Lastly, staff recommend's eliminating the two roads that dead end into the proposed Urban
Separator nearaots�96 /135 and. lots 159/179. It is doubtful that these stubbed out roads will ever
Page 11
I be extended. If an expansion. of the Urban Growth boundary should. occur in the future, this
2 area would be adequately served by Ely Road. •
3
4 Proposed Land Uses
5 This site constitutes one of the last remaining large, easily developable tracts of land in the City
6 of Petaluma. As reported. earlier-- many ideas and projects have been proposed for this site
7 without success. Given the existence of the Urban Growth Boundary and the fact that the City is
8 approaching build out within that boundary, it appears that this site offers a unique opportunity to
9 the City and the applicant to establish a development that incorporates some, :if not all, of the
to elements of ;Smart. Growth, specifically a - design that yrovides. a mixture ofiuses that_ will serve
11 the new neighborhood and reduce the need for additional automobile trips. To their credit, the
12 applicant has proposed a mixed -use project in thel past that was ultimately determined to be too
13 intense by the adjacent neighborhood and the City Council. Staff seeks direction from ' the
14 Planning Commission as to whether some compromise plan could be developed that can satisfy
15 the interests of the neighborhood and result in utilizing this land in a more efficient manner.
16
17 Bicycle Committee Recommendations:
18 In March. 2000, the City Council adopted. the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as, an
19. amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that..the .City shall
20 route development plans to the Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) in a timely
21 fashion, allowing consideration of'bicycle /pedestrian issues. A proposed condition of requires
22 all phases of'the project to be reviewed by PBAC to ensure conformance with the. Bicycle Plan.
23
24 PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
25
26 A notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier, and notices were sent to: residents
27 and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Additional notices were mailed'to
28 residents of the Calle Ranchero and Adobe Creek neighborhoods. As of the writing,if this.report,
29 staff has not received any written correspondence from members. of the public.
30
31 ENVIRONMENT,
AL REVIEW!
32
33 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
34 Study .of potential environmental impacts was prepared (see Attachment C). The potential for
35 the following significant impacts .were;identifi'ed`: temporary geology & soils, air, hydrology &
36 water :quality; noise, visual quality & aesthetics and transportation/traffic. Mit'igati'on measures
37 would need to be agreed to by the applicant to ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to
38 less than; significant. Note:` As of the writing of'this. staff report the applicant had not agreed
39 to the proposed:instigation measures.
40
41 ATTACHMENTS
42
43 A. Draft Conditions of Approval
44 B. Location .
45 C. Initial Study /Mit'i'gated Negative dated November 2003 with
46 Traffic Study prepared by Dowling Associates, revised October 2003
Page 12
L 1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
•
Air Quality Study prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, November 2003
Noise Mitigation Study prepared by Rosen Goldberg & Der, November 2003
D. Letter from Vin Smith Re: Noise Study, November 17, 2003
E. Memorandums /letters fiom other departments /agencies:
Fire Marshal
Caltrans
Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department
Sonoma County Department ofTransportation and Public Works
Sonoma County Water Agency
City Engineer
F. Applicant's Project Narrative (Project Analysis), revised 10/31/03
G. PUD Development Standards
H. Vesting Tentative Map, Unit Development Plan /Site Plan,
I. Southgate Preliminary Landscape and Architectural plans (Commission only)
Page 13
• 2 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
3 MEMORANDUM
4
5 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
6 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
7
8 DATE: December 11, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
9
to TO: Planning Commission
11
12 FROM: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
13
14 SUBJECT: SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — GENERAL PLAN
15 AMENDMENT, REZONING AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP; FRATES
16 ROAD AND LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY (SR 116); APN 017- 030 -022 & 017-150 -
17 019
18
19
2o Attached to this memo is ,additional information related to the proposed Southgate Residential
21 Development, scheduled to 'be considered by the Planning Commission at a special meeting on
� 22 December 16, 2003. The materials already distributed to the Commission on the project as part
3 of the December 9th packet are still relevant and should be retained for this meeting.
24
25 The following is a summary of the attached materials.
26
27 . Memo from the Petaluma Pedestrian and. Bicycle Committee
28
29 This memo, provided to staff on December 4, 2003„ contains preliminary recommendations
30 from the PBAC on the; Southgate °project. It is staff's understanding the PBAC was awaiting
31 the submittal of a circulation plan before finalizing their recommendations on the Southgate
32 proposal. A circulation plan was "not provided in the initial plans submitted by the applicant.
33 However, plans submitted for the Planning. Commission packet did include a sheet entitled
34 "Circulation Plan" and a copy has been provided to PBAC. Therefore, the attached PBAC
35 recommendations should be viewed as preliminary.
36
37 ® Letter from Basin Street Properties
38
39 This letter from Vin Smith of Basin Street Properties, dated December 9, 2003, addresses a
40 number of issues raised in the staff report and Draft Initial' Study. The letter focuses on
41 proposed changes to the project, including an alternative site plan that has been prepared in
42 an effort to address the concerns raised by staff.
43
4
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 1
2 • Annotated List of Draft Conditions
3
4 As explained in the attached letter, the applicant has submitted an annotated list of conditions
5 of approval, which indicates those conditions the applicant accept, those that they wish to
6 conditionally accept with suggested modifications, and those conditions that, the applicant
7 does not accept.
8
9 • Revised Noise Mitigation Study
10
11 The applicant has submitted a revised Noise Mitigation Study, which assesses the noise
12 mitigation associated with the alternative site plan. While staff has not reviewed the
13 alternative site plan or the noise study in detail, based on a quick review, it appears that. the
14 height of proposed noise barriers have been reduced to six to 10 -feet tall, rather than the 10 to
15 12 -foot heights initially proposed. This is due to the changes proposed by the alternative site
16 plan, which locates a frontage road between the adjacent roadways and the homes. This in
17 turn would allow the homes themselves to act as noise barriers and reduce noise levels in the
18 rear yard area.
19
20 • Alternative Site Plan
21
22 An alternate site plan has been submitted which proposes a number of changes, as outlined in
23 the,attached letter from Basin Street.
24
25 Note: Staff has not reviewed the letter, proposed project changes or any of the other
26 attached information submitted by Basin Street Properties in any detail, given that it
27 was received shortly before this packets was distributed.
28
29 ATTACHMENTS
30
'31 A. Memo from Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, dated September 4,
32 2003
33 B. Letter from Vin Smith,. Basin Street Properties, .dated December ,9, 2003.
34 C. Annotated Draft Conditions of Approval (Attachment 1 of Basin Street`Letter)
35 D. Revised Noise. Mitigation. Study prepared.by Rosen Goldberg & Der Consultants,
36 December 9, 2003
37 E. Alternative Site Plan
38
39 S: \PC- Planning. Commission \Memos \Southgatememol2l603.doc
40
0
•
Page 2
CITE' OF PETALUMA
POST OFFICE BOX 61
PETALUMA, CA" 94953 -0061
David Class
Mayor
Keith Canevaro
Mike Harris
Mike Healy
Bryant Moynihan
Mike O'Brien
Pamela Torliatt
Councilmembers
•
Community Development
Department
I I English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
E -Mail
cdd ocicipetaluma. ca. us
Code Enforcement
Phone (707) 778 -4469
Fax (707) 778 -4498
E -Mail
codeernforcement@ .
ci.petaluma.ca.us
Engmeering
Phone (707)'778 -4301
Fax (707) 778;:4498
December 3, 2003 (Revised 2 %23/2004)
Petaluma:Planning -Commission
C/o Community, Development Department
City Hall
Petaluma CA 94952
Attention: Michael Moore, Community Development Director
Subject: Southgate, Subdivision 03- TSM -04 -17
Tentative Map Conditions
Tentative Map date stamped 10/24/2003 (Revised map 2/13/2004)
APN 017- 030 -022 & 017 -150 -019
Dear Commissioners:
Section 20.16:420 of the Subdivision Ordinance specifies that the City Engineer
shall prepare a written 'report of recommendations on ;the tentative map in relation
to the public improvement requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the
provisions of the Map Act.
Frontage Improvements
A. Lakeville Highway State 116
Provide ;frontage improvements per Caltrans requirements. The
Bicycle Plan calls for a class II bike, lane along Lakeville Highway.
B. Frates Road
Inspection Services
Phone (707) 778 -4301
Fax (707) 778 -4498
To" Schedule: Inspections.
Phone (707) 7784479
Permits
Phone. (707) 778 4301
Fax (707) 778 -4498
Planning
Phone (707) 77874301
Fax (W) 778 -4498
Construct % street improvements along the entire frontage
including but not limited to: pavement construction and
reconstruction, curb, gutter, : sidewalk, striping, streetlights, bike
lanes, fire hydrants, and landscaping. The street section shall be at
AT 5
least 6- inches of asphalt concrete over 21 inches of class 2 aggregated base. The •
developer may have the existing pavement evaluated and tested with a.
recommendation to bring the road section to arterial standards. , The street width
shall include two 6-foot bike lanes two, 12 -foot travel lanes and 12 400t turn lane.
Left turn lanes shall be located at intersections. No double leftturn lanes shall be
allowed. Parking shall not be allowed along Frates Road.
The proposed entry street at Lakeville Circle shall be eliminated and a cul -de -sac
constructed near lots 143 -146.
C. Ely Road
Construct '!/2 street improvements along the entire frontage including . but not
-limited to: pavement construction and reconstruction curb, gutter sidewalk,
striping, streeflights, bike lanes, fire hydrants and landscaping. The street section
shall be at least 5- inches of asphalt concrete and 15- inches of class 2 aggregate
base., The %z street width shall," ude,a 127foot travel lane and a bike ane
plus a 12 -foot travel lane in the opposite direction if the existing road conditions
warrant. At the intersection of Frates Road additional improvements shall be
necessary including turn lanes and. though 'lanes.
D. Intersections
Traffic signals shall be constructed at the intersections of Calle Ranchero and •
Frates Road and Ely Road. and Frates Road. The two signals shall be
interconnected to provide for traffic volume priority.
2. Grading
A. Grading shall conform to the soils investigation report. The ;soils °report_ shall
address the need for moisture barriers, along the back of curb ;and additional fill
over the existing city utilities in Fates Road.
B. Cut and fill information: shall be provided on the .improvements plans.
C. Provide -'the necessary grading and drainage improvements on the City Pump
Station site.
D. Prepare and submit an erosion control plan, storm water pollution. prevention plan
(SWPPP) and.a notice of intent (NOI).
E. Any existing structures above or below ground shall be removed if not a, part of
the new subdivision. Structures shall,. include, but are not limited to •fences, .
retaining walls, pipes, septic systems, wells, debris; etc.
3.' Streets
•
A. Access to Frates Road and Ely Road shall include an ingress lane, a combination
straight and left turn lane and a right turn lane. Entrance streets shall be 36 -feet
wide from Frates Road to the first intersection in the subdivision and from Ely
Road to the third intersection. Face of curb radius at proposed intersections on
Frates Road and Ely Road shall be at least 40- feet.. Sidewalks shall be required on
both side of the street.
B. All subdivision streets with the exception in the previous paragraph, shall be at
least 32 -feet wide. Sidewalks shall be required oa`both sides of the street. Stop
signs and crosswalks shall be required at applicable intersections within the
subdivision. Pedestrian ramps are required. at all corners. Face of curb radius at
interior street corners shall be at least 25 -feet. Street sections at the sound walls
shall include landscaping adjacent to the sound wall. A temporary all weather
turnaround shall be provided on parcel A 'for the two streets ending at parcel A.
C. All interior streets shall have a minimum street section of 4- inches of asphalt
concrete and 12- inches of class 2 aggregate base.
D. Additional outside .turn radius (knuckles) shall be provided at 90 degree
intersections within the subdivision.
® E. All streets shall be crowned at the center, directing surface drainage to both sides
of the street.
4. Site Drainage and: Storm Drain System
A. The detention pond system shall be designed to prevent any increase in the peak
discharge from the''project site due to a 100 -year storm. Provide a spillway in the
detention pond system and an over flow path to safely direct runoff from a storm
exceeding 100 - years.
B. Lot to lot drainage is not allowed without a conduit system and corresponding
easement.
C. Provide a storm "drain system in Frates Road and Ely Road per City standards.
D. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be reviewed and
approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency.
E. Access - road's and .easements shall be provided for public storm drains on private
property, Easements for public stone drains shall be at least 10 -feet wide.
F. StormDrainsshall beat least 15- inches in diameter.
3
5. Sanitary Sewer and. Water Systems
A. The water ,main system shall be capable of delivering :a continuous fire flow as
designated bythe Fire Marshal.,
B. Provide.fire flow calculations.
C. The water main connection in Lakeville Highway shall be, eliminated if final fire
flow calculations indicate the connection is not needed.
'D., Access roads and easements shall be provided for public sanitary sewer And water
mainsl on private property. Easements` shall be at least 10 -feet wide:
E. Water services shall be 1.5" diameter with 1" water meters.
6. Final Map
A. Clearly and accurately show the. boundary and dedications on the f na.1 snap.
B. Provide a 10 -foot wide pubic utility easement on both sides of all interior streets.
C. A final map technical review fee is due at final map application.
D. Parcels B -K shall be dedicated to the City of Petaluma.
7. Miscellaneous
A. Gas mains or underground electrical mains shall not be lallowed. on private
property beyond the- ; standard 10 -foot public utility eaement along_ the, street
frontage.
B. Improvement plans and final maps) shall be prepared according to the latest City
policies, codes„ ordinances, resolutions and standards.
C. If the project is phased, each individual phase shall be designed to provide the
required utility services ,and street system independent of any other phase.
D. Detention pond maintenance shall include tasks; and time intervals for inspection
and maintenance.
E. Make a ;formal application for the abandonment. of the Old Lakeville Road
between ' Road and Lakeville Highway. The abandonment shall include .
removing the existing public utility easement (PU'E) on APN 017 - 150 -01.9 (37
acre site). The 'formal application shall include a title report, appraisals and legal
. i
El
•
4
• descriptions for the areas proposed to be abandoned. The abandonment process
shall be complete prior to final map application.
F. An assessment district shall be established to maintain parcels C -K, the sound
walls, detention ponds and the landscaping along Lakeville Highway Frates Road,
Ely Road and inside the subdivision adjacent to the sound wall.
Sincerely,
Craig Spaulding, P.E.
City Engineer
SAEngineering Division \Development Processing Folder\Planning Project Referrals \TSM \03TSM0417 Southgate Conditions revision.doc
CITY OF PETAL UMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Parks and Recreation Departmen4 320 No. McDowell Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4380 Far (707) 778 -4473
DATE: December 16, 2003
TO: George White, Assistant Director of Corn unit Development
FROM: Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreate
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed; Southgate Residen ial Development
Upon review of the proposed Southgate Residential Development, the following are comments
from the Recreation and Parks Department.
• 1. The proposed park as reflected on the developer's submittal is comprised of parcel "C,"
which is 1.08 acres in size -In order to approach the developer's specified 1.34 -acre park, and
to follow the long standing planning principle of the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission
of no houses backing onto a park, the proposed park °is to include parcel "C" and the area now
designated as lots 218 -221. (A total of 1.32 — acres)
2. The proposed park is to ,have a large ,community playground, for pre- school and youth aged
children, as specified by the Parks and Recreation Department. The playground is to be
located within'the park as determined by the Parks and Recreation Department.
3. The Urban Separator is, recognized a$,beingl as compared to the 300' width
required lin a majority of areas along the east!'side of Petaluma. Regardless of what the
Planning Commission should decide the size of the Urban Separator should be, a bicycle /
pedestrian path is to be. constructed, running the entire length of the urban separator. The path
is to connect to the sidewalk running along Ely Road, travel southwest, towards Lakeville,
and be connected to the subdivision at two locations equidistant. The two reflected streets
dead- ending into,theUrban Separator would be locations for side access points to the path.
The path is to have benches and'trash receptacles, consistent with other east -side separator
paths.
4. The proposed Urban Separator, despite the size (as determined by the Planning Commission)
is to be owned "fee title" by the City of Petaluma.
•
Cc Mike Bierman, City Manager ATTAC H M aM_r 6
Ed Anchordoguy, Parks and Landscape Manager
WNW, Ge6rge_,
m: Carr, Jim
W o:
t: Thursday;. February 19, 2004 9:17 AM
Moore Mike
Cc: Bierman; Mike; White, George
Subject: Southgate
The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission reviewed the plans forthe Southgate Residential Development at their
February 18, 2004 meeting. as a result of their review, the'Commi"ssion recommends °the following:
1. The playground planned for the proposed park be on the same scale as the playground designed for the new
Gatti Park,
and meet with the approval of the.Recreation, Music.and. Parks
2. The developer is to providean annuity to cover annual maintenance of the park (approximately $10,000 per
year).
3. The bike / pedestrian path located in the urban separator currently terminates in a turn around at the south-
west edge of
the property. The path is to connect to the residential street that parallels. Lakeville Highway, possibly
traversing between
parcel 33 and the proposed sound wall.
4. All landscape maintenance on Frates Road, Ely Road, Lakeville Highway and in the urban separator is to be
maintained
through a landscape assessment district.
C7
ri
•
ATTACHMENT 7
\.. �
BAS INSTREET
F t,
February 6, 2004
Community Development Department
Attn: George White
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: SOUTHGATE — UPDATED PLANS AND M ATERIALS
Dear Mr. White:
In accordance with the direction „given by the Planning Commission at the January 27 hearing,
enclosed please find the following materials:
1. Revised Vesting' Tentative Map The key changes: from the prior plan are the
_ munity park to abut the nature; park, the addition of access to
the project via'S. El Y Boulevard, the enlargement of the.gateway entry treatment
at the corner of Lakeville Highway and Frates Road,, the enlargement of the urban
separator along S. Ely Boulevard, and the enlargement of the landscape treatment
between the soundwall and the public right of way on Lakeville Highway.
2. Revised Site Development. Plan 'The;key change from the prior plan is the
increase in rear yardsto a minimum of20 feet, with the exception of four homes
having rear yards of 16 feet.
3. Traffic Study Addendum This addendum to the original Traffic Study analyzes
various access and control alternatives, including the new project access via S.
Ely Boulevard.
4. Revised PUD Development_ Standards The key changes, from the prior standards
are the increase in rear yard set backs -,to 20 Teet and the narrowing of permitted
uses on the PEP site to senior /disabled housing.
-5. Revised - Comments to Recommended Conditions of Approval These comments
on ,the- staff'recommended conditions of approval were revised to reflect the
niater'ials submitted with this letter.
6. Noise Study Addendum This addendum to the original Noise Study updates the
prior report by taking into account the relocation of sound walls as .directed by the
Planning Commission, and also provides the sound data requested by the Planning
Commission for the, homes closest to Lakeville Highway and Frates Road.
Yesterday we received a copy of Ms. Allsep's Memorandum provided to you on January 29,
2004, a copy of which is'att'ached to this letter as Exhibit A . As discussed in greater detail below,
CA
W%VK'-1:A I IN -S T'M :. '.l (iit
ATTACHMENT 8
February 6, 2004
Page 2 -
6`
BASINSTREET
we believe we.have addressed all of the issues raised in the - memorandum. For your
convenience -our discussion follows the same ordering and numbering used in the memorandum.
1. GatewayjNoise Barrier /Aesthetic Issues
a.' The. southwest corner has been modified to delete two lots and modify`the
roadway. Approximately. 560 linear feet of soundwall has been_ removed and.: the
corner "'Gateway Parcel" at Frates and Lakeville has been increased to 1.35 acres.
b. A 1.35 acre parcel has been created for a landscape gateway element at the
Lakeville /Frates Road intersection. The revised conceptual landscape plan for the
entire project, including the 135 acre gateway component, will be provided in a
supplemental submittal by Friday, February 13`
c:. As noted above approximately 560 linear feet of soundwall has been eliminated
as a,Tesult of the modified design.
d. At the Planning Commission. Meeting, :Basin. Street Properties agreed to contribute
funds to the ultimate de.sign,and installation of a "Gateway `Element" to be located
within the Urban Separator adjacent to Lakeville Highway.
e. The project roadway parallel with. Lakeville Highway has been modified and
located such that eight (8) feet of landscaping will be provided between the
project' boundary and the new sound wall.
f. An.addendum to the original noise study is attached to this letter: The addendum,
includes.hard 'data for the homes fronting Lakeville Highway and Frates Road.
Such data shows that all useable rear yards will not exceed the General Plan
.guideline 'of 60 dBa Ldn.
2. Public Park (Jim Carr memo)
a. At the direction. of the Planning Commission, the public park'has been relocated
to be adjacent to and integrated into the Urban Separator. The revised conceptual
landscape plan for the entire project, including the neighborhood' park, component,
will be provided in a supplemental submittal by Fridaay,. February 13 `
b. The revised plan does not include: any lots backing up to the relocated-
neighborhood park '(one lot has a side yard abutting the park)..
3. Urban Se.parator/Feathering
a The Urban.Separator between the pro'' boundary and the travel way along'S.
Ely Boulevard has, been increased from 20 -2=5 feet to 36 -41 feet. The revised
conceptual landscape plan for the entire project, including the landscaping and
"natural" trail within this 36-41 foot wide area.componerit, will be provided in a
supplemental submittal by Friday, February 13`
b. At the direction of 'the, Planning'Comrn ssion, the public park has been relocated
to connect to the Urban Separator.
4. Setbacks/Development Standards
a. All lots within the development now provide minimum 20'.foot rear, yards except
that Lots 89; through 92 provide 16 foot rear yards. A' si a result of compliance with,
the expanded rear yard setback,and in an effort to create .an attractive street
February 6, 2004 •''� 0, )
Page 3 BASINSTREET
frontage, ,Lots 1, 40 46, 47, 511, 57, 58 and 210 have minor front yard and /or side
yard encroachments.
b. At the direction of the Planning. Commission, (i) the rear yard setbacks have been
increased to 20 feet '(ii) the exceptions to the rear yard setbacks have been
deleted, and (iii) an allowance for encroachment of porches into the front yard
setback of up to seven feet has been added.
Access /Circulation
a. Basin Street Properties proposes to install half - street frontage improvements on
Ely ;Blvd. from `Frates Road to the new project access.
b. At the direction of the Planning Commission, project access from Ely Blvd. is
now shown.
6. PEP Housing Site
a. The PUD Develgpinent Standards have been modified to require approval of a
Conditional Use Permitby the `Planning Commission and Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee approval prior to development of the
Senior /Disabled housing site.
7. Land Use /Smart Growth, Principles
a. As noted in Ms'. Allsep's memorandum, the Planning Commission did not
recommend pursuing a retail component for the project.
8. Maintenance of Infrastructure within Subdivision
a. We believe thatthe City of'Petaluma's longstanding policy of accepting the
dedication of public streets within subdivisions is appropriate and reflects
standard practice among municipalities. ,
Included in Ms. Allsep's memorandum is a discussion of CEQA and a perceived need to modify
the Initial Study. Ordinarily, aft Initial :Study would notbe modified to reflect project
modifications. Instead, the mitigated negative declaration would be modified upon project
approval to reflect •project modifications and changes in mitigatiori measures. While it would not
be improper for City staff to make, draft revisions to, the mitigated negative declaration at this
time, CEQAAoes not require this, and the modifications can instead be directed by the City
Council at the time of project approval.
Finally, Ms. Allsep's memorandum requested the following',addiiional items listed in italics.
Following each item is a discussion of the item requested.
• A complete,
etc. By Friday the 13` e will be submitting a revised grading ,lete, set o laps or the revised ro'ect, including civil drawings, street
ng and
utility °plan revised architectural sheets, and a revised conceptual landscape plan.
• Revised, PDP'Development Standards. The Planned Unit Development Standards have
been revised—according to the.Planning Commission direction.
Revised Traffic :Stud_ y. An addendum to the original Traffic Study prepared by Dowling
Associates • Inc. is provided with this letter. The study analyzes the .proposed changes to
Frates Road. and the, new project access from Ely Blvd. The PUD Development
Standards have ,been modified to reserve the affordable housing site strictly for
Senior /Disabled affordable housing.
February 6, 2004 ` "a
Page 4 BASINSTREET •
RR0 PE R'I ES
Y RevisedNoise Study: An.addendum to the original Noise. Study prepared by Rosen,
Goldberg & Der is included with this letter. The addendum provides the table requested
by the,Rlanning Commission and shows that. all lots within the Southgate project will
satisfy'the General Plan Guideline for outdoor noise levels.
We hope the additional'information we have - provided is helpful during your project review.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments you may have.:
Best regards,,
VINCENT C. SMITH,.AICP
VICE PRESIDENT
BASIN STREET'PROPERTIES
cc: Mike Bierman
Mike Moore
11
•
: EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Community Develo>>tnent Denurtment,'Plannnr Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778 -4301 Fax (70 7) 778 -4498 E- mail: p"lanningggci.petaluma. ca. us
January 29, 2004
TO: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development Dept.
FROM: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Southgate 3 — Planning Commission Recommendation
The following represents. my understanding of the : consensus 'items that are intended to
form the Planning Commission's recommendation to the, City Council on the Southgate
project. Further, it is my understanding that it is the Planning Commission's expectation
that the "design change" consensus items be. incorporated into project that is presented to
the City Council.
1. Gateway/Noise Barrier /Aesthetic Issues — The site serves as a gateway to the
City. Noise wall along the road,, as "proposed, is not an appropriate gateway.
a. Fix the "problem corner" near Frates and Lakeville by reconfiguring the
awkward lots in that corner. Okay to relocate lots elsewhere on site to
maintain same unit count for single - family homes.
b. Create a landscaped "Gateway" element at Frates /Lakeville corner.
c. Tie above redesign would allow the length of the noise wall along
Lakeville to be substantially reduced.
d. Create "Gateway" element at other end of Lakeville noise wall, near
PG &E easementlUrban *,Separator.
e. Provide for wider planting area along the outside of the wall, (toward
Lakeville).. The proposed two -foot wide planting area is not adequate.
The noise study shall include hard data (not just conclusion), which
demonstrates that project, conforms to General Plan noise standards for
residential development:
2. Public Park (Jim Carr memo)
a. Relocate park to connect to Urban Separator /PG &E easement, per Urban
Separator discussion.
b. Eliminate lots backing up to park.
41
Urban Separator/Feathering •
a. Decrease the lot dimensions in order to increase setback (Urban' Separator)
along Ely`Road.
b.. Relocate park adjacent to PG &E easement /passive open space to provide
more useful open `space area/Urban;S'eparator.
4. Setbacks /Development Standards
a. Amend Development Standards to provide for a minimum 20 -foot rear
yard setback, except, for lots with rear yards that back 'up 'to. Urban
Separator, which should have a. minimuin rear yard of 15 feet.
b.. Delete exceptions to ,minimum setbacks in Development Standards (shown
in superscript).
5. Access /Circulation
a. Per Craig Spaulding, Municipal Code requires frontage 'improvements
along public streets. Improvements to Ely required as condition of project
approval' whether or ,not access on Ely, is proposed.
b. Access from Ely Road should be considered if it helps to mitigate traffic
issues on Frates, .improves pedestrian safety and provides for traffic
calming measures.
PEE Housing -Site — Planning Commission supports the 'PEP project. 100%, but is
not comfortable with lack of:any information on. the development of the site,
a.. Condition requiring that PEP site subject to CUP requiring PC approval
and S'PARC approval.
Land Use /Smart Growth `Prineipl'es While some members of the PC. were
interested in considering a retail, land use-component on the site that could help
resolve noise wall /gateway ,issues as well' the issue was not pursued given the
neighbor'opposition to any retail and the history of this site /project.
8. Ma►ntenance of Infrastructure within Subdivision – It was the consensus of
the Planning Commission that this is a ,citywide policy issue that should be.
addressed byahe.City Council.
In addition, to tle• °project - related issues noted above, the Planning Commission raised
One process - related issue related to environmental ,review.. It was °ihe consensus of the
Planning Commission that the Initial Study, which, serves as the CEQA document for the
project, shouldbe revised to reflect the revised project that will be presented to, the City
Council I agree that the Initial Study should bey revised and reco ilmend. that the
applicant provide the information necessary to coniplete the revisions to the. Initial
Study, as outlined below:
is
2
A complete set of plans for the revised project, including civil drawings
street sections, a landscape plan, etc.
• Revised PDP `Development Standards that reflect Planning Commission
recommendations regarding setbacks, Use Permit for PEP site, and any other
changes necessitated by the revised project design.
A revised. Traffic Study that addresses the revised project, including changes
to access and .internal circulation. In addition, ITE trip generation rates
referenced for the PEP housing site should be consistent with the use
designated in the, PDP development standards, which is affordable housing,
not senior housing. Vin Smith. revised project description to delete "Senior"
housing from ,project description and development standards, and as you
know, senior housing typically has a lower trip generation rate. While the
difference nmy.not be significant, the traffic study should use the appropriate
trip generation rate.
® A revised Noise Study that includes the following:
o An analysis which demonstrates that the specified placement and
height of the proposed noise wall- (based on redesign discussed above)
will provide the mitigation necessary to comply with General Plan
noise standards for residential development.
o Noise contours for future noise levels along Frates and Lakeville, as is
typically provided in. a noise ; study for residential subdivisions. This
will provide the Bard data requested by the Planning Commission.
o Reference to the traffic study /data used to determine future noise
levels, including the percentage of -truck traffic assumed for future
traffic volumes. Truck traffic can have a substantial effect on traffic
noise levels.
Please note that I prepared this memo based on my notes, without the benefit of
reviewing any meeting ;minutes or the videotape. Perhaps we should discuss and
compare notes to ensure, accuracy and completeness of Planning Commission consensus
items.
C: Mike Moore, Community Development Director
•
Dowling Associates, Inc. \
Transportation Engineering • Planning • Research • Education �� ''
Mr. Vin Smith
Basin'Street.Properties
13.18 Redwood Way, Suite .140
Petaluma, California 94954
February 6, 2004
•
RE: 'So_uthgate — Level of Service Effects,from Alternative Mitigation
Dear Mr:, Smith:.
Dowling.Associates Inc. conducted the background:and traffic impact assessment for the
Southgate 2 project in Petaluma, California. We have been asked to evaluate the impact of a
series of proposed mitigation measures suggested by the City Council.
Candidate Mitigation Measures
The basic mitigation measures include:
1. Construction a signal at Frates Road and Calle Ranchero
2, Providing all- way (four -way) stop controls at Frates Road and South Ely Road.
3. Maintainirig the existing stop controls at Frates Road and Lakeville Circle with stop
controls installed on the exit from the Southgate 2 project across the street from :Lakeville
Circle.
Additional mitigation measures have been suggested by Basin Street properties, which include:
1. Providing a new access from the Southgate 2 project onto South Ely Road to the south of
.Frates Road.
2. Restricting the outbound left turn movements from the project at Lakeville, Circle.
Analysis of Alternatives!
Three analysis intersections were added to. the Citywide Synchro traffic model for the PM peak .
hour cumulative. condition: Calle Ranchero /Frates Road, Lakeville Circle /Frates Road, and South
Ely Road/Frates Road. Cumulative traffic projections from the Southgate 2 traffic assessment
were imported into the model for analysis. The detailed.'levels of service calculation sheets from
the Synchro model are available upon request.
Table 1 shows the impacts of the candidate mitigation measures. For all alternatives, the PM
peak, hour is the critical time period for the corridor and project impacts. With the. installation of
a signal at Frates Road and `Calle Ranchero, :level of service B :(10.1 seconds per vehicle of
delay) is maintained under all options.
When the existing stop controls are maintained at Frates.Road and Lakeville Circle; level of
service E (42.9) occurs, If a new access is provided from the project to.South Ely Road the level
of service at Lakeville Circle is improved to D' (32.0). It ,is assumed that 50 percent of the trips
•
180 Grand Avenue - Suite.250 . Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839 -1742 . FAX•(510) 839 -0871
Wel site: www.dowlinginc.corn
Smith
2/6/2004
Page -2
turning left onto.Frates Road at Lakeville Circle from the project would be diverted to South Ely
• Road under this option.
If the exiting left turn movement from the project entrance at Lakeville Circle onto Frates Road
is,restricted, the level of service at the Lakeville Circle intersection improves to C (15.5).
Further, LOS C is maintained at Frates Road and South °Ely Road and LOS B is maintained at
Frates Road and Calle Ranchero..For'this option, it is assumed that no left turn traffic would be
allowed to exit the project at Lakeville Circle and Frates Road. Those "trips must be either divert
to the Calle Ranchero / Fraies Road'intersection, or a new access onto South, Ely Road. For this
analysis, all of the exiting left turn movements were diverted to Calle Ranchero.
Table l'— PM[ Peak Hour Level oUService I.m acts lof Candidate Mitigation Measures
Intersection
Option I -
Option 1
Option 2 -
Signal at Calle Ranchero,
Plusu'a new
Signal.at Calle Ranchero, all -way stop
all-way stop at South Ely
access from
at South Ely Road, and restricted
Road, and:side street stops
the Project
outbound left turn movements from
at Lakeville, Circle and
onto South
the Project at Lakeville Circle (all left
Project Access
Ely Road
turns diverted to Calle Ranchero and
no access to South Ely Road)
Calle Ranchero /Frates Road
B (10.1)
B (10.1)
B (10.1)
Lakeville Circle /Frates Road
E
1)(32.0)
C (15.5)
South Ely Road/Frates Road
C: (15.6)
C(16.1')
C (16.6)
0 Conclusions
The adverse peak hour level of service at Lakeville Circle and Frates; Road can be mitigated by
either providing an access from the Southgate 2 project to South Ely Road south of Frates Road
or by restricting the outbound left turn movements from the proj ect onto Frates Road at Lakeville
Circle.
If you have questions are require additional information, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
John N. Dowde_n
Vice President
0
February 6, 2004
SOUTHOATE ,PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SINGLE FAMtLy LOTS /HOMES
The Southgate Development Plan is generally organized to provide` three different Jot'
widths of 45 5`5 feet and 1 60, feet. For each Lot Width Type, there am3 to 4 different
home floor`plan`s with two to three different architectural treatments for each floor plan.
Below are the development standards` for each lot type:
1 Front - Setback sh 'all'be,rneasured to the.main parVof house: Porches may extend up to 7 feet into;the front setback.
2 -- Chimneys;, baywindows�and '.other projections.may extend,2 feet into the side yard.
3 —'Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the.,side:`setback.
Parking` Each single- familyhorne;shalthave a minimum of a two- car�garagel served by
a 20 foot long driveway allowing for two parking spaces on the driveway. S'treet park ing
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles.
Landscaping: Front yard "landscaping (and side setback for corner lots) wi'lf bet designed
and installed prior to the first occupant of each home. The landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and': may' be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front of lot). The lots will surface drain to. the street an&drainage will be
directed into the prof ect. storm drain system.
A11 "0ther Standards: I:f not specifically addressed' by-the . above standards all other
standards of the R -C, Residential Compact Zoning District shall appl to the Single
Family" lots within Southgate.
S'ENIOR/DISABLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled 'Parcel. B on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is reserved
for a future affordable housing development. The total number of units permitted for the
site "shall be .between 25 and. 80.' The following: development standards shall apply to the
affordable housing site:
•
.Front Setback
Side Yards
Side Setback
Rear Yard 4
"Height
45 Foot Wide Lot
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
M feet
32 °.feet
SSFoot Wide Lot
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
20 feet
32 -feet
60 Foot Wide Lot
10 feet
5 feet
10 ",feet
20 feet
32 feet
1 Front - Setback sh 'all'be,rneasured to the.main parVof house: Porches may extend up to 7 feet into;the front setback.
2 -- Chimneys;, baywindows�and '.other projections.may extend,2 feet into the side yard.
3 —'Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the.,side:`setback.
Parking` Each single- familyhorne;shalthave a minimum of a two- car�garagel served by
a 20 foot long driveway allowing for two parking spaces on the driveway. S'treet park ing
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles.
Landscaping: Front yard "landscaping (and side setback for corner lots) wi'lf bet designed
and installed prior to the first occupant of each home. The landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and': may' be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front of lot). The lots will surface drain to. the street an&drainage will be
directed into the prof ect. storm drain system.
A11 "0ther Standards: I:f not specifically addressed' by-the . above standards all other
standards of the R -C, Residential Compact Zoning District shall appl to the Single
Family" lots within Southgate.
S'ENIOR/DISABLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled 'Parcel. B on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is reserved
for a future affordable housing development. The total number of units permitted for the
site "shall be .between 25 and. 80.' The following: development standards shall apply to the
affordable housing site:
•
February 6, 2004
• I.
The minimum setback from the adjacent single family homes within Southgate
(occurring in two areas on the development.plan ) shall be a minimum of 20 feet
for,a two story building and 30' feet for a three story building.
2.
The minimum setback from the FratesRoad property line shall be a minimum of
15 feet for a two story'building and 25 feet from a three story building.
3.
The minimum setback from the access road extending Lakeville Circle into the
Southgate site shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
4.
The minimum setback from the property line adjacent to the future public park
shall be 1.5 feet.
5.
The maximum Height limit for future development shall be 35 feet for two story
buildings and 47 feet for three,story buildings.
6.
Landscaping shall, be required' within all setback areas described above.
7.
Primary site access shall be provided from the roadway extending into the site at
the intersection of g rat es Road and. Lakeville Circle. Secondary access may be
permitted from the roadway serving lots 216 through 221.
8.
Any proposed future development plan for affordable housing on this site shall be
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval.
PHASING PLAN
The. Southgate single - family residential homes will be developed in three phases over a
5 -year period. Phase I is anticipated to commence in late spring/earlysummer of 2004
and it is anticipated that development will occur at a rate of 50 homes built per year. It is
anticipated that all single- family home construction will be completed by late 2009.
Phase IV of the Southgate neighborhood will be developed as a senior affordable housing
project of up to 80 units., 'This phase may occur concurrently with one of the three single -
family phases or it may occur following the completion of all single- family homes.
It should be.noted that the phasing timing and construction rates are estimates based on
the demand for residential housing today. Significant changes in the economy and /or
housing demand will influence'the rate of home construction.
February 6, 2004
SOUTHGA'f.E
ANNOTATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of Approval
1. Accepted.
2. a) Accepted; provided that language is added requiring a Class. II bike lane only if
approved by Cal Trans.
b) Accepted; provided that the next to last sentence, which begins "The street width shall
include. . ." be replaced with the following:
"The %2 street width being "improved by developer shall .include
one bike lane, one through travel lane, and where necessary, one
turn lane."
c) Not accepted. The project does not utilize access from Ely Road., In addition, there is
no area -wide traffic,need, served by widening and improving this street, as all of the land
east of Frates and north of Ely Road is outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
3. a) Accepted.
l?) Accepted.
c) -Not accepted, The Southgate project was designed so that no improvements' or
modifications' to the City'Pump Station site are required.
d) Accepted.
C) Accepted.
4. Not accepted. Southgate is designed as a friendly, walkable neighborhood, and the 32
foot width, of the access roads is consistent with this goal. A wider street would likely detract
from this goal and increase the speed of cars using the access roads. In addition, any widening of
the access ,roads would result in an offsetting narrowing of the neighborhood park and PEP
senior /disabled housing site.
5. Accepted; provided that the 30 -foot access road serving the senior housing site remain at
30 feet in width,
6. Accepted.
7. Accepted. Please note, however, that this condition:; requiring private maintenance of the
park located in the Urban Separator is inconsistent with Condition of Approval No. 1. That
condition requires that the Urban Separator be dedicated to the City.
8. Accepted.
9. Accepted; provided the improvements on Ely Road are deleted form the condition and
the condition is limited to V2 street, frontage improvements on Frates Road. As noted above, the
project does not utilize access from Ely Road, and Ely Road east of Frates only serves farmland •
outside the Urban Growth. Boundary.
10.-24. Accepted.
Mitigation Measures
3,:1 thru 8.1 Accepted.
8.2-8.3 Not accepted. These conditions were appropriate for previous mixed use
proposals, but do not apply to a residential project.
8.4-8.6 Accepted.
10.1 Not accepted. Basin Street Properties requests the following alternative condition of
approval:
"A 4 -way top sign shall be installed at the intersection of Frates
Road and S. ElyBoulevard."
10.2 Not accepted. Basin Street Properties requests the following alternative condition of
approval:
"A traffic signal hall be installed at the 'Intersection of Frates
Road and Calle Ranchero."
10.3 Accepted; provided that the 2 nd ,sentence requiring furtherreview by the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) is deleted. We understand that-the PBAC is supportive of
the project and had no formal comments on the project.
10.4-10.6 Accepted.
10.7 Accepted; provided that the 3 rd sentence is deleted. The third sentence is vague, and
duplicative of Condition 10 -3.
10.8 Accepted. '
10.9 Accepted.
10.10 Accepted
10.11 Accepted.
Ros,EN
GOLDBEAG
& DER Consultants in Acoustics
6 February 2004
Vin Smith
Basin, Street Properties
131 Redwood "Way, .Suite 140
Petaluma, CA. 94954
Subject- Southgate, Petaluma
ROD #.: 03-036-1
Dear Vin,
•
In our .9 December 2003 Noise Mitigation Study for1he'subject project we concluded that
noise, levels in all,backyardswould be . reduced to a Day/Night Average Sound Level
(DNL) of 60 cl-BA with .a 6 to 10 foot tall noise barrier (soundwall): We understand that
you, have been asked to provide additional information on the sound levels in the
backyards. Table 1 shows the calculated . fUture sound level in backyards along the two
major roadways. The. sound,levels basedion rour review of a site plan sent to us on
6 February, 2604 and the previous grading plan. .,
Table I - Future Sound Levels in, Backyards! with
Proposed 6 to 110 foot, tall 'Noise Barrier
Backyard Location
DNL in backyard (dBA)
with 640 ft. tall noise barrier
Lakevi(le'Highway
60
Frates Road
59-60
Let•us know if you need any additional information. We look forward to reviewing the
revised grading plan once'it is available.
Sincerely,
Alan Rosen
Principal
Rosen Goldberg & Der
03-036, 1 Sothgate vard fevels 'O&811,-VKdoc
•
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle Suite 354 - Larkspur CA 94 tel: 415 464 ' 1 0150 fax:. 415 464 0155
BASINSTREET
f, Fes. �, .a " `.�I\ff�f
f_.. 7.7 _ F 4.
Comr.:.unity Development Department
Attn: George White
City i. t Petaluma
11 EF � , Street
Petal).!ma, CA 94952
RE: SOUTHGATE — UPDATED PLANS AND MATERIALS
Dear Mr. White:
As a follow -up to the updated,-plans and materials provided to you on February 6, 2004, and in
response to Jayni Allsep's February 10', 2004 memo please find the following materials:
1. Revised Vesting Map This is a complete Vesting Tentative Map packet
including but not limited to. the lot line /lot size plan; complete grading and utility
plans, cros's section s,,circulation`and land use plans.
2. Revised Site ,Development and Architectural Plans This is a complete
Architectural Package, including, but not limited to the Site Development Plan
(showing .a_ house on each lot), floor plans and front elevations.
I Revised Master Site Landscape Plan 'This is'a complete landscape architectural
plan showing planting, treatments for the project edges.(Highway 116, Frates
Road and Ely Blvd.), medians, public parks and sireetscape.
4. Revised PUD Development Standards The key changes from the prior standards
are the increase in rear yard.set backs to 20 :feet and the narrowing of permitted
uses on the PEP site to senior /disabled housing. The reference to the
Senior /Disable Housing site has been incorporated throughout the document as
requested in Jayni's February l O Memorandum.
5. Revised Comments. Recommended Conditions of Approval These comments
on the staff= recomrnerided conditions of approval were revised to reflect the
materials submitted with this letter. Minor modifications have been made to the
annotated conditions of approval list as requested in Jayni°'s February l Om
Me'iriorandum:
ATTAC H MI E N T 9
February 13, 2004 <
Page 2 BASINSTREET •
a R G. °E R-1:co
We hope the additional ,information we have provided is helpful during your project review.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments you may have.
Best regards,
VINCENT C. SMITH, AICP
VICE PRESIDENT
BASIN STREET PROPERTIES
cc: Mike Bierman
Mike Moore
•
February 13, 2004
SOUTHGATE PUD DEVELOP'NIENT STANDARDS
SINGLE F, LOTS /HO.MES
The Southgate Development Plans generally organized to provide three different lot
widths of 45 feet, 55 feet and 6.0 .feet. For each Lot Width Type, there are 3 to 4 different
home floor plans with two .to three different architectural treatments for each floor plan.
Below are the development, standards for each lot type:
I — Front Setback shall be =measured to the' main part of house. Porches may extend up to '7 feet into the front setback.
2 — Chimneys, bay windows and other architectural projections may extend -2 feet,into the side yard.
3 — Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the side setback.
Parking: Each single- family home shall have a minimum of a two -car garage served by
a 20 foot long drivewayallowing:for two parking spaces on the driveway. Street parking
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles..
Landscaping: Front yard landscaping (and side setback.for corner lots) will be designed
and installed prior to the first-occupant of each home. The landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and may. be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front.of lot). The lots will surface drain to the street and drainage will be
directed into, the project stom drain system.
All O.ther;S'tandards: If not,specifically addressed by the above standards, all other
standards of the R -C, Residential Compact Zoning District shall apply to the Single
Family lots within Southgate.
SENIOR/DISAI3LED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled Parcel a on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is reserved
for a future Senior /Disabled Affordable housing development. The total number of units
permitted for the site shall be between 25 and 80. The following development standards
'shall apply to the Senior /Disabled Affordable housing site:
Front Setback
Side Yards
Side'Setback
Rear Yard
Height
45 Foot Wide Lot
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet.
20 feet
32 feet.
55 Foot Wide Lot
10.feet
5 feet.
10 feet.
20 feet
32 feet
60 Foot Wide Lot
1.0 feet
5 feet
10 feet
20 feet
32 feet
I — Front Setback shall be =measured to the' main part of house. Porches may extend up to '7 feet into the front setback.
2 — Chimneys, bay windows and other architectural projections may extend -2 feet,into the side yard.
3 — Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the side setback.
Parking: Each single- family home shall have a minimum of a two -car garage served by
a 20 foot long drivewayallowing:for two parking spaces on the driveway. Street parking
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles..
Landscaping: Front yard landscaping (and side setback.for corner lots) will be designed
and installed prior to the first-occupant of each home. The landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and may. be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front.of lot). The lots will surface drain to the street and drainage will be
directed into, the project stom drain system.
All O.ther;S'tandards: If not,specifically addressed by the above standards, all other
standards of the R -C, Residential Compact Zoning District shall apply to the Single
Family lots within Southgate.
SENIOR/DISAI3LED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled Parcel a on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is reserved
for a future Senior /Disabled Affordable housing development. The total number of units
permitted for the site shall be between 25 and 80. The following development standards
'shall apply to the Senior /Disabled Affordable housing site:
Southgate PUD Standards February 1.3, 2001
Page 2
1. The minimum setback from the adjacent single family homes within Southgate •
(occurring in two areas .on "the development plan ) shall be a minimum of 20 feet
for a two story building, and 30 feet for a three story building:
2. The minimum setback from the Frates Road property line shall be a minimum of
15 feet for a. two story building, and 25 feet frorn a three story building.
3. The minimum. setback from Lthe access road extending Lakeville Circle into the
Southgate site ,shall be a minimum of 20 feet'.
4. The minimum setback from'ihe property line adjacent to the future public park
shall be 15 feet.
5. The maximum height limit -for future, development shall be: 35 'feet 'for two story
buildings and 47 feet for three storybuildings.
6: Landscaping shall:be required within all setback areas described above
7. Primary site access shall be provided from the roadway extending into the site at
the intersection of Frates Road and Lakeville Circle. 'Secondary access may lie
penuitted from the roadway serving lots 216 through 221..
S. Any proposed future development plan for Senior /Disabled Affordable ;hous ng
on this site shall be subject to ;approval of a Conditional. Use Permit by the
Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
approval.
PHASING!PLAN
The Southgate single-family residenti'al.horhes will be developed in four'phases over a-5-
year period. Phase I`is anticipated to commence in late spring/early summer of'2004 and'
it is. anticipated that development will occur at a rate of.50 homes built per year. Tt;s
anticipated that all single - family home construction will be completed by late 2009.
Phase IV of the Southgate neighborhood will be' developed, as a senior Senior /Disabled
Affordable ..housing project of up to 80 units. This phase may occur concurrently with
one,of the three single= family phases or it may occur following the completion.of all
single - family homes.
It should'be noted that the phasing tuning and construction rates are estimates based on
the demand for residential housing today,. Significant 'changes in the economy and /or
housing demand will influence the rate of home construction.
•
0
February 13, 2004
SOUTHGATE
ANNOTATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of Approval
Accepted.
2. a) Accepted; provided that language is added requiring, a Class II bike lane only if
approved by Cal Trans.
b) Accepted; provided that the next to last sentence, which begins "The street width shall
include ... "be replaced with the following:
"The % street width being improved by developer shall include
one bike lane, one through travel lane, and where necessary, one
turn lane."
c) Not accepted. The project will only utilize a portion of Ely Road. It is agreed that
street width improvements would be installed for the portion of Ely Blvd. South from
Frates to the new project access.
a) Accepted.
b) Accepted.
c) Not accepted. The Southgate project was designed so that no improvements or
modifications to the City Pump Station site are required.
d) Accepted.
e) Accepted.
4. Not accepted. Southgate is designed as a,friendly, walkable neighborhood, and the 32
foot width of the access roads is consistent with this goal. A wider, street would likely detract
from this goal and increase the speed of cars using the access roads. In addition, any widening of
the access roads would result in an offsetting narrowing of the neighborhood park and PEP
senior /disabled housing site.
5. Accepted; provided that the two 30 -foot access roads serving the senior housing site
remain at 30 feet in width.
6. Accepted.
7. Accepted. Please note, however, that this condition requiring,pnvate maintenance of the
park located in the Urban, Separator is inconsistent with Condition of Approval No. 1. That
condition requires that the Urban Separator be dedicated to the City.
Accepted.
9. Accepted; provided the improvements on Ely Road are modified in the language of the
condition;pursuant to No. 2.c. above and the condition is limited to !/2 street, frontage
improvements on Frates Road.
Southgate Annotated Conditions 2/13/04 Page 2 •
10.-24. Accepted.
Mitigation Measures
3.1 thru 8.1 Accepted.
8:2 8.3 Not accepted. These conditions were appropriate for previous, mixed use
proposals, but do not apply to a residential project.
8.4-8.6 Accepted.
10.1 Not accepted. Basin Street Properties requests the following alternative condition, of
approval:
"A 4 -way stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of.Frates
Road and S. Ely Boulevard."
10.2 Not accepted. Basin - Street Properties requests the, following alternative condition of
approval:
"A traffic signal.shall be. installed at the intersection of Frates
'Road and Calle Ranchero."
10.3 Accepted; provided that the 2' sentence requiring further review by the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) is deleted.
10.4 — 10:6 Accepted.
10.7 Accepted; provided °that the P sentence is deleted. The third sentence is'vague, and
duplicative of Condition 10 -3.
10.8 Accepted.
10.9 Accepted.
10.10 Accepted
10.11 Accepted.
•
City of Petaluma
Pedestrian & Bicycle` Advisory'Committee
Project: Southgate 2
Contract Planner: Jayni All 'sep
PBAC Conditions of Approval — February 23,.2004
Note to'Planner:
® The City's Bike Plan encourages developments that reduce auto- dependency. This
project is on the outskirts of the City and encourages increased',vehicle trips. It promotes
,high density without incorporating mixed - uses', and s'not'infegrated with the rest of
Petaluma'scirculation."system. This project does little to encourage use of non-auto
depen'dent transportatipn as submitted.
The retention, ponds, open space, multi -use paths, and parks.are public use and
should be dedicated to the City. They should be built and maintained by the applicant
(see staff COA item 7).
PBAC supports Mitigation Measure 10 -3 requiring PBAC review of each phase of
development.
BICYCLE PARKING
Bike racks shall'be provided at transit stop, open space Public Park, and the Lakeville Gateway
Park. PBAC recommends1he' inverted U type rack such as the4 Ribcage and Gauntlet models by
Creative Pipe 800- 644 -8467 or the Rainbow model by the David O'Keefe Company 800-368 -
1366.
GLARE -.FREE LIGHTING
Glare -free lighting for pedestrians /bicyclists shall be implemented throughout project.
BENCHES AND DRINKING FOUNTAINS
There shall be benches every 300 along all paths and perimeter;sidewalks.
Benches and picnic tables shall be included at Lake Gateway Park and Open Space Public
Park.
Three drinking fountains with dogl'faucets shall be installed along perimeter sidewalks and one at
the Open Space public park..
Per'COA item 3c. Re the. City Pump °Station there shall be amenities similar to the other Public
Parks,
PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS
Applicant to provide;atran"sit stop on the south side of'Frates,Rd. near Calle Ranchero. The
transit
stop shall b "e:,cove red'`to comply with current applicable transit standards ;and include a
bench and iinclude bike racks to accommodate no less than 8'bicycles.
INTERSECTION ° IMPROVEMENTS
Provide controlled (signaled and crosswalk striped) crosswalk improvements at Frates /Lakeville
and the' ee'new Proposed 'signalized intersections (per Mitigation- Measures "of the Draft
Conditions of Approval item 1'0 =7).
'CLASS I 'BkEWAYs
PBAC, recomrnends'that the multi -use trail along the retention facility /passive park urban
separator be a minimum. of TO feet wide with a surface of decomposed granite.
ATTACHMENT 10
CLASS II BIKEWAYS'
Create Class II bike lanes going both directions along Lakeville, Frates, and Elyas proposed in
the current Petaluma Bicycle Plan.
CLASS III BIKEWAYS
The two unnamed streets extending from I Calle;de,'R and Lakeville Circle shall be Class III
since theywill lead directly to the Open Space multi -use . trail.
SIGNS
There shall be an extensive.network of signs alerting motorists of bicyclists. and pedestrians
throughout the entire area and, on all streets leading to.znd from the project "Shareithe.Roacl
signs are . appropriate on Lakeville. There shall be signs posted directing people to the multi -use
paths.
PROVISION' FOR THROUGH TRAVEL
The: retention pond trail shall continue from the termination circle to the interior at the
southern corner of the project to,allow access from within the development
There 'shall also be, a cut through from the street at -the west corner of the development .to the
Lakeville Gateway Park'to facilitate accessto.the Lak evil le / Frates intersection,
There be a 1.0 =foot wide multiuse trail connecting the Calle de Ranchero street extension
near the eastern edge.of the development to the multi -use trail by the Open Space ponds.
SCHOOL /PARKINEIGHBORHOOD LINKS
The PBAG is concerned with proposed housing density which would exacerbate already
congested traffic and safety issues. For example, parents: in nearby neighborhoods currently
place their children;s;bikes on their cars to drive the 1 mile trip to bring their children to
Shollenberger Park. To conform to'the .General Plan policies, a 300 -foot Urban Separator should
be required the retention ponds and Ely. Road, thus creating more public open space.
PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY.INFRASTRUCTURE
Project shall include sidewalks on :a1[ streets;and intersections with pedestrian ramps (per staff
COA.'item 5). PBAC recommends narrowerstreets promote traffic calming.
INCENTIVES TO: WALK, BICYCLE AND RIDE PUBLIC TRANSIT TO WORK
The distant location from the downtown center and shopping centers and the adjacent busy, high-
speed'. roads , are counter- incentives for,pedestrian and bicycle Transportation.
Applicant shall provide specific !incentives residents to walK,bicycle, or take public transit,
thereby encouraging; alternatives:to driving carsto and from this site.
PESTICIDEMERBiCIDE USE
Under-no circumstances shall anypesticide /herbicid'e be applied in areas used by .
pedestrians /bicyclists anywhere in this project.or'the surrounding areas without appropriate signs
warning of the use of chemicals, a policycurren: tly employed by the Music, Recreation, and Parks
Department. This proje t.shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide /herbicide
use and fully,commit to Integrated 'Pest'Managementtechniques for the protection, of bicyclists
and pedestrians.
is
•
•
S.e6t By: PUBLIC WORKS;
i
•
707� 56'5_ 3560;' dCt-17-03 2:54PM; Page 1/2
SONOMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ANbL.PUBLIC WORK
Phone(707) 565 -2231 Fax(70,7
� Wire En ins rin ervic
�
Dots: October 1 2003 . ,
Subject: Southgate. Development
Community Development City of Petaluma
ic
JayniAllsep'.. Planner 0 C T
c/o Community Development Department
11 English'Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Jayni:
This i memo is written. bY request: -of"the developers of Southgate D661opitnent following several phone
conversations with said group. The gist of our conversations was' that f only made advisory
recommendations and thatthe city of Petaluma has the final authority to approve the final - map within
their city boundaries.
I stand by my August 20 2003, memo (attached) with recommendations for adequate . right-of-way
dedication for future lanes necessary to move arterial tmiffic on state` Hwy: I 16 and County primary
• arterial Frates Road. nmaddiflonal lancs allow minimal delay of signa'lizatio'n movement and allow safe
movements into and out of this development.
I am flexible as to the sidewalk, utility landscape casement width as that issue, along with sound
am wa ll s , i a city call. I a also sornewhat-flex I i I ble as to the southerly extension of Fly Road (south of
Frates). County General Plan de signated esignated Ely Road a secondary arterial r status( north of Caufleld and the
City extended the same to north, of .Prates Road. The next step from my August 20, 2003,
recommendation for South Ely Road would be.collector status requiiing10"balfwidth right-of-way by
County General Plan. This is I 01ess And one lane less than listed in my Auglqst:20 memo. Also, as stated
earlier, the width for additional sidewalk landscape and utility easenient m odified as you please.
As a final comment - long tenn is appropriate and prudent to,eliminate future burdensome costs
to.the,City and,the.future city residents of Southgate rkyelopment, as well as County and state through-
put business traffic,
If I can'bc of further help feel free to me at 565-3585;
L)o
David, W. 'Robertson, Deputy Director
Department of Transportation and Public Works
c: John KottAge
Bruce Gerber
• i)pjpb k:\L)ESIGN\GFRBER\Southgoe-Pctaluina2,.doc
Sent'BY: PUBLIC WORKS;`
707 565 3580; Oct -17 -03 2:55PM; Page 212
1® M EMU
'SONOMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIG'WORKS
o� Phone(707) 565 =2231 Fax(707) 555 -2620
Engineering Serrvices
Date: 20- August -03
Subject: Southgate Development
Community Development City of Petaluma
Jayni Allsep, Planner
Go Community ,Development Department
11.English Street
Petaluma, CA 94,952
Jayni,
Thank you,forforwatding the current:plan/ proposal dated 5 -22 -03 forthe SouthgatQ Develop rrlertt
adjacent to State Hwy 11:6 .(Lakeville ,H wy) ; Frates Road b Ely Road. This plan: proposes 208
single family parcels.,
Our'initial review of this tentative map shows an, inadequate width of dedicated right of way for the
exterior artdrial roadways and, highways. The County Department .,& Transportation and Public
Works recommends a 50400t hailfa.-widthr dedication. for Slate Hwy 11e plus, a 20466tsidewalk
utility and landscape buffer easement: This will allow for future'/ left-turn lane plus: 2 northbound
through lanes and "1 northbound right -turn lane to Frates!Road, plus minimum 8 -foot shoulder /bike
lane.
Fates Road should have a dedicated '/Z width of ?40 feet plus a 20 7foot sidewalk, utility 8
landscape easement. This would allow Yi of'a left-turn lane2 through lanes and a & foot minimum
bike laneMouIder. The'Idike lane /shoulder will need to'be widened into the :landscape easement
to 12 feet for a future bus stop.,
Ely Road should' have a dedicated Y width of 40 feet, plus a 20 -foot sidewalk, utility i& landscape
easement. This would allow. '% of a left-turn lane . 2 through lanes and a 6 -8 foot minimum bike
lanelshoulder.
All interior streets to thesubdivision proposed to,intersect Road shall havededication
road
purposes adequate to, contain intersection curb radii as well as .area for AQA, compliant
ramping.
Shoul fhere.be anything further that we can provide please, contact us.
David W. Robertson
Deputy Director Department of Transportation and Public Works
•
C'. J: Kottage, B. Gerber
'DR:BG /st(x) r�ldesignlgerber \southgate- petaluma.doc
Ad Del Oro Action Group
676 Calle }zanchero Petaluma' I
707.76 3 . i, 5 s o
December 09;;2003
Planning Commission
Comm unity'Development Department
City of , Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, California 94:952
RE: Proposed Southgate 2. Residential Development
Dear Planning Commission Members:
ifornia 94954
The Adobe'Del Oro Action Group (Action Group), is an ad hoe, citizen's group comprised of
residents from the Del Oro Casa Verde, and Adobe Creek neighborhoods; each of which
border the Southeastern edge of (Petaluma.
• Among many neighborhood objectives, the Action Group observes and monitors
development proposals that may have an impact on our area. One particular project,
commonly referred. to as Southgate; has particular significance to us because the proposed
development shares a lengthy boarder of approximately 1 lineal feet with one of our
neighborhoods.
Prior development proposals. , for this,.location, including any retail development, have been
opposed based on cumulative traffic congestion in the area, cumulative air quality impacts,
intensity or density of development. as proposed,. respect of. the urban separator and its
policies and intent, and -design characteristics in keeping with our neighborhoods.
r have worked cooperatively Be in Street Properties and a number of neighborhood
dents
ly towards a development solution for this particular
location., This,,colla_borative effort has resulted in the single - family residential 'development
proposal submitted to you, by Basin Street Properties, for your consideration and approval.
The Action Gcoup applauds and endorses, he development; proposal drawing dated 12/03/03
and encourages the. Planning Commission to approve this' application subject to the
conditions and design considerations outlined inAttaehmont A enclosed for your review.
Sincer
® Mark E. Albertson
Chairman
Adobe Del Oro Action Group
Adobe Del Oro Action Group. �.
I'676 Callc Ranchero FptaIu,m:a California 9.4954
7 % 765 1 5.8 0
ATTACHMENT A
December 09 2003
Planning Commission Letter
Recommended Conditions. of -Approval
1. In lieu of three traffic signals as recommended in the Negative Declaration Report,
provide th&following:
• Four-May Traffic Signal at the intersection of Frates Road and' Calle; Ranchero
• Four- Way,Stop'Si'gnage at the intersection of Frates Road , and Ely Road
• No traffic controls at the intersection of F Road and Lakeville Apartments :due:
to close proximity'to other traffic controls
2. Frates Road to ; be classified as a Minor Collector or Minor Arterial based on proposed
2004' General Plan Update:Street:R'eclassification (copy attached for Planning
Commission review)'with a posted Speed Limit of 3010 35,MPH.
3. Frates Road to be reconstructed or developed with neighborhood traffic calming
techniques including the following:
• Frates Road to re main : a Two S treet
• Frates Road ao be redesigned with a Raised Concrete Curb Center Median fully
articulated with stamped concrete :and landscaping. Landscaping to include
appropriately spaced canopy style trees scrubs; and ground covers as
applicable.
• Frates Road to be posted with appropriate signage as follows:,
■ Speed Limit. Signage at ends and ;midway
• Pedestrian Crosswalk Si'gnage
■ Prohibited, Use of Exhaust; Brakes (if possible under current City Code)
• Stamped Asphalt in a crosshatch or cobblestone pattern to alert motorists of the
residential crossing at the; intersections
■ Frates Road and Cal le Ranch_ er o
Frates Road and Ely Road
4. Encourage well- designed sound wall as , per the Negative Declaration Report with
appropriate L'and'scaping; along .Lakeville Highway edge.
5. With reclassification and traffic calming effort's in, place along Frates Road and traffic as
noted, above; reduce or reconsider sound wall type, height, or design along Frates Road
fro m that noted in the Negative Declaration Report.
o Encourage combined use of landscaping, fencing, and earth `berms to meet
required db sound level. requirements.
€,ski ��',,� .f.„
CLASSIFICATIONS`
CLASSIFICATION
FUNCTION
L_ NES
SPEED
VOLUME
'PARKING
Ex resswa or Freewa
Carry'through. traffic movernerit, function of
federal or state control
4 to, 6
65
High
No
Major'Arterial
Provides circulation between state highways and
county regional; routes
2 to 4
50
High
40,000 to
60,000
No
Minor Arterial
Provides circulation within the'corporate limits
and between neighborhoods, and other regional
routes. Also provides circulation in rural and open
space areas.
2 to '4
45
Moderate
No
Major Collector
Provides circulation withiri and between
neighborhoods.
2 to 4
45
High
No
Commercial / Industrial
Collector
Provides access to commercial and industrial
developments. Does not direct continuity
with residential areas.
2 to 4
30
Moderate
No
Minor Collector
Provides circulation with_ in and between
neighborhoods.
2
30
Low
Yes
Residential Collector
Provides access to variety of land uses;
Residential area iserving rnore`than;200 units.,
2.
30
>5,000
Yes
Local Residential
Provides access to abutting p ro p erty, serves
multifamily developments, schools, local retail,
and puplic facilities
2
25
>1,000
Yes
Local Minor
Provi acce Ss' to 'Jndividuafsites on cul- de- sacs
or courts.
2
25
Low >500
Yes
•
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN ; FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARKET STREET -
SAN FRANCISCO', CALIFORNIA 94105 -2197
FEB 1 7 2004
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File Number 274812N
City Mgr Mike Bierman
City of Petaluma
320 North McDowell Blvd.
Petaluma, California .94954
Dear Mr. Bierman:
This letter is a modification to your Department of the Army Nationwide Permit verification
letter dated December 16, 2003. You are> authorized to dredge'to its original design depth, the
Petaluma Marina in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County; California. Note that the work window
for this project has been changed from August 1 through October 15 arid ismow July 1 through
October 15.
Based on a review of the information you submitted December 5, 2002, your project qualifies
• for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 35 (Maintenance Dredging of
Existing Basins and 16 (Return Water From Upland Contained Disposal Areas'),. (67 FR 2020,
January 15, 2002), pursuantto Section, 10, of the Rivers and Harbors Act - of 1899 (33 U.S. Code
403). See Enclosure 1. All work shall be performed in. accordance with drawings labeled Petaluma
Marina Facility Dredging Dredging Plan; and the Petaluma Marina Facilities Dredging Design and
Existing Ground Profiles.
The project must be in compliance with the General Conditions cited in Enclosure 2 for this
Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid. Upon completion of the project and all
associated mitigation, requirements, you shall sign and return the ,Certif cation of Compliance,
Enclosure 3, verifying, that you have complied with the terms and conditions ,of the permit. Non-
compliance with any condition could result in the= revocation, suspension or rnodification. of the
authorization for your. prgJect,. there'by requiring you to obtain an individual permit from the, Corps.
This Nationwide Permit authorization.does not obviate the need to obtain other State or local
approvals required by law.
This .authorization will remain -valid for two years from the date of this letter unless the
Nationwide Permit is modified„ suspended or revoked. If you have commenced work or are under
contract to commence work prior to the suspension, or revocation of the Nationwide Permit and the
project would not comply with the resulting Nationwide Permit authorization, you have twelve (12)
months from that date to complete the: projeci under the present terms and conditions of the
Nationwide Permit.
•
-2-
0
This authorization will. not be effective until you have obtained Section 401 water quality
certification or a waiver of.certification from the California Regional Water Board Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the RWQCB fails to act on a valid-request for
certification within two (2) months afterreceipt, the Corps will presume a waiver.of'water quality
certification has been obtained. `You shall submit a copy of the certification or waiver to the. Corps
prior to the; commencement of work.
To ensure compliance with the Nationwide Permit, the following special conditions shall. be
implemented:
1. Dredging: shall be,limited to July 1 through October 15 each year for the, following
reasons:
a. As stated. in the Long Term Management.Strategy (LTMS); in order to
minimize impacts to listed species of steelhead (Oncorhynchus,mykss
dredging operations shall occur from October 16 through July.31, without
prior consultation (pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered, Species Act) with
Approval from the National Oceania and Atmospheric Administration
Fisheries, (NOAA: Fisheries) ;arid. theCorps of Engineers (Corps)., January 9,
2004, the Corps determined that an earlierworkwindow start date: of July 1, is
not likely to adverselyaffect listed species of'steelhead. NOAA Fisheries
informally concurred with the Corps •determination in a Getter dated January-
i
26, 2004.
2. ender- no 'circumstances shall, excavation. create barriers to fish ; m i gration', or crea
pooled or'ponded; areas, which could trap fish, at culvert inlets and outlets. .
3. Dredged materiahwill be disposed of at thel approved' disposal site Petaluma City
Dredge Disposal Area.
4. Submit weekly, thi -Aisposal site verification and summary log (Pipeline :Disposal
Dredging Log): T.his.can be faxed'to the Dredged �.Material 1VIanagemenUOffice
(DMMO) at (415) 977 =8495 or e- mailed to dll- spn- dmmo @usace.army.mil. An
electronic copy of the form maybe downloaded from, theweb at
http://,ivww.spn..usate.atmy.mil/coifops/`fdttns/d's'vslipd'f This information is to be
submitted to the DMMO on the Monday following the' dredge activity.
5. Submit, within 15 days of the last disposal activity (last- defined as that activity after
which,no further activity occurs for 15 calendar days), a survey with accuracy to one-
tenth foot which :delineates the areas dredged and the depths. Also, include the
Corps permit :number, .dredge episode number, dates of dredging commencement and
completion, actual, quantities dredged for the-project, and; actual quantities of'ove.rdepth. The
permittee shall substantiate the total quantity dredged by including calculations used to
determine the volume difference (in cubicyards) between the Before and Post Dredging;
•
-3-
Surveys and explain any variation in quantities greater °than 15% beyond estimated
quantities. All surveys shall be accomplished by a l'icensed,surveyor and signed by the
permittee to certify their accuracy. A copy of the post dredge survey should be sent to the
National Ocean Service for chart updating:
NOAA/National Ocean Service
Nautical Data Branch.
N /CS26, SSMC3, Room 7230
1315 East -West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282.
6. This Corps permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species. In order to
legally take a listed species; you must have a`separate authorization under the ESA (e.g.,
an ESA Section. 1,0 permit, or a 'BO under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take"
provisions with -which you must comply).
You may refer all questions to Margaret Chang of our Regulatory Branch at 415- 977 -8465.
All correspondence should reference the new °file number 27481.2N.
Sincerely,
r
Jane M. Hicks
Chief, North Section
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (w /o enclosures):
US EPA, San Francisco, CA
CA DFG Monterey, CA
US F &WS,.'Sacramento, CA. .
US 'NMFS, Santa Rosa, CA,
CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA
•
Enclosure 1
Nationwide Permits
16.. Return Water From Upland Contained Disposal Areas. Return
water from an upland, contained dredged material disposal area.
The dredging itself may require a Section 404 permit ( 33 CFR 323.2
(d)) , but will require a Section 10 permit if located ..in navigable
waters of the US. The return water from a contained disposal area
is administratively defined as.a discharge of dredged material by
33 CFR 323 .2 (d) , even though the disposal itself occurs on the
upland and does not require a Section 404 permit. This NWP
satisfies the technical requirement for °a Section 404 permit for
the return water where the quality of the return wafter is
controlled by the state through the Section 401 certification
procedures. (Section 404)
35. Maintenance Dredging of Existing. Basins. Excavation and
removal of accumulated sediment for maintenance; of existing marina
basins, access channels to marinas or boat slips, and boat slips too
preciously- authorized depths or controlling depths for
ingress /egr.ess, whichever is less, provided the dredged °'rriaterial is
disposed of, at an upland site and proper siltation controls are
used. •(Section 10)
•
Enc 2
Page 1 of 14.
Nationwide ;Permit General Conditions - March 18, 2002
The following General Conditions must be followed in order
for any authorization by,an NWP to be valid-
1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal
adverse effect on navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized
shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure
public safety.
3. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil
erosion and sediment controls must be.used and ma- intained in
effective operating condition during construction, and all
exposed soil and other fills, as well any work below the
ordinary high water mark or high tide'line, must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are
encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States
during periods of ,low -flow or no -flow.
4. Aquatic Life,Movements. No activity m substantial
Y Y Y
disrupt the necessary life- cycle movements of those species of
aquatic life indigenous-to' the waterbody, including those
species that normally migrate through the area,.unless the
activity's primary, purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed
in streams must be installed to maintain low flow conditions.
5. Equipment. - Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be
placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil
disturbance.
6,. Regional and _Case-By-Case Conditions,. The activity
must comply with-any regional conditions that may have been
added by the Division Engineer (See 33 CFR Part 330.4(e).) and
with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the
State or' tribe i_n its Section 401 Water Quality Certification or
Coastal Zone.Managemen Act consistency determination.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a
component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a
river officially de'si.gnated by Congress as a "study river" for
possible inclusion'i;n the system, while the river is in an
official study status; unless the appropriate Federal agency,
Enc 2
Page 2 of 14
with direct management responsibility for such river, has •
determined in writing that the proposed activity will not
adversely affect,. the Wild arid. Scenic 'River de'signation,j or study
status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained
from the appropriate Federal land maftag,ement agency in the area
(e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
B. Tribal _Rights. No activity or operation may, impair
reserved tribal - rights, including, but not limited' to, reserved,
water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
9. Water Quality.
. (a) 'In certain states and tribal lands an individual
Section 401-Water Quality Certification must be obtained or
waived. (See 33 CFR Part 3.30.4.(c).).
(b) For NWPs 1,2,: 14, 17, 18, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43, and
4.4, where the state or tribal- Section 401 ce- rt ,(eith'pr
generically or individually) does not require or approve -water.
quality management me'asurea, the permittee must. provide. water
q,ual .ty management measures that will ensure that the authorized
work does. not result in more than minimal degradation of 'watefr
quality (or the Corps determines that compliance. with ;sttate or
local stand.a_rds, where applicable, will ensure no more than
minimal adverse effect on water quality). An important"
Component of water quality management includes stormwat.er
managemen.,that minimizes degradation of the downstream aquatic
system, including water quality. (Refer- to Gener;al.Condition 21
for stormwater management requirements.) Another _important
component of wager quality management is the estab- lishment; and
maintenance of vegetated buffers next to open waters, i:nclu_ding
streams. (Refer to General Condition 19 for vege.tate'd• buffer
requirements for the N:WPs . )
This condition is only applicable to projects that have the
potential to affect water quality. While appropriate measures
must be taken, in most cases it is not' neces:s.ary to conduct-
detailed studies to identify such measures or to require
monitoring.
1.0 Coastal Zone Management,,. In certain states, an.
individual state coastal zone;mznag'etent consistency concurrence
must be obtained or waived. (See 33 CFR Part 330,.4(d)..)
, 11. Endangered Species.
(a) N.o activity is authorized under any `NWP which is
likely t j.eopa- rd'ize the continued exis 'ence of a thr,eaten,ed or
endangered ispecie,s or a species proposed for such designat °ion :,
2
Enc 2
Page 3 of 14
as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or
which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of
such species. Non- federal-permittees shall notify the District
Engineer if.any listed species or designated critical habitat
might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or is
located in the designated critical habitat.and shall not begin
work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer
that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that
the activity is authori..zed. For activities that may affect
Federally - listed endangered or threatened species or designated
critical habitat, the' notification must :include the name s) of
the endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the
proposed work or that utilize the, designated critical habitat
that may be affected by the proposed work. As a result of
formal or informal consultation with the FW.S or NMFS, the
District Engineer may ` add species - specific regional endangered
species conditions to the NWP_s.
(b) Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not
authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as
defined under the ESA. In the: absence of separate authorization
(e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological. Opinion with
"incidental take" 'provisions, etc..) from the FWS or the NMFS,
both lethal and non - lethal "takes" of protected species are in
• violation of the ESA. Information on °the location of threatened
and endangered species and their critical habitat can be
obtained directly from the offices of the FWS and NMFS or their
world wide web pages at http: // www .fws.gov /r9endspp. /endspp.html
and http: // www. nfms .gov /prot_res /overview /es.html respectively.
12. HistoriqProperties. No activity .which may affect
historic properties - listed, or eligible for 1_isting, in the
National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the
District Engineer has complied with the'provisd ons of 33 CFR
Part 3.25, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the
District Engineer if the authorized activity may a- ffec.t any
historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which
the prospective permitttee° has reason to believe may be*elig.ible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and
shall not begin' the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic
Preservation Act—have satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the location and existence of
historic resources can :be obtained from the State Historic
Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic
Places. (See 33CFR Part 330.4(g).) For activities that may
• affect historic properties listed in, or 'eligible for listing
in, the National Register of Historic Places, the notification
3
Enc 2
Page 4 of 14
must state which historic property may be affected by the
proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location
of the historic property.
13. Notification.
(a) Timing: Where required by the terms of t -he NWP,
the prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer with
a preconstruction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The
District Engineer must determine if the notification-i's complete
within: 30 days of the date. of receipt and can request .additional
information necessary to make the PCN complete only once.
However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of
the requested. information, then the District Engineer will
notify the prospective permittee that the notification is still
incomplete. a- nd'the PCN review process will not commence until.
all of the requested information has'been received by the
District Engineer. The prospective,permittee shall not.be.gin
the activity:'
(1.) Until not.if.ed . in writing by the District
Engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any
special conditions imposed by the District or Division Engineer;
or
(2) If notified in writing by the District or
Division Engineer that an Individual Permit is required; or
(3). Unless 45 days have pas ed from.the District
Engineer's- receipt of the complete notification and the
prospe,ctive.permittee has not received written notice from the° .
District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee`s
right to proceed under the NWP may be- modified, suspended, or
revoked, only in.aiccordance with the procedure set forth in,33
CFR Part 1330.5(d)(2).
(b) Contents of Notifi;cation: The notification must
be in writing and include the following information;
(1)' Name,, address and telephone numbers of the
prospective permittee
(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief descrptlon the proposed project;
the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the pro' ect would cause; any other NWP ('s), Regional
General Permit(s), or Individual Permit,(s) used or intended to
be used- to authorize any part o'f' the proposed project or any
related activity. Sketches should be provided when necessary to
show that the activity complies with the.terms of the 'NWP.
(Sketches usually .clarify the project and when provided result
in a quicker decision.);
- (:4) For NWPs 7, 12, 14,, 18, 21, 29, 31, 34 3.8,
39, 40 41, 42, and 43, the PCN must include a delineat-i.on of
4
Enc 2
Page 5 of 14
affected aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated
• shallows (e.g., submer�'ed aquatic vegetation,,- sea ra
g q g g. s s beds),
and riffle and pool complexes (See Paragraph 1.3(f,) below.);
(5) For NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and
Maintenance), the PCN „mu.st include information regarding the
original design capacities and,con:figurations of those areas of
the facility where maintenance dredging or excavation is
proposed;
(6) For N,WP 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) ,
the PCN must include: a :compe'nsatory tit gation, proposal to
offset permanent losses of waters of the U.S. and a statement
describing how temporary losses of waters of the U.S. will be
minimized to the maximum extent pract.cabl,e_
(7) For NWP 21 (Surface Coal Mining Activities),
the PCN must include an-Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or state -
approved mitigation plan, 'if applicable. To be authorized by
this NWP, the District Engineer must determinre that the activity
complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the
adverse environmental effects are minimal both individually and
cumulatively and must notify the project.sp.onsor of this
determination in writing;
(8) For NW.P 27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration
Activities), the PCN must include documentation of the prior
condition of the site_that'wila.be reverted by the permittee;
(9) For NWP 29 (Single- family Housing), the PCN
must include:
(i ) Any past use of this NWP by the
prospective permittee and /o,r the permittee Is spouse;
(ii) A statement that the single- family
housing activity is for a personal residence of the permittee;
(iii) A description, of the entire parcel,
including its size, and a delineation of wetlands. For the
purpose of this NWP, parcels of land measuring 1/4 acre or less
will not require a formal on -site delineation. However, the
applicant shall.-provide -an indication of where the wetlands are
and the amount of wetlands that exists on the property. For
parcel.s,`greater than 1/4 acre in size,, formal wetland
delineation must;be prepared in accordance with the current
method required by the Corps. (See Paragraph 13(f) below.);
(iv) A written desc iption of all hand
(including., if available, legal descriptions) owned by the
prospective permittee and /or the prospective p.ermittee's spouse,
with -in a one „mile radius of. the parcel, in any form of ownership
(including any land owned as.a partner.,, corporation, joint
tenant, co- tenant, or as a tenant -by- the- enti.r'ety) and any land
on which a purchase and sale agreement or other contract for
sale or purchase has been executed;
5
Enc 2
Page 6 of 14
(10) Fo'r NWP 31 (Maintenance of Existing Flood
Control. Fac.ilites), the prospective permittee must e:ither
notify the Dist ° :ri,ct Engineer with a PCN prior to each
maintenance activity or submit a five:;year (or less) maintenance
plan. - In .addition, the PCN must include all of the following ;:
(i) sufficient baseline info °rmat'ion
identifying the approved channel depths and con - figurations -and
existing facilities. Minor deviations are authorized, pro'vid'ed
the approved flood control protection or drainage is not
increased;
('ii) A delineation of any affected special
aquatic sites including wetlands- and
(iii) Location of the dredged : materi•al
disposal site;
(11) For NWP 33 (Temporary Constru,ctio,n, Access,
and Dewatering) , the PCN must include a restoration p of
reasonable :measur,es to-avoid and. minimize adverse effects t�o'
aquatic resources;
(12) For 'NWPs .39, 43, -and 44, the PCN. must also
include 'a written statement to the :District Engineer explaining
how avoidance and minimization for losses of waters of the U.S
were achieved on the project site.;
(13) For NWP 39 and NWP 42, the PCN,must include
a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset losses of waters of
the US or ju_s.tif.ication explaining why compensatory mitigation
should.,o.t be' required. For discharges that cause the loss of
greater than 300 linear feet of an intermittent stream bed', to
be authorized, the District Engineer must determine that the
activity compli -e.s with the other terms and' conditions' of-the
NWP, -determine adverse environmental effects are minimal b
individually and cumulatively, and waive the limitation on
stream impacts in writi -ng befo:re,the pe_rmittee may pr "o,teed;
('14) For NW:P 40 (Agricultural Act °iviti,es , the
PCN must include a compensatory mitigation.proposal t °o:offset
.losses of waters of the U.S. This NWP does not authorize the
relocation of greater than 300 linear feet. of existing
serviceable drainage ditches constructed'in non-tidal streams
unless, for drainage ditche's constructed in intermittent non-
tidal st're'ams, the District Engineer waives this criterion in
writing an'd' th'e District Engineer has determined that the
project complies with all terms and conditions of this.N,WP', arid.
that any adverse impacts of the project on the aquatic.
environment - are minimal, both individually and cumulatively;
(15) For NWP 4`3 (Stormwater Management
Facilities),,. the PCN must include, for the construction of new
stormwater management facilities, 'a maintenance plan (in .
accordance with state and, local requirements, if applicable) and
•
Enc 2
Page 7 of 14
a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset losses of waters of
the U.S. For discharges that cause the loss of greater than 300
linear feet.of,an intermittent stream bed, to be authorized, the
District Engineer must determine that .the activity complies with
the other terms and conditions of the NWP, determine adverse
environmental effects are minimal both individually and
cumulatively, and waive the limitation on stream impacts in
writing before the permittee may proceed;
(16) For NWP 44 (Mining'Activities), the PCN
must include a description of all waters of the U.S. adversely
affected by the project, a description of measures taken to
minimize adverse effects to waters of the U.S'., a description of
measures taken to comply with the-criteria of the NWP, and a
reclamation plan (for all aggregate mining activities in
isolated waters and wetlands adjacent to headwaters
and any hard rock /mineral mining activities);
(17) For activities that may adversely affect
Federally - listed endangered or threatened species, the PCN must
include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species
that may be affected by the proposed work of utilize the
designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed
work; and
(18) For activities that may affect historic
properties listed in, or eligible for- listing in, the National
Register of Historic Places, the PCN must state which historic
property may be affected by the proposed work or include a
vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property.
(c) Forme of Notification: The standard Individual
Permit application form (ENG FORM 434.5) may be used as the
notification but must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must
include all of the information required in Paragraphs (b) (1)-
(18) of General Condition 1,3. A letter containing the requisite
information may also be used.
(d) District Engineer's Decision In reviewing the
PCN . - fo.r.�the proposed activity, the District Engineer will
determine whether the;activity authorized by the NWP will result
in more than minimal.individua!1 or cumulative adverse
environmental effects or may, be contrary to the public interest.
The prospective °permittee ma.y submit a proposed mitigation plan
with the PCN'to expedite the process. The District Engineer
will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant
has included n.the proposal in determining' whether the net
adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the
proposed work are minimal. If the District En`gi'neer determines
that the activity corriplies with the terms and conditions of the
• NWP and that.the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are
mini -mal, after considering mitigation, the District Engineer
7
Enc 2
Page 8: of 14
will notify the permittee and include any the
District Engineer deems necessary. The District. Engineer must •
approve.an compensatory mitigation proposal before' th.e
permittee commences work If the prospective permittee is
required to submit a compensatory mitigation proposal with the
PCN, -the proposal may be .either conceptual or detailed. Tf the
prospective permittee elects to subunit a compensatory mitigation
plan with the PCN, the District Engineer will expeditiously
review the,proposed compens.a,tory'mitigati.on plan. The District.
Engineer must review the plan within 45 days of `receiving a
complete PCN and determine _ whether the conceptual or specific
proposed` mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adve =rse
effects on the:aquatic environment. If the net adverse e.f.f:ects .
of the project on the aquatic environment (after conaider'ation
of the compensatory mitigation propos.a,l) are determined by the
District Engineer 'to be minimal, the District Engineer will.
provide a timely written response. to. the applicant. The
response wil,l.state that the pro"ect can proceed under the terms
and conditions of the N,WP.
If the District Engineer determines that the adverse
effects of the: proposed, work are more t -han minimal, then the
District Engi -veer will notify the applicant either:
(l,) that the project does not qual=ify for
authorization under the, N;WP and instruct the applicant on the
p
roce.dures.to seek authorization under an Individual Permit,,,,
(2) that the project is authorized unde "r the N.WP
subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation proposal
that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment
to the minimal level; or
(3) that the project is authorized under the NWP
with speci -fic modifications or- conditions.
Whe- re, the, Distri.c;t 'Engineer determines that mitigation is
required to ensure no more than minimal adverse effects';, occur to
the aquatic environment, the activity will be authori:zed.within
the 45 -day PCN period. The authorization will include the
necessary conceptual or -specific mitdgat on or a requirement
that the: applicant submit a mitigation proposal that would
reduce 'he .adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the
minimal level When conceptual mi is included, or a
mitigation .plan is r.e,qui under item (Z,) above, no ,work in
waters of the, U.S. -will occur until the District Engineer h&s
approved a spec mitigation plan.
(e) Agency Coordination: The District Engineer will
consider any comments from Federal and :state a,genci.es concerning .
the proposed activity`s c;omp;liance with the terms and cond'i.t.iofts
of the NWPs and the need f'or mitigazt'ion to reduce the project' s
adverse environmental effects to a minimal level.
8
Enc 2
Page 9 of 14
For activities requiring notification to the District
• Engineer that 'result in the loss of greater than 1/2 acre of
waters of the U.S., the District Engineer will provide
immediately °(e.g., via facsimile t- ransmis;s,ion, overnight mail,
or other expeditious manner) a copy to the appropriate Federal
or state offices (FWS,, state,-natural resource or water quality
agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and, if
appropriate, NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies
will then have 10.calendar days from the date the material is
transmitted to telephone or fax the `District Engineer notice
that they intend to provide substantive,. site- specific comments.
If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait an
additional 15 calendar days before making'a decision on the
notification. The Dis;t.rict,Engineer will fully consider agency
comments received within 'the specified time frame, but will
provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided
below. The District Engineer indicate in the
administrative record as,soci-ated with each notification that the
resource agencies' concerns were considered. As required by
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the District Engineer will
provide a response to NMFS within 30 days of receipt of any
Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations. Applicants
'are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of
notifications to expedite agency notification.
(f) Wetland Delineations: Wetland delineations must
be prepared in accordance with the current method required by
the Corps. (For. NWP 2'9 see Paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels
less than 1/4 acre in size.) The permittee may ask the Corps to
delineate the special aquatic site. There may be some delay if
the Corps does the delineation. Furthermore, the 45 -day period
will not start until the wetland delineation has been completed
and submitted to the Corps., where appropriate:
14. Compliance Certificat -ion. Every permittee who has
.received NWP verification from the Corps will submit a signed
certification regarding the completed work and any required
mitigation. The certification will be forwarded by the Corps
with the authorization letter and will include;:
(a) A statement that the authorized work was done in
accordance with the Corps authorization, including any general
or specific conditions;
(',b) A statement that any required mitigation was
.completed in accordance with the permit .conditions; and
(c) The s.ignat,ure of the permittee certifying the
• completion of the work and mitigation.
Enc 2
Page 10 of .14
than 1 5 . Use fo r 0 f Multiple Na.tionwide,.Permit §. The use of more
a single and complete project is.prohibit.ed,
except when the acreage loss of waters .of the U.S. authorized by
the NWP's does not exceed the acreage, limit of the NWP with the
highest specified acreage limit (e.g. if a road crossing over
tidal waters is constructed under NWP 1:4, with associated bank
stabilization authorized by `NWP 13, t'h'e maximum, acr,ea,ge loss of
waters of the U.S. for the total project cannot exceed 1/;3
acre).
1 -6; . Water Supply Intakes. No activity, including
structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S or
discharges of dredged or fill material, may occur in the
Proximity of. a public water' supply in't °ake except - where the
activity is for repair of the public water supply intake
structures or adjacent bank .stabilization.
17:, Shellfish Beds. No activity, including structures :and
.work in navigable waters of the U.S. or discharges of dredged or
fill,.material, may occur in, areas of concentrated ,sh.ell,fi h
populations, unless the activity is directly related to a
shellf - .ish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4.
18. Suitable Material, No activity, including structures
and work in navigable waters of the U.S. or discharges of
dredged or fill material,,may consist of unsuitable material
(e.g.., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.) and material
used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts. (.See Section 307 of the NA:.)
19: Mitigation. The District Engineer will consider. the
factors discussed'below when determining the acceptability of
appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to offset
adverse effects on the aquatic environment that are more than
minimal:
(a,) The project must be designed and constructed to
avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the U'.S. to the
maximum extent practicable at the prof e,at 's , ite (i . e . , on 'site)
(b') Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding,
minimizing, rectifyi`ng,, reducing or compensating) will be
required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse
effects to the aquatic environment are minimal.
(c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one - for -one
ratio will. be required for all wetland impact >s requ a `PCN,
unless the District 'Engineer determines in writing that some
other form of mitigation would be more environmentally
appropriate and provides a project - specific waiver of this
Iff
J
Enc 2
Page 1 I of 14
re'quirement,. Consistent with National policy, the District
Engineer will establish 4' preference for restoration of wetlands
, -as compensat 'ory' mitigation, with preservation used only in
exceptional circumstances.
(d) Compensatory mitigation (i.e., replacement or
substitution of aquatic resources for those 'impacted) will not
be used to increase the: acreage losses allowed by the acreage
limits of some of the NWPs. For example, 1./4 acre of wetlands
cannot be created to change a 3/4 acre loss of wetlands to a 112
acre loss associated with:NWP 39 verification. However, 1/2
acre of created wetlands can be used to reduce the impacts of a
1/2 acre loss of wetlands to the minimum impact level in order
to meet the minimal impact requirement associated with NWPs.
(e) To b.e practicable, the mitigation must be
available and capable of being done considering costs, existing
technology, and logistics in light of the overall, project
purposes. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and
practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size
of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland or upland
vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and
replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by
creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions
and values, preferably_in'the same watershed.
(f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or
near streams or other open waters will normally include a
requirement for the establishment, maintenance, and legal
protection (e.g., easements,, deed restrictions) of vegetated
buffers to open waters. In many cases, vegetated buffers will
be the only compensatory mitigation required. Vegetated buffers
should consist of native species. - The width of the vegetated
buffers required will address documented water quality or
aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the vegetated buffer
will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of t.heA stream, but the
District Engineer may require slightly wider vegetated buffers
to address documented water quality or habitat loss. concerns.
Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,
the Corps will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation
(e.g., stream buffers or wetlands compensation) based on what is
best for the'aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases
where vegetated buffers are determined to be the most
appropriate form of compensatory mitigation,, the District
Engineer may waive or reduce requirement to provide wetland
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts.
(g) Compensatory" mitigation proposals submitted with
the "notification" may be either conceptual or detailed. If
• conceptual plans are approved under the verification, then the
Corps will condition the verification to require detailed plans
Enc 2
Page 12 of 14
be submitted and approved by the Corp's prior to construction of
the authorized activity in waters of the U.S. 0
(h) Permittees.may propose the use of mitigation
banks, in -lieu fee arrangements or separate activity- specific
compensatory mitigation. In all cases that require compensatory
mitigation, the mitigation provisions will specify the party
responsible for accomplishing and /or .complying with the
mitigation plan,.
20. Spawning- Areas. Activities, includ <ing structures and
work in navigable waters of the U. S.. :or discharges of .dr.edged or
fill material, in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that
result in the.physical destruction (e.g., excavate, fill, or
smother` downstream by substantial turbidity) of an important,
spawning area are not authorized.
21. Management of Water Flows.. To the maximum extent
p racticable, the activity must be designed to maintain
preconstruction downstream flow conditions-(e.g., location,
capacity, and. flow rates) . Furthermo.r.e, the activity must not
permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected
high flows (unless the primary purpose of the fill is t impound
waters) and the structure or discharge of dredged or fill
material must withstand expected high flows. The activity must.,
to the maximum extent practicable, provide for retaining exces
flows from the site, provide for maintaining surface flow rates
from the site similar to preconstruction conditions, and provide
for not increasing water flows from the project site, I r locating
water,, or redi,re:cting water flow beyond preconstruction
conditions. Stream channelizing will be reduced to the minimal
amount ne'ce!ss.ary, and the activity must., to the maximum extent
practicable, reduce adverse effects such as flooding or erosion
downstr'eam.and upstream of the project site, unless the activity
is part of a larger system designed to. manage water flows. In
most cases, it will not be a requirement to conduct detailed
studies and monitoring of water f,low,.
This condition is-only applicable to projects that have the
potential to affect wate•rflow:s. While appxopri:ate measures must .
be taken, it is not necessary to conduct detailed studi,es,to
identify4 such me, asures- or require monitoring to ensure their
effectiveness. Normally, the Corps will defer to state and
local authorities regarding management of water flow.
•
12
Enc 2
Page 13 of 14
22. Adverse Effects „From Impoundments. If the activity
creat;es,an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic
system due to the acceleration'of the passage of water, and /or
the restricting of, its,flow shall be minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. This includes structures and work in
navigable waters of the U.S., or discharges of, dredged or fill
material.
23. Waterfowl_:_Breedinq Areas. Activities, including
structures and work in navigable waters of the U.S. or
discharges of dredged -or fill material, into breeding areas for
migratory waterfowl. must be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable.
24. Removal of,Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must
be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to
their preexisting elevation.
25. Designated Cx t cal .Resource Waters. Critical
resource waters 'includ'e, NOAA= designated marine sanctuaries,
National Estuarine, "Research Reserves; National Wild and Scenic
Rivers, critical habitat for Federally listed threatened and
endangered species, coral reefs, state natural heritage sites,
and outstanding national resource waters or other waters
• officially designated by a state as having articular
- g P
environmental or ecological significance and identified by the
District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public
comment -. The District Engineer may also designate additional
critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for
comment.
(a) Except as noted b.elow,. discharges of, dredged or
fill material into waters of the U.S. are not authorized by NWPs
7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29; 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 for
any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource
waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. Discharges
of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. may be
authorized by the above NWPs in National Wild and Scenic Rivers
if the activity complies with General Condition 7. Further,
such d- i:schar.ges may be authorized in designated critical habitat
for Federally listed threatened or endangered species if the
activity complies with General Condition 11 and the FWS.or the
NMFS has concurred in a determination of compliance with this
condition.
(b) .For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 1.5, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27,
28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, notification is required in
accordance with General Condition 13, for any activity proposed
in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands
13
Enc 2
Page 14 of 14
adjacent :to those waters. The District Engineer may authorize
activities under these NWPs only' after it is determined that the
impacts too the critical resource waters will be no more than
minimal.
26. Fills Within 100= Year- Floodplains. For purposes of
this General Condition, 100 -year floodpla'ins will be identified
through the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps or'FEMA- approved local
flo'odplain maps.
(a) Discharges in Fl- oodpl -ain; Below Headwaters..
Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters o'f,the U.S..
within the ma;ppe 100- year f1oodplain, below headwaters (i.e.
five cf -s), resulting in permanent above-grade fills, ar ,'hot
authorized by'NW.Ps 39, 40, 4.2, 43, and 44.
(b) Discharges in Floodway; Above Headwaters.
Dischar-g,es of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
within the FEMA or locally mapped fdoodway, resulting in
permanent above - grade fills, are not authorized by NW;Ps 3,9, 40,
42, and 44.
(c_). The permittee must comply with any applcaFble.
FEMA - approved state or local floodp'lain management requirements.
•
27., Cgnstruation Peripd.. For activities that have not.
been verified by the Corps and the project was commenced 'or
under contract to commence by the expiration dada of the NWP (or
modification or revocation date), the work must be completed
within 12 months after such .date (including any modi-ficat_i6n
that affects the project).
For aactivities that have been verified and the project was
commenced or, under contract to commence within the verifi.cat.d.on .
period',, the work must be - completed by the- date determined 'by the
Corps.
For projects that have been verified by the Corps, an
extension of a Corps approved completion date maybe requested..
This request must be submitted at least one month before the
previously approved completion date.
•
14
Enclosure 3
Permittee: City of Petaluma
File No.: 27481N
Certification of Compliance
for
Nationwide Permit
"I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced file number and all required
mitigation have been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide
permit."
•
(permittee)
(date)
Return to:
Clyde Davis
Department of the Army
U.S. Array Engineer District, San Francisco
333 Market Street, CESPN -OR -R
San Francisco, CA 94105 -2197
W I
POST OFFICE Box 61
PETALUMA, CA 94 =006`1
David class
Mayor Notice of Public Hearing of Proposed Project:
Keith Canevaro Southgate Residential. Development
Mike Harris City File Number: 03TSM0417CR
Mike Healy
BryanrMoynihan
Mike O'Brien * *You are invited to attend a City Council meeting on a project in your
Pamela Torliatt
Councilmembers neighborhood. **
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Basin Street Properties has applied for the
following
* A General Plan Amendment to 1) apply the Urban Diversified land use
designation to the property, which would allow residential densities of 5 -10
units,per acre, or 200 -400 housing units on the project site; and 2) Remove the
"Transit" designation from =the corner of Highway 116 and Frates Road;
o A Rezoning from the existing "Study" Zoning classification to Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
o A Vesting Tentative Map that would subdivide the site.
• An abandonment of the Old Lakeville Road right -of -way that divides the
property into two separate parcels at the western edge of the site.
The approximately 40 -acre site Is situated at the southeastern corner of Lakeville
Highway (State Route 11,6) and Frates Road. Frates Road runs along the northern edge
Community Development of the site 'and Ely runs along the eastern edge of the site. A total of 216 detached
Department
II English Street single - family homes are proposed under the current plan. In addition, the project
Petaluma, CA 94952 includes a future affordable senior /disabled housing site that could be developed with a
E -Mail maximum of,!'80 units -and land dedications to the City for a public park, a stormwater
cad (act petaluma. ca. us
detention facility/linear open space along the south side of the site within the Urban
Separator - and adjacent to the City limits, a 1.35 -acre parcel at the comer-of Frates Road
Code Enforcement and Lakeville Highway and several linear parcels alon Frates and El Road to be used
Phase (707j 778 -4469 se h g y
Fax (707) 778 -4498 for entry 'landscaping. Vehicular access to the site 'is proposed at two points along
E-Mail Frates Road' that coincide with the existing Calle Ranchero and Lakeville Circle
codeertforcement u
ci.petaluma. ca, us intersections with Frates Road. An additional access is proposed along S. Ely Road
frontage.
Engineering,
Phone (707) 778 - 4301 NOTE: The'Planning Commission heard this project at its January 27; 2004 meeting
Fax (707) 778 -4498 and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a revised Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approve the project applications provided that specific
Inspection Services. + revisioris are made to the project, per the consensus items reached at the January 27,
Phone (707) 778 - 43nt 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
Fax (707) 778 -4498
To Schedule Inspections:
Phone (707) 778 -4479 Meeting ®atejime: Monday, March 1, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
P Location:. City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
Phone (707) 778 -4301 California, 9.49,52
Fax (70 7) 778 -4498
What, Will Happen: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider
Planning all public testimony and decide whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
Phon (707) 778 -4308 Efforts will be made to accommodate disabilities. The C Mana er's office
Fa (707) 778 -�a98 p roject. h' g
A r 1-i M E N - 17 - 1 1
must be notified. at (707) 778 -4345 within 5 days from date of'publication of this notice if you need
special accommodations. 0
If Vou Cannot. Attend: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning
Division, City :of - Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma California, 94952. You can also haiid„ deliver it
prior to the meeting, This meeting and all City Council meetings are televised on the ,Petaluma
Community Access Cable Channel 28.
For More Information: You can contact_Jayni Allsep the project planner, at (415:) 789` -073'6 or 1 (707)
778- 4301. You.can also come to the Community Development Department to hook at the application. The
office is located in City Hall, I 1 English Street. The: office is open from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm weekdays.
If you challenge in.court the matter described above' youmay be limited to rasng' only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered ;at, or prior to, the above - referenced. public' hearing. {Government Code Section 65009(bl(2).) .
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court, not later
than the 90th day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure ,Secti'on :1094.6)
Petaluma City Council
S: \CC`City- Council \Noticcs\ South9ateCCO30104.doe
•
0
'ATTACHMENT 12
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
APPROVAL Of A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE
CORNER OF FRATES ROAD AND LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY;
APN 017- 030 -022 & 017- 150 -019
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared and the results ,of the study indicated that the
development proposed by ,the Southgate Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map,
as mitigated, will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma-held a public hearing on
January 27, 2004, heard testimony and recommended to the City Council approval of the
Southgate proposal subject to certain revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Southgate proposal at a meeting held on
March 1, 2004, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning
potential environmental impacts,, resulting from the project before rendering a decision;
NOW, THEREFORE BE` IT RESOLVED that- the City Council adopts the revised
Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following:
FINDINGS FOR' APPROVAL OF A,MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Based upon � the Revised. Initial Study potential. impacts resulting from the
project have, been identified. .Mitigation measures have been proposed and
agreed to by the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce
potential impacts to less than significant. In _addition, there is no substantial
evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and
mitigated, Would have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as
defined in; the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or
cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is
proposed on existing undeveloped site surrounded by urban development.
The project .is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the 'State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California
Government Code.
ATTACHMENT 12
4, The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the; Initial Study and
.considered public comments before making a recommendation on the
project.
5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared. to 'ensure compliance
with the adopted mitigation measures,
6. The record of proceedings `of the decision on the project is, available for
,public review at the City of Petaluma. Planning Division; City Hall, 11
English Street„ Petaluma, California.
Attachment: MMRP
SACC -City Council\ resolutions \Southgate3_Reso_CEQA.doc
•
OA
ATTACHMENT 13
RESOLUTION NO. N.C:S.
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE, PARCELS TOTALING 40ACRES FROM "SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA" AND "TRANSIT TERM'INAL19 TO'" URBAN DIVERSIFIED (5 -10
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) "'FOR THE'SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT'LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY,(SR116) AND
FRATES.ROAD; APN 017= 030 -022 & 017- 150 -019
Fife 03TSM0417CR
WHEREAS, an application to amend the General Plan was filed by Basin Street
Properties, requesting a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the subject property
from "Specific Plan Area"' and "Transit Terminal" to "Urban'D vers fied "; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a- duly noticed public hearing for the
proposed General Plan Amendment on January 7, 2004, and considered all written and
verbal reports and testimony on the matter before recommending approval of the General
Plan Amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, all reports and communications to the Planning Commission were
forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Amendment have been
® considered, and proper action has been taken by the City Council in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local governmental guidelines in that
a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted by separate resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
Amendment on March 1, 2004, before rendering its decision.
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby approves
the Amendment to the General Plan land use designation from "Specific Plan Area" and
"Transit Terminal" to "Urban Diversified" based on the'findings speci'fi'ed below:
FINDINGS FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest
of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
In September 1999, in conjunction with a previous proposal for .the property, the project
sponsor submitted a preliminary application to request that the City Council reconsider
the Specific .Plan requirement for the property. At that time, 'the City Council
determined that the, site .did not have characteristics typical of a Specific Plan area, and
that it was not necessary to prepare a Specific Plan.
•
ATF'ACB ME= 13
ATTACHMENT 13
The Urban Diversified land use designation would, h'e'lp further the objectives, policies
and programs of the General Plan by providing a site that would invite flexibility in site
design and, unit type .for residential densities of 5 to10 units per acres. Single- family
homes, duplexes, and - multi- family units' are permitted. The proposed amendment is
deemed to be in the public interest to, provide for orderly development of residential uses.
Furthermore, removal, of the "Transit" designation has been determined 'appropriate in
light .of the proposed residential use.
2. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have
been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The Urban Diversified designation, which allows residential densities of 5 to.1.0'.units per
acre and invites flexibility in site design,, ;and unit type, allows a range of residential. land
uses that are appropriate for the site and that will not create a nuisance to existing
surrounding uses.
3. The proposed amendment, `has been processed in_ Taccordance with. the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act.
The requirements of the California - Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
satisfied through the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which analyzed the
potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment,- and :represents° an
adequate documentation of the environmental implications and. 'possible mitigation
measures of the proposed project for use in decision= making.
SACC -City Council\ resolutions \Southgate3_GPA_030104.doc
0
2
ATTACHMENT 14
•
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.C.
Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember
REZONING PARCELS TOTALING 40ACRES, APN 01'7= 030 -022 AND 017 -150-
019, FROM STUDY DISTRICT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE SOUTHGA'TE RESIDENTIAL. LOCATED
AT THE CORNER OF'FRATES ROAD AND LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY
BE IT ORDAINED BY'THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'PETALUMA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the Planning Commission filed with the City
Council its report set forth in its minutes, of January 27, '2004, recommending the
adoption of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance ' Section 1072 N.C.S., as amended, by
reclassifying and rezoning certain lands being more particularly described as Assessor's
Parcel Nos 017- 030 -022. AND '017- 1'50- ,01`9, a 40 -acre site located at the corner of Frates
Road and Lakeville Highway.
Section 2. The City Council further finds that said Planning Commission held public
hearings on said proposed amendment on January 27, 2004, after giving notice of said
hearing, in the manner for the period, and in the form required by said Ordinance No.
1072 N.C.S., as amended.
Section 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended,
the City Council finds as follows:
The. proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
rezone the subject parcel from Study District to Planned Unit Development
(PUD), will result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical
environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
combination of zoning districts..
The proposed uses comply with the Urban Diversified land use designation of the
General 'Plan, 'which allows for residential densities of 5 -10 units per acre and
invites flexibility in site design and unit type. In addition, this proposal
incorporates the policies and guidelines of the Planned Unit. Development of
Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance.
•
ATTACHr%AENT 14
2. The public necessity; convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be
furthered by the proposed: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
rezoning the project site to Planned Unit Development.
The. PUD - Development Standards (as revised) for the Southgate ;Residential
Development identifies permitted and conditional uses allowed 'within the
approved PUD.
The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
satisfied through the preparation of an. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration to .avoid or reduce to a .level of insignificance, potential impacts
generated by the.proposed Southgate - Residential Development.
In compliance ew. with the:requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
an InitialStudy was prepared for "the So;uthgai:e Residential Development: Based
upon the ' Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant
environmental effects would result. A copy of this notice was published in 'the
Argus Courier and provided, to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site,
in compliance with CEQA requirements.
Section 4. .. Pursuant, to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance..No. 1072 N.C.S., and based
upon the evidence ,it has received and in accordance with the findings- made, the City
Council hereby adopts an amendment to said Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N ';C.S.,, so as to
reclassify and` rezone said property herein referred to, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Section 5. 1 The .City Clerk is hereby directed to post this Ordinance for the period and in
thq manner, required by the City Charter.
IF ANY `SECTION subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful' or otherwise invalid by a court of
competent juri sdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of 'the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The, City Council of City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would
have passed and adopted 'this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof irrespective of
the fact that any One or more of said "provisions be declared unconstitutional, Unlawful or
otherwise invalid.
INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this I day of
ADOPTED this day of
2004 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
S: \CC -City Counci1\0rdinances \Southgate3_ Rezone. 030iO4.doc
C ,
City Attorney
•
RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
•
APPROVAL :OF THE ,UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT"TO BE KNOWN AS THE
SOUTHGATE,RESIDENTIAL DEVELOTMENT:LOCATED AT
LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY (SRI 16) AND FRATES ROAD;
APN 017- 030 -022 & 017- 150 -019
FILE: 03TSM0417CR
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N.C.S., .Assessor's Parcel Numbers 017- 030 -022 & 017-
150 -019 comprising Approximately 40 acres, has been zoned to Planned Unit District (PUD);
and
WHEREAS, by action taken on January 27, 2004, the Planning, Commission considered and
forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on Southgate Residential Development, to
approve the Vesting Tentative- Subdivision Map and associated applications for the Southgate
proposal subject to certain revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and adoption
of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the
specific impacts of the Southgate project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Unit Development Plan and PUD Development
Standards, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, as revised or modified.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in accordance with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the City Council approves the Unit Development Plan for the Southgate
Residential Development .subject to the following findings and conditions:
FINDINGS:
1.. The Unit Development Plan, including the Development Standards will result in
appropriate and compatible uses in the district.
2. The PUD is proposed on property which has suitable relationship to one or more
thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic
generated-by development.
3. The plan,:for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and. s ervice facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby
properties, and that provisions for adequate landscaping and/or screening are included to
® ensure compatibility. Conditions have been incorporated requiring design and development
standards that are compatible with neighboring developments.
ATTAG H M E"_r 15
4. The eats spaces and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and
private p ces designated on the Unit Development' Plan.
5: The. development of the subject property in the -manner proposed by the applicant, and as
conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the
City, and will be .in keeping with the :general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of
the City of Petaluma, and. with the Petaluma General Plan.
The project, as -conditioned below, and as conditioned per the resolution approving the Vesting
Tentative `Map (Resolution No. ) complies with the applicable provisions of the Municipal :Code
and the- General Plan.. The recommendations and conditions of City Departments have been
incorporated into conditions of approval' to the extent that they appl to Development Plan. The
projeaas "proposed supports.a number of policies of the Petaluma General Plan such.as:
CONIDITIONS:,
1. The Unit,Development Plan forthe Southgate Residential Development shall, be subject
to the applicable conditions of Vesting Tentative Map, including Mitigation Measures
adopted as conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
against
void,, or amst the City, , its boards, o commissions, agents, officers, or employees `to attack, set
y of the approvals of 'the project, including the certification of
associated environmental documents, when such claim or action, is brought within the
time period provided for in applicable; State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly
notify the applicants /developers of any such claim, action, orproceeding.. The City shall
coordinate in- the °defense. Nothing; contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from
participating in'a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and` if the' City chooses to do
so appellant shall reimburse Cityfor attorneys fees by the City.
Attachment:
Exhibit A — Draft'PUD - Development Standards
(Note: PUD Development Standards are subject to revision per conditions of Vesting Tentative
Map)
SXC -City Council\ resolutions \Southgate3_PUD_030104.doc
2
February 13, 2004
SOUTHGATE P'UD' DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SINGLE FANIILY LOTS /HOMES
The Southgate Development Plan is generally organized to provide three different lot
widths of 45 feet, 55 feet and 60 feet. For each Lot: Width Type, there are 3 to 4 different
home floor plans with two to 'three different architectural treatments for each floor plan.
Below are the development standards for each lot type:
I — Front Setback shall be measured to the main; part of house. Porches may extend up to 7.feet into the front setback.
2 — Chimneys, bay windows and other architectural projections may extend 2 feet into the<side yard.
3 — Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the side setback.
Parking: Each single - family home shall have a minimum of a two -car garage served by
a 20 foot long driveway allowing for two parking spaces on the driveway. ,Street parking
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles.
Landscaping: Front yard, landscaping (and side setback for corner lots) will be designed
and installed prior to the first occupant of each home. The. landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and may be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type, I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front of lot). The lots will surface drain to the street and drainage will be
directed into the project storm drain system.
All Other Standar,,ds:.lf not. specifically addressed by the above. standards, all other
standards of the R- C,'Residential Compact Zoning District shall apply to the Single
Family lots within Southgate.
SENIOR/DISABLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled Parcel Aeon the Vesting Tentative Subdivision.Map is reserved
for a future Senior /Disabled Affordable housing development. The total number of units
permitted for the site shall be between 25 acid 80. The following development standards
shall apply to the Senior /Disabled Affordable housing site:
Froth Setback
Side Yards
, -Side :S_ etback;
Rear Yard
Height
45 Foot Wide Lot
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
20 feet
32 feet
55 Foot Wide Lot
10 feet.
5 feet
110, feet
20 feet
32 feet
60 Foot Wide Lot
1 0.feet
5 feet
1.0 feet
20 feet
32 feet
I — Front Setback shall be measured to the main; part of house. Porches may extend up to 7.feet into the front setback.
2 — Chimneys, bay windows and other architectural projections may extend 2 feet into the<side yard.
3 — Side Setback shall be measured to the main part of house. Porches may extend up to 4 feet into the side setback.
Parking: Each single - family home shall have a minimum of a two -car garage served by
a 20 foot long driveway allowing for two parking spaces on the driveway. ,Street parking
will be provided in a manner to ensure a minimum 20 foot wide continuous travel way on
all streets for emergency vehicles.
Landscaping: Front yard, landscaping (and side setback for corner lots) will be designed
and installed prior to the first occupant of each home. The. landscaping shall be
maintained in good growing conditions by the homeowner and may be modified in the
future to suit the homeowners' needs.
Grading: Lots will be graded using Type, I standards (i.e. flat pads with surface drainage
from back to front of lot). The lots will surface drain to the street and drainage will be
directed into the project storm drain system.
All Other Standar,,ds:.lf not. specifically addressed by the above. standards, all other
standards of the R- C,'Residential Compact Zoning District shall apply to the Single
Family lots within Southgate.
SENIOR/DISABLED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE
The 2.5 -acre site labeled Parcel Aeon the Vesting Tentative Subdivision.Map is reserved
for a future Senior /Disabled Affordable housing development. The total number of units
permitted for the site shall be between 25 acid 80. The following development standards
shall apply to the Senior /Disabled Affordable housing site:
Southgate PUD Standards February 13, 2003
Page 2
1. The Minimum setback from the, adjacent single family homes within. Southgate
(occurring in two areas on the development plan ) shall be a minimum of 20 feet
fora two story building and 30 feet for a thre e'story building.
2. The minimum setback from the Frates Road,property -line shall be'a minimum of
15 feet for a two story building and 25 feet from °a three story building.
3. The minimum setback from the access road extending Lakeville Circle into the
Southgate site shall be a mininiuin of 20 feet.
4. The minimum setback from the property line. adjacent to the future public park
shall be 15 ,feet.
5. The ma inium height limit for future development shall be 35 `feet,for two story
buildings and 47 'feet for three story buildings.
6. Landscaping shall be required within- all setback areas described above.
7. Primary site access shall be'provid'ed from the roadway extending into the site at
the intersection of Frates Road and Lakeville Circle. Secondary.access may be
permitted from the roadway serving lots 216 through 22,1.
8. Any proposed future development plan.for Senior /.Disabled Affordable housing
on this site shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission and Site Plan, and Architectural Review Committee.
approval,
PHASING PLAN
The Southgate single- family residential homes will he developed` in fourplases over a 5-
year period.. Phase 'I is anticipated. to commence in late spring /early summer of `2004 arid .
it is anticipated that.development will occur at a rate of 50 homes built per year. I_t is
anticipated that all single - family home construction will be completed by late 2009.
Phase IV of the Southgate neighborhood will be developed :as 'a senior Senior /Disabled
Affordable housing project of up to 8,0 units. This phase - may occur concurrentlyw th.
one:of.the three single - family phases or it may occur. following the eompleti "on,of all
single- family homes.
It should be noted that the phasing tirriing and construction rates are estimates based on
the demand for residential housing today. Significant changes in the economy and /or
hoitsi g demand will influence the rate of home construction.
is
ATTACHMENT 16
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
APPROVAL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE
SOUTHGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVE'LO'PMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 216
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS AND ONE PARCEL FOR FUTURE
AFFORDABLE SENIOR, HOUSING LOCATED AT LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY (SRI 16)
AND FRATES ROAD; APN 017 -030 -022 & 0174-50 -019
FILE 03TSM0417CR
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N:C.S., Assessor's` Parcel Number (APN) 017 - 030 -022 &
017 -150 -019 comprising 40 acres, has been zoned to Planned' Unit Development; and
WHEREAS, by action taken on January 27, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the
proposal and forwarded a. recommendation to the` City Council to approve the Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map for the Southgate proposal subject to certain revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements. of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and adoption
of Resolution No. NC.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the
specific impacts of`the Southgate project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Southgate proposal on March 1, 2004, and
considered all written 'and verbal communications concerning potential, environmental impacts
resulting from.the project before rendering a decision;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT .RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map for the Southgate- project subject to the following Findings and Mitigation
Measures:
FINDINGS:
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of Title 20 ; Subdivisions, of the Municipal. Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and
the State Subdivision Map Act.
2. Thai the proposed subdivision together with provisions for its design and improvements,
is consistent' with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities, exist or will be installed, including
roads, sidewalks, wafer, sewer; 'storm drains, and other infrastructure.
• 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density nd the type of development proposed.
Y Yp p P p
A_'TA0H1\AENT 16
2 4. That the .design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
3 substantial environmental damage, and that -no substantial or avoidable injury will occur
4 to fish or wildlife or their, habitat. An. Initial Study was' prepared `indicating that there
5 would be no significant, environmental impacts that could not be mitigated.
6
7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
8
From the Planning Division:
9
10
1.
Thel plans submitted for building, permit review shall be in substantial compliance with
11
the Vesting Tentative Map, -Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan, dated,
12
February 13, 2004, except as modified by these conditions.
13
14
2.
All mitigation measures- adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated. Negative 'Declaration
15
for the Southgate Residential Development; revised February 20, 2004, are herein
16
incorporated by reference as, conditions of project approval.
17
18
3..
Upon approval, by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35:00 Notice of
19
Determination fee to thel Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the
20
County Clerk. Planning staff 'will file the Notice of Determination', with the County
21
Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council. approval.
22
23
4.
Prior to the approval of Final Map /improvement plans and /or submittal for final Site
24
Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential .Development, I the
25
applicant shall submit a Master Landscape Plan which includes but is not 'limited to the
26
following:
27
28
a. Details of the "Gateway "'elernents and landscape entry features;
29
b. Colors, materials and landscaping adjacent to sound . walls along Lakeville
30
Highway"and Frates. Road;
31
c. Details of the development of the open space. and. park parcels, including
32
landscaping, landscape /gateway .features, exterior lighting, outdoor furniture,
33
paths and playgrounds.
34
35
5.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, PUD Development Guidelines and final
36
architectural site plans shall b.exeviewed and approved by SPARC,
37
38
6.
During construction, the applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices
39
regarding pesticide /herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated 'Pest Management
40
techniques, for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. -The applicant shall be required to
41
post signs when pesticide /herbicide use occurs, to warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
42
43
7.
The design, development and dedication of the proposed public park (Parcel C), shall be
44
completed prior -to the occupancy of any individual housing unit.,
45
1 8. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall designate on the Final Map a
• 2 parcel to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma, which contains the sound wall and
3 landscaped area along the wall' adjacent to Lakeville Highway. * This parcel shall be
4 included in the area maintained by the landscape assessment district required by
5 condition below.
6
7 9. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the. maximum extent feasible in
8 order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
9
10 10. At the time of Final Map submittal, the developer shall submit names for the internal
11 streets and cul -de -sacs to the Community Development Department for review and
12 approval.
13
14 11. The developer shall require. a signed disclosure to property owners of the single - family
15 lot within the Southgate development, indicating that they are aware of the maximum
16 density, building height and setbacks for the future senior housing. site, identified on the
17 Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel "A ", as established in the PUD Development Standards.
18
19 12. Plant materials to be installed as part of the Landscape Plan shall consist of a minimum of
20 15 gallon can size for trees and 5 gallon can size for shrubs.
21
22 13. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the proposed development, the applicant
23 shall submit revised PUD Development Standards for the Southgate Residential
�4 Development, which address the following:
25 a. Delete footnotes regarding Exceptions to Setbacks for single family lots /homes;
26 b. Clearly specify all.permitted and conditionally permitted'uses allowed with the
27 Southgate PUD;
28 c. Clearly specify the permitted and conditionally permitted accessory structures
29 allowed with the Southgate PUD;
30 d. Revise Development Standards to be consistent with approved Vesting Tentative
31 Map and Lot /Parcel Numbers, as amended by conditions of approval.
32 e. Future modifications to Unit Development Plan.
33
34 14. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the proposed development, the applicant
35 shall submit a plan that shall reflect the approved Unit Development Plan for the
36 Southgate Planned Unit Development.
37
38 From the Engineering Division:
39
40 Prior to or concurrent with the Final Map /Improvement Plans submittal and /or'submittal
41 for final Site Plan and Architectural Review and approval, the applicant shall provide or
42 address the following:
43
44
45
06
3
I Frontage Improvements
2
3 15. Lakeville Highway (State Route .116) - Provide frontage improvements per Caltrans
4 requirements. The Bicycle Plan calls for a class II bike lane along Lakeville Highway.
5
6 16. Frates Road. Construct Yz street improvements along the entire frontage including but
7 not 1'imited to pavement construction and reconstruction, curb gutter, sidewalk, striping,
8 streetlights, bike lanes, fire hydrants, and landscaping.
9
10 a. The street section shall be at least 6- inches of asphalt concrete over 21- inches of
11 class 2 aggregated, base. The developer may have the existing pavement evaluated
12 and tested with a recommendation to bring the road section to arterial standards.
13 b. The street width shall include two 6- foot bike lanes, two 12 -foot travel lanes and
14 12 -foot turn lane. Left turn lanes shall be located at intersections.
15 c. No double .left turn lanes shall be allowed.
16 d. Parking shall not be allowed along Frates Road.
17 e. The proposed entry street at Lakeville Circle shall be eliminated and a cul -de -sac
18 constructed near lots 143 -146.
19
20 17. Ely Road. Construct % street improvements along the entire frontage including but not
21 limited to: pavement construction and reconstruction, curb, gutter, sidewalk, striping,
22 streetlights, bike lanes, fire hydrants and landscaping.
23 a. The street section shall be at least 5- inches of asphalt concrete and 15- inches of
24 class 2 aggregate base. The '/2 street width shall include a 12 -foot travel lane and a
25 6 -foot bike lane plus. a 12 -foot travel lane in the opposite direction if the existing
26 road conditions warrant.
27 b. At the intersection of Frates Road additional improvements shall be necessary
28 including turn lanes and though lanes.
29
30 Intersections
31
32 18. Traffic signals shall be constructed. at the intersections of Calle Ranchero and Frates
33 Road and Ely Road and Frates Road. The two signals shall be interconnected to provide
34 for traffic volume priority.
35
36 Grading
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
19. 'Grading shall conform to the soils investigation report. The soils report shall address the
need for moisture barriers along the back of curb and additional fill over the existing city
utilities in Fates Road.
20. Cut and fill information shall be provided on the improvements plans.
21. Provide the necessary grading and drainage improvements on the City Pump Station site.
n
1 22. Prepare and submit an erosion control plan, storm water pollution prevention plan
• 2 (SWPPP) and a notice of intent (NOI).
3
4 23. Any existing structures, above or below ground shall be removed if not a part of the new
5 subdivision. Structures shall include, but are not .limited to fences, retaining walls, pipes,
6 septic systems, wells, debris, etc.
7 Streets within Southgate Subdivision
8 24. Access to' Frates Road and Ely Road shall include an ingress lane, a combination straight
9 and left turn lane' and a right turn lane. Entrance streets shall be 3.6 -feet wide from Frates
10 Road to the first intersection in the subdivision and from Ely Road to the third
11 intersection. Face of curb radius at proposed intersections on Frates Road and Ely Road
12 shall be at least 40 -feet.
13
14 25. All subdivision streets, with the exception entrance streets in the condition above, shall
15 be at least 32 -feet wide. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all streets. Stop
16 signs and crosswalks shall' be required at applicable intersections within the subdivision.
17 Pedestrian ramps are required at;all corners. Face of curb. radius. at interior street corners
18 shall be at least 254eet. Street sections at the sound walls shall include landscaping
19 adjacent to the sound wall.
20
21 26. A temporary all - weather turnaround shall be provided on Parcel A (Senior Housing site)
2 for the two streets ending at Parcel A.
3
24 27. All interior streets shall have a minimum street section of 4- inches of asphalt concrete
25 and 12- inches of class 2 aggregate'base.
26
27 28. Additional outside turn radius (knuckles) shall be provided at 90- degree intersections
28 within the subdivision.
29
30 29. All streets shall be crowned at the center, directing surface drainage to both sides of the
31 street.
32
33 Site Drainage and Storm Drain System .
34
35 30. The detention pond system shall be designed to -prevent any increase in the peak
36 discharge from the prof "ect site due to a - 1.00 -year 'storm. Provide a spillway in the
37 detention pond _system and an over flow path to safely_ direct runoff from a storm
38 exceeding 100- years.
39
40 31. Lot to lot drainage is not allowed without a conduit system and corresponding easement.
41
42 .32. Provide a storm drain system in Frates Road and Ely Road per City standards.
43
40 4 33. _All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved
5 by the Sonoma County Water Agency.
5
1
2 34. Access roads.and easements shall be provided. for public storm drains on private property.
3 Easements for public storm drains shall be at least 10 -feet wide.
4
5 Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems
6
7 35. Storm Drains shall be at least 15-inches in diameter.
8
9
10 36. The water main system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire.'
ire flow as designated
11 by the Fire Marshal.
12
13 3:7. Fire, flow calculations shall be provided.
14
15 38. The water main connection in Lakeville Highway shall be eliminated 'i'f• final .fire flow
16 calculations indicate the connection is" not needed.
17
18 39. Access roads, and .easements shall be provided for public sanitary sewer and water mains
19 on private property. Easements shall be at `least 10 -feet wide:
20
21 40. Water services shall be 1.5" diameter with l" water meters.
22
23 Final Map
24
25 41. Clearly and accurately show the boundary and dedications on the final map.
26
27 42. Provide a 10 -foot wide pubic utility easement on both sides of all interionstreets.
28
29 43. A `` finial' map technical review fee is due at final map application.
3.0
31 Miscellaneous
32
33 44. Parcels ,'B -K shall be dedicated to the City.of Petaluma.
34
35 45. Gas mains or underground electrical mains shall not be allowed - on private property
36 beyond the standard 10 -foot public utility •along the street frontage.
37
38 46. Improvement plans and final map(s) shall be prepared according to the latest City
39 policies, codes,, ordinances, resolution's and standards.
40
41 47. If the roJ ect is each individual phase shall be designed to provide the required
p ,
42 utilityservices and street system, independent of any other phase.
43
44 48. Detention pond maintenance shall include tasks and time intervals for inspection and
45 maintenance.
46
•
•
6
1 49. Formal application shall be filed for the abandonment of the Old Lakeville Road between
2 Frates Road and. Lakeville Highway. The abandonment shall include removing the
3 existing „public,,util'ity easement (PUE) on APN 017- 150 -0,19 (37 acre site). The formal
4 application shall include a title report, appraisals and legal descriptions for the areas
5 proposed to be abandoned: The abandonment process shall be complete prior to final map
6 application.
7
8 50. An assessment district shall be established to maintain parcels C through K, the sound
9 walls, detention, gand's 'and the landscaping along Frates Road Ely Road and inside the
10 subdivision adjacent to the sound wall, and the landscape area and sound wall along
11 Lakeville Highway..,
12
13 51. The proposed public park, identified on the Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel C, shall be
14 designed and developed with .a playground along the same scale as the playground
15 recently approved for the Gafti Subdivision. Plans for the playground shall meet the
16 approval of the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, and the Parks and Recreation
17 staff prior to review and, approval by SPARC..
18
1.9 52. The applicant shall provide an annuity to cover the annual .maintenance costs of the park,
20 estimated to be $10,000 per year.
21
22 53. The bike / pedestrian path located in the urban separator currently terminates in a turn
23 around at the southwest edge of the property. The applicant shall explore ways to
�4 connect this path to the- frontage road that. parallels Lakeville Highway.
25
26 54. All landscape maintenance on Frates Road, Ely Road, Lakeville Highway, and in the
27 urban separator is to be maintained through a.landscape assessment district.
28
29 55: The applicant shall .defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards,
30 commissions, agerits, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
31 against the City, its boards; commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
32 aside, void, or ° annul any, of the approvals of the project, including the certification of
33 associated environmental.,documents, when such claim or action is brought within the
34 time period provided for in applicable State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly
35, notify the applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
36 coordinate in "the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall .prohibit the City from
37 participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do
38 so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City.
39
40
41 Mitigation Measures to be Applied as Conditions of Approval
42 . 3.1 All earthwork, grading,, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in
43 accordance With the City o'f Ordinance ( #1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04
44 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17,
�5 Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
2 3.2 The project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control' Plan prepared by a
3 registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and
4 Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division and
5 Engineering, Section, prior to issuance of'a grading, perinit. The Plan shall-include temporary
6 erosion control measures; to be ,used durin g construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for
7 foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and
8 contaminants into the drainage. system. The Erosion and Sediment Control `Plan shall include
9 the follow ng;measures as applicable-
10. `
11 a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized' and
12 the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All
13 construction `and grading activities, including short- term needs (equipment staging areas
14 storage:areas, and :field office locations) shall minimize the amount ofland area.disturbed.
15 Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
16
17 b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas- and creek, channels shall be protected from silt and
18 sediment in storm runoff through. the use of silt fences, diversion berms and check ;dams.
19 All exposed °surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be
20 protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control' blankets as appropriate.
21
22 c. 1Vlateriaf and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall'be on -site
23 by October 1st: All grading activity shall 'be completed by October 15th, prior to the on-
24 set of the rainy season, with all .disturbed areas stabilized and re- vegetated 'by October
25 31 st. Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer; extensions for short=term ' grading
26 may be allowed. The Engineering Section in conjunction with.any specially permitted
27 rainy season 'grading may require special erosion control measures.
28
29 3.3 All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic
30 safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing bracing parapets, etc.).
31
32 3.4 All public and privateim rouernents shall`be sub'ect to ins ection by Grtystaff for compliance
p J P
33 with'the,approved Improvement Plans, prior to Cityacceptance.
34
35 3.5 Foundation and structural design Tor buildings shall conform to the requirements of the
36 Uniform Building Code,, as well as state and local ,laws /ordinances. Construction plans shall
3`7 sulj.ect to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance o <a building
38 pen All work; shall be subj�eet fo inspection by theBuilding Division and must conform to
39 all applicable code requirements and approved. improvement plans prior to :issuance of a
40 Certificate of Occupancy.
41
42 3.6 Prior to 'issuance of a grading or building, permit;, the project sponsor shall. submit a ;detailed
43 schedule -for field inspection of work in progress, to ensure that all applicable codes,
44 conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of
45 the project.
46
E-]
1, 3:7 The 'Site Plan and. Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and approve the
2 gp
landsca in lans which show how disturbed areas are to be replanted. Any changes to the
p
3 landscaping, plan as required by SPARC shall be incorporated into plans that are submitted
4 for building permit issuance.
5
6 3.8 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan or
7 Final Map, the project sponsor shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report
8 prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City
9 Engineer and Chief Building Official` in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and
10 Grading and Erosion Control. Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil
11 conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) :and. include recommendations for site preparation and
12 grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges
13 and structures.
14
15 3.9 The design of all earthwork cuts and' fills, drainage pavements, utilities, foundations and
16 structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the
17 geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign
18 the improvement plans "and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The
19 geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City,
20 prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the
21 improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
22 Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
23 geotechnical specifications by the Engineering Section of the Community Development
*4 Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits
25 and /or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may
26 be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in
27 accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
28
29 4.1 The Project sponsor shall incorporate Best Management Practices into grading, building
30 and/or improvement plans, and clearly indicate these provisions in the plan specifications.
31 The construction contractor shall incorporate the following; measures into the required
32 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during
33 construction:
34
35 a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities `shall be
36 properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off
37 when not in use.
38
39 b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically' during construction, a minimum of twice
40 daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
41 Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose.
42 Responsibility for watering to include weekends and holidays when work is not in
43 progress.
44
45 c. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area consisting of
0 6 an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris
9
from construction vehicles prior to entering the. public roadways. Street surfaces in the
vicinity of the project shall be, routinely swept and cleaned of mud, and dust carried onto
the street by construction vehicles.
d. 'During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other
similar. 'covering devices, or - maintain at least two feet of freeboard to reduce dust
emissions.
e.. Pave, apply water three times daily, .or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites..
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking are and staging
areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited
onto, the adjacent roads.
g. Hydroseed .or-;apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
h. .Enclose, cover; water twice daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
i. Limit-traffic speeds on any unpaved'roads to 15 mph.
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Post- construction re-
vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of'exposed soils shall be completed in a timely
manner according to the approved Erosion and' Sediment Control Plan and verified by
City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
1. If necessary, install windbreaks, or use trees /vegetative windbreaks'. at the: windward
side(s) of construction areas to prevent visible dust clouds from affecting nearby sensitive
uses (e.g., residences).
in. Suspend excavation and ,grading activity when winds (instantaneous: gusts) exceed 25
mph and visible dust emission cannot'be prevented from leaving the construction site(s).
n. Limit areas subject to disturbance ;during excavation, grading, and other construction
activity at any one time.
o. Project sponsor shall - designate a, person with :authority to requires increased watering to
monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide, name and phone -number to the
City of'Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits:
10
I p. If applicable, the project sponsor shall obtain operating permits from the Bay Area Air
•'2 Quality Management District, and shall provide evidence of compliance prior to
3 requesting a Certif Cate of Occupancy. The Planning Department and /or Building
4 Division shall verify that the project sponsor'has obtained an operating permit and that
5 the facilities conform to the permit requirements prior to authorizing the Certificate of
6 Occupancy.
7
8- 5.1 All construction activities shall be performed in a mannerthat minimizes the sediment and/or
9 pollutants entering directly 'or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The
10 project sponsor shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and
11 specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance
12 of grading or building -permits.
13
14 a. The project sponsor shall designate on the improvement plans, construction staging areas
15 and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to
16 be used during construction. All construction staging areas shall be located away from
17 any drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the
18 drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include
19 proper containment ,feat'ures to prevent contamination from entering drainage areas in the
20 event of a spill or leak.
21
22 b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete, or washing thereof, or other construction
23 related 'materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen
0 4 material shall be allowed 10 enter any drainage: system. All discarded material including
5 washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved
26 disposal site. The project sponsor shall designate appropriate disposal methods and /or
27 facilities'on the construction plans or in the speci'ficat'ions.
28
29 5.2 The .project sponsor , , shall. submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and
30 approval by the Engineering Section and the Planning Division prior to approval of any
31 improvement plans or the issuance of a grading permit. Project grading and all site drainage
32 improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma
33 Engineering Department's "Standards Specifications, and with the Sonoma County Water
34 Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria, if �applicable., Drainage plans shall include
35 supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods.
36 All hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design, if applicable, shall be subject to the
37 review and'approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA)^, "and the City Engineer.
38
39 5.3 The project sponsor shall, pay all applicable Storm Drainage Impact Fees prior to final
40 inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
41
42 5 The project sponsor shall submit Sonoma County'Water Agency letter of approval.
43
44 5.5 The project' sponsor shall develop and implement a. comprehensive Urban Runoff Control
45 Plan submitted for review and approval of the Planning, Division prior to approval of
0 6 improvement plans', or issuance of grading or building permits: At a minimum, the plan
11
I shall: (1) identify specific types and sources of storm water pollutants; (2) determine the
2 location and nature of potential impacts; and (3) specify and` incorporate appropriate control
3 measures into the project design and „improvement plans. Construction. plans, shall be
4 reviewed by the Planning Division for conformance with the Urban Runoff Control Plan
5 prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City
6 inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to,- acceptance of
7 improvements or issuance of a, Certificate of Occupancy. Urban Runoff Control Programs 11
8 shall include the following as appropriate:
9
10 a. Pesticides. and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas or any
11 maintenance access way during the rainy season.
12
13 b. All drainage improvement plans shall include ;installation of permanent signs (concrete
14 stamps or .equivalent) at, each storm drain inlet. The sign at each nlet.shalt read "No
15' _Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River'' or equivalent, and shall be installed zt the time
16 of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of a
17 Certificate of'Occupancy.
18
19. 5.6 The landscape irrigation system shall. be designed to connect to the City's reclaimed water
20 irrigation system, in accordance with State Department of Public Health guidelines for use
21 of reclaimed water.
22'
23 7.1 All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Monday through
24 Friday and (9 :00 a.m. to 5:00 ,p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall; be prohibited on
25 Sundays 'and all, holidays recognized by .the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first
26 secured from the City Manager (or hisher designee) for additional hours.. There will be
27 no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no
28 delivery of materials nor equipment•pr or to 7_:30 a.m. nor past 5.,Q0 p.m. Monday through
29 Friday; no servicing of equipment ,past 6:45 p.m., Monday through� Plan submitted
30 for City permit shall include theo language above.
31
32 7.2 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall- he properly
33 muffled and maintained to minimize noise.. Equipment shall be turned off "when not in
34 use.
35
36 7.3 Construction maintenance, storage and staging areas for construction equipment shall.
37 avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable: Stationary
38 construction equipment, such as compressors; mixers, etc., shall be placed away from
39 residential areas and /or provided with lacoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment
40 shall be used when possible..
41
42 7.4 The project sponsor shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the
43 mitigation measures who `will be, responsible- for responding to any complaints from the
44 neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building /grading permit. The Proiect.Manager shall
45 determine. the cause of "noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and
46 shall take °prompt action to correct the problem.
LI
0
12
2 75 Prior to the .approval
of Improvement 'Plans for the Southgate Subdivision, the project
3 sponsor shall submit an acoustical report prepared by a qualified acoustical professional,
4 which demonstrates that the specified location, construction and height of the proposed
5 noise walls will provide the mitigation necessary to comply' With the Ldn 45 (interior) and
6 Ldn 60 (exterior use areas) noise standards for residential and open space uses, as
7 established in the City of Petaluma General Plan. The acoustical report shall be subject to
8 peer review and shall be approved by the Director' of Community Development prior to
9 approval of the Final Map.
10
1.1 7.6 The project sponsor shall submit an acoustical report(s) prepared by a qualified acoustical
12 professional, which demonstrates' that the proposed applicable interior and exterior noise
13 standards as established by general plan noise policies shall be met. Said report shall be
14 submitted in conjunction -with- applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review for each
15 phase of development,, including park and future affordable housing uses. The report shall
16 be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit
17 for that phase of development. The report shall include' but not'be limited to the following:
18
19 a. Recommendations regarding placement of buildings and/or installation of sound walls
20 that would shield. roadway noise from exterior use areas in order to meet City noise
21 standards.
22 b. Sound transmission class ratings (STC) for windows and floor /ceiling assemblies on
23 multi - family residential units necessary to achieve Ldn of 45 dBA interior noise level,
�4 as well as STC levels between units.
25 c. The need for modified exterior wall constructions at second floor rooms along the
26 roadways necessary 'to' achieve. Ldn of 45 dBA interior noise level. These
27 modifications may include, extra layers of gypsum ,board or additional stud framing.
28 d. Plans submitted for a building permit shall conform to the specifications identified in
29 this study.
30
31 7.7 All land uses shalt conform to the Performance Standards listed in Section 22 -300 of the
32 Petaluma Zoning°Code.
33
34 8.1 All exterior lighting shall be directed onto , the project site land access ways and shielded to
35 prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted for project
36 review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which include photometric plans of
37 active open space areas, and identify the location and design of all proposed exterior
38 lighting, includingstreetlights.
39
40 8.2 Detailed site plans, architectural plans, landscape plans, including details for exterior
41 lighting and sound walls shall conform to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Design
42 Guidelines and: shall lbe, subject to review by the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review
43 Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
44
45 8.3 All new and .existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
placed underground.
13
2 8.4 Development plans shall he designed. to. avoid vehicular lighting. impacts to bedroom areas
3
and other light- sensitive, living areas of any nearby residential lot home or facility.
4
Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light
'
sensitive locations shall incorporate .architectural or landscape design ;features to screen
6
interior.living space from the headlight glare.
7
8
10 -1
A four way stop control or traffic signal shall' be installed at the Frat'es Road'.intersection
9
with Calle Ranchero.
10
11
10 -2
A four" way stop control or a traffic signal shall be, installed at Frates Road intersection with
12
South Ely Road.
13
14
10 -3 '
Stop controls shall be provided for exiting the project at the proposed access point at
15
Lakeville Circle.
16
17
10 -4
The project shall comply with the requirements of City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan.
18
Plans for each phase of site development shall be referred to the Pedestrian and Bicycle
19
Advisory Committee (PBAC) for review and comment to ensure compliance with the City
20
Bicycle Plan.
21
22
1.0 -5
The project sponsor shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and - approval of the
23
City's Traffic) Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. At least one
24
lane of traffic in each direction, shall- be maintained at all times through the construction
25
period, unless a. temporary detour plan is submitted, and approved the City Traffic
26
Engineer. Heavy construction traffic haul trucks shall avoid school .zones between
27
school arrival .and departures times. During non- working hours, open trenches and
28
construction hazards shall be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades approved by
29
the Street Superintendent to warn, oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and of
30
_pedestrians,
potential safety hazards.
31
32
10 -6
All' road` surfaces shall be restored to pre- project conditions after. 'completion of any
33
project-related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within
34
existing asphalt streets shall receive:;a slurry seal. If the trench cut is within�the parking
35
strip, then only' the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the: street shall
3.6
receive a slurry seal.
37
10 -7
Any pedestrian access through and /or adjacent to the project site .shall. ;remain
38
-
unobstructed during project construction or an alternate route. established as approved by
39
the Police Chief and City Engineer.
40
104
Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with ,the .City Street Standards
4.1
to - provide for safe access to and :from the site. Turning ;lanes, acce.leratiorn and
42
deceleration lanes, curb cuts, median islands signing and. striping shall be incorporated
.43
into the design plans as required by the Citys Traffic Engineer. Pedestrian and .bicycle
44
access connecting the City's bikeways and pedestrian circulation through the site: shall be
45
incorporated into the development plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be
4
I subject to review and approval of the Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or
• 2 building permit. All street : frontage improvements shall be constructed to City standards
3 and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspections or acceptance of
4 improvements.
5 10 -9 The project sponsor shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation
6 Fees. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a building
7 permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of
8 occupancy.
9 10 -10 The project sponsor ishall install a transit .stop on Frates Road including a bench, shelter
10 and pedestrian access, as required by the City of Petaluma.
11 10 -11 The project sponsor shall be responsible for a fair - share contribution to fund to the
12 construction of signal and /or other improvements at the Frates /Adobe Road intersection.
13 The fair - share contribution shall be based upon the project's contribution to the
14 cumulative traffic projected for -this intersection.
15
16 15 -1 If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources
17 are uncovered - at the site (surface or subsurface' resources). work shall be halted
18 immediately within 50 meters .(150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a
19 qualified professional archaeologist. The City of Petaluma Planning Division and a
20 qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with, the Society of Professional
21 Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-
2 site. When contacted, Community Development Department staff and the archaeologist
3 shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop
24 proper mitigation measures required, for`the discovery.
25
26
27
28 S: \CC -City Council\ reso lutions \Southgate3_Reso_VTM.doc
•
15
I ty o f Pet
Community, Development Department
Planning Division
11, English!Street
Petaluma, CA 94.952
7071778 -4301
Initial Study
of Environmental Significance
Revised 2 120104
It In troduction: This Initial > Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code,. Section •21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein
includes: the project application,. environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical' Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i. e., Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan 'specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of
Petaluma.Planriing Division.
Project Name: Southgate Residential `Development File No: 03TSM0417
Site Address: Northeast corner�of Frates Road and.Lakeville Highway APN: 017- 030 -017 & 017- 150 -019
Posting Date: November 19 2003 Comments Due: December 9, 2003
Lead Agency Contact: City of Petaluma,.Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner Phone: (415) 789 -0736
Applicant /Owners: Basin Street Properties Phone: (707) 793 -1939
1318 Redwood Way, Suite 140
Petaluma, CA 94954
Project Description: (Note: This Project Description was revised to reflect revised plans submitted by the project
sponsor on February 13, 2004)
The Southgate Development is a .proposed Planned Unit Development on 40 acres, which proposes 216 detached
single- family homes, and includes a 2.51 -acre future affordable senior housing site (Parcel A) that could be
developed with a maximum of 80 units'. The project also proposes a 1,09 -acre public park (Parcel B), a stormwater
detention facility /linear open space along the south side of the site within the Urban Separator and adjacent to the
City limits, (Parcel C), a 1.1,2, -acre parcel at the corner of Frates Road and Lakeville Highway (Parcel D), and
several linear parcels along Frates and South Ely Road to be used for entry landscaping (Parcels E -K). Vehicular
access to the site is proposed at two points along Frates Road that coincide with the existing Calle Ranchero and
Lakeville Circle intersections with Frates Road. An additional access is proposed along the South Ely Road
frontage between Lots 209 and 210.
The project entitlements include:
® A General Plan Amendment to 1) apply the Urban Diversified land use designation, which would allow
residential densities of 5 -10 units per acre, or 200 -400 housing units on the project site; and 2) Remove the
"Transit" designation from the corner of Highway 116 and Frates ;Road;
0 A Rezoning from the existing "Study" Zoning classification.to,Planned Unit Development (PUD);
® Y A Vesting'Tentative Map that would divide the site into 2 single - family parcels, one future affordable
housing site and several other parcels - for open space, public park, and landscaped areas; and
® An abandonment of the Old Lakeville Road right -of -way that currently divides the property into two
separate parcels at the western edge of the site.
Page 1 ^7-r^C H E IV T 17
Project Name: Southgate - File No. 03TSM0417CR Page 4
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Mineral „Resources
3.
Measures
9.
'Hazards ,,& Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting The 90 -acre project site, which consists of two adjoining parcels, is :locate,d on the south side of
Frates Road between Lakeville Highway (SRI 16)° and E- ly Road. The Old Lakeville Road right -of -way (proposed to be
abandoned) separates the two .parcels. The site, which has a gentle riorth to south cross slope, is unimproved. and is sparsely
vegetated with remnant grasses. There are no trees .on the subject property. In the past, the. property was used as pastureland
and for hay production. More recently, a portion of the site was used to stockpile fill material from.nearby construction sites
for which a use ,permit was granted. A 120 -foot' wide PG &E transmission line right -of -way easetnenCruns along the eastern
edge of the project site. A City pump station exists at the northeast' corner of the site, near th "e' intersection of Frates Road and
Ely Road.
The property was annexedinto the City in:1985 along with Adobe Creek Golf and County Club, and:is,only property on the
south side of Frates Road within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The property is currently zoned S -Study Area, and the:
General Plan. land use designationfis "Specific P1an,Area ". In addition, the City of Petaluma General Planjand,use;map designates
the comer of the property near'the Frates /Lakeville Highway intersection as a Transit Terminal (Park and, Ride) location and a
band of the Urban Separator followed by the Urban Growth Boundary is shown along the southern and eastern'boundaries of the
site.
Responsible /Trustee Agencies:
Caltrans -.::An ericroachment;permit issued by CalTrans will be required for any work or traffic control 'proposed. within the State
right- of-`way (Lakeville, Highway - ISR 116)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affecfed
The environmental factors checked below woul'd'be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant,Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
1.
Land Use &:Planning
7.
Noise
13.
'Utilities Infrastructure
2.
Population, Employment,& Housing
8.
Visual Quality & Aesthetics
14.
Mineral „Resources
3.
Geology & Soils
9.
'Hazards ,,& Hazardous Materials
15.
Cultural'Resources
4.
Air
10.
Transportation/Traf is _
1.6.
Agricultural Resources
5.
Hydrology &'Water Quality
11.
Public Services
17.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
6.
B'iological,Resources
12.
Recreation
•
Page 4
Project Name: Southgate File. N.o. GPA00003; REZ00003 Page 5
Is Deter.rrllnatl,On
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION should be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
X significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been. made by or agreed to by the project
.proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will:be .,prepared.
I .find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project ,MAY have a "Potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated impact on. the environment but at least one effect ;1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached "sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although.the proposed projeacould have a significant effect"on the environment because all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier.EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION'including' revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing
further is required.
® A Notice of Intent to adopt ,,a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period
of November 19, 2003 through December 9, 2003.
Prepared by: Jayni Allsep
Name
Contract Planner
Title
Sign e
•
' /'
Date
Page 5
v
k n �
r .ms �� v 3fi
G -:
t
a '
r t
tw
7 r
a.
♦ � / //�V � � y �. � �,4 . � � �. j ._ a � �- � r s a �+ - e_�� a ..� �
ton 4 �.
ywx
r _ I X
W
qr
41 _
S
7
FF y g L If F i
7
0-4
U
N It
a
v
k n �
r .ms �� v 3fi
G -:
t
a '
r t
tw
7 r
a.
♦ � / //�V � � y �. � �,4 . � � �. j ._ a � �- � r s a �+ - e_�� a ..� �
ton 4 �.
ywx
r _ I X
W
qr
41 _
Project Name; Southgate File No. GPA00001 REZ00003 Page 6
Evaluation of Environmental.Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each, question: A. "No Impact' answer is
adequately supported if'the:referenced information, sources show: that the impact;.simply does not apply to projects'like
the one involved (e.g., the project falls- outsider a fault rupture zone). A no impact.answer should be explained where it
is based in project - specific factors as, ,well as general standards, i.e., the will not expose,sensitive,receptors to
pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis.
2) All answers must take account of the whole,action involved, including: off -site as well as on -site cumulative, project -
level indirect, direct, construction, an&operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined :that a particular physical, impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact 'is potentially significant less than `significant with mitigation or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact ",is appropriate if there is substantial evidence "that;an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less 'Thai, Significant With 'Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect,;from "Potentially Significanfirnpact to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly .explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII; "Earlier Analyses "'may be cross- referericed).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant°to the tiering, programEIR,, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed - in an earlier EIR or.negative declaration pursuant to,Section 150630)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following: '
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed Identify effects from'the above checklist were within the.scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable :legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by nitigatiorrmeasures based on.the earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For 'effects that are 'Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigationmeasures that were 'incorporated or refined from the earlier document and :the extent
to which they address site= specificconditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to.`information sources for potential impacts
(e.g., general plans, zoning7 ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared ,or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference'to thepage orpages where °the statement is- substantiated.
7) Supporting Information , Sources:. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion:
8 °) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The;significance criteria or threshold, if.any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
•
Page 6
Project Name: Southgate File. No. GPA00003; REZ00003 Page 7
1 Environmental Analysis
1. Land Use and Planning Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
Potential.
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
W Mitigation;
Impact
Incorporated
X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use <plan policy or
.regulation of an.agehcy with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not ;limited to :the general plan, specific
plan; local coastal. program, or zoning, ordinance ):adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigatingfan
environmental effect?
Conflict with any:applicable habitat.conservaiion plan or
natural cominumty conservation plan?
X
X
Discussion: The subiei(vproperty is currently zoned S -Study District and the General Plan land use designation: is "Specific Plan
Area ", In the City U'Petiluina, General Plan land use designates the corner of the property near'the. Frates /Lakeville
Highway intersection as ,a Transit•'Termnal (Park and Ride), and, a'band of the Urban Separator followed by the Urban Growth
Boundary is,sho;wnalong. the +south and east boundaries of . site: The project sponsor has submitted applications requesting.
approval of a general. plan. amendment and a rezoning; of property. The ,general plan amendment would t change the land use
designation from the- .current "Specific, Plan Area"' "Transit" designations' to the "Urban Diversified "'land use. designation,
which would allow` residential densities of 54U ,units per acre,- or 200400,, housing units on the .project site. The proposed
rezoning would replace the existing "Study` Area" with a' Planned; Community (P -C) District. There_ is no existing habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservationplan -that exists .for this area of. the City.
The property was annexed into 'the City in 1985 along, with the: Adobe Creek Golf and Country Club located. northeast, of the
project. site. At the time of the annexation, the site's. zoniri g
ff ,'designation Study District, was purposefully.retained. for future.
interpretation. According to sta reports °pertaming annexation, the site was being cons idered',for,theoddevelopment of °a 200
unit residential development. The site was later,considered by the Santa,Rosa Junior College for its Petaluma campus and by local
school districts for art elementary or junior high schoolsite. The site was deemed not suitable for their. needs.
- During, ,the 1987- 2005 General, Plan rewrite,. the City _Council; ,considered, designating the site Special Industrial„ ;since they
found. the: cite to be well suited for a .campus -like development that would have an appropriate `land use intensity and the
potential to provide an, attractive, gateway -to the City; as well as ', a , ,. transition from the agricultural lands to the east' within the
County. However, due to concerns regarding; a proposed residential development the site was designated as a Specific Plan
Area in the 1987- 2005 General Plan and accompanying land, use map.
In September 1999, the project sponsor (formerly 'known as G &W 'Management), submitted a preliminary ^applicationao request..
that the City Council reconsider the Specific Plan, requirement, for the property: At that time, the: project sponsor envisioned
the property being developed assa business park, and proposed;a Spec ial:Indus'tria1/0ffice Park land .useAesignation for the�site.
The Council determined that the site did not have characteristics typical I of , a _Specific Plan area, and that it, not necessary to
prepare .a Specific Plan,,particularly in light of the proposed single ownership. The council indicated thatit was appropriate for
the project sponsor to move .forward with an application for a General Plan Amendment :for the property and expressed a
desire to see an analysis of the jobs/housing balance and an economic analysis of the optimum use of the parcel.
General Plan Amendment
The change,to an'Urban Diversified General Plan land use designation would allow densities, of 5 -10 units per acre,. or
200400 housing units on the project'site. This designation 'is intended to "invite flexibility in site design and' unitAype. Single
family homes, duplexes, and multi family units are permitted. The!proposed project, which would of 221 single family
homes and affordable housing units would meet the `intent ofthis land use designation.
Page 7
Southgate Initial Study
re o
Potential,
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant,
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Wl/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Transit Designation. The City of Petaluma .General Plan land use, map designates the ..corner of the property near the
Frates /Lakeville Highway intersection as a Transit Terminal (Park and Ride) location. This: designation which. includes the
concept that a park and ride facility should be located on this site, would not be , compatible with the development plan. The
City's transit. coordinator recommends that a bus stop and shelter be :installed on ; Frates Road to serve future residents of
Southgate as well as the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. As a result, removal,'of'the transit designation from the
property would not conflict with the overall"intent of the General Plan policies regarding transit opportunities.
Urban Separator. A band of the Urban Separator' followed by the Urban Growth Boundary the south and east property
line of the project site. The General Plan describes the Urban Separator as, a visible band of open space that marks the edge of
allowable development. It is continuous on the east. side,. intermittent on the west side and runs adjacent to the Urban Limit Line
for most of its length. The Urban Separator provides an edge that buffers farmland`from urban land. It can serve as a recreation
area and a key component of the City "s'.'open space system. It prevents urban developrnept from extending unchecked into
surrounding open space, since private development cannot take place within thesseparator;
The Southgate plan shows a 120 -foot wide, 1`,500+ foot long area along the south "side, of the site. The plan also shows a 20
foot wide landscaped area adjacent to South Ely Boulevard, between the current. edge of pavement and the rear lot fencing.
Both of these areas border the City lin-tits, and the Urban Growth Boundary. Although the, Land Use Map of the General Plan
depicts the Urban Separator as a uniform width along the north and east property lines, General Plan objectives related to the
Urban Separator indicate that the Urban Separator shall be a maximum of 300 feet except in those areas where it may be variable
or is already established at more than 300 feet, neither of which:are the case for the subject property. The policy makers for the
City of Petaluma, in conjunction with their.review of the Southgate development, will determine whether the project, as proposed,
meets the intent of the various objectives policies of the General Plan, including those related to the Urban Separator.
Rezoning
The proposed rezoning would replace the existing "Study District" with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. PUD
Development Standards have been submitted along with the PUD, and provide the specific development standards for each of
the uses within the PUD.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not.applicable.
Population. Employmenf. and Housing Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers: of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial` numbers of people necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a
/./
X
Discussion:
The proposed project would nothave a ,significant impact on population, employment, or housing within the City. The proposal
.would provide additional housing, including affordable housing, that would. benefit the community as a whole. Furthermore, the
project site is located on the southeastern edge of the City of Petaluma, within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, and is adjacent
to three major roadways! Lakeville Highway (SRI 16), Frates Road, and Ely.Road. 'The site is currently undeveloped, and there
are no existing housing units: on the site. No significant off -site improvements are expected. .Infrastructure improvements
associated with the proposed project are limited to hook -up connections to existing utility systems, the construction of private
Page 8
Southgate Initial Study Page 9
Potential
Less Than -
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
- Impact
Incorporated
streets within the proposed development and minor' changes to existing adjacent streets (additional 'lanes; traffic signals,,
medians, etc.). No road extensions or major new infrastructurels required to serve the project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring ,Not.applicable.
3. Geolody and.So'ils Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential.substannal
adverse, effects,,` including the risk:of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known•earthquake fault, as
delineated on the.most:recent.Alquist =Priolo
Earthquake Fault, Zoning Map issuedby the
State Geologist for the area,or based.. on other
substantiahevidence of,a known fault? Refer to
Division.of Mines andi Geology Special.
Publication 42.
ii. Strong;seismic groundshaking?
iii. Seismic - related ground failure_, including
liquefaction?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
C. BeIocatedon ageologic uniror soil that is °unstable; or,
that would become unstable, as a result inmon- or off site
landslide lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d. `Be located:on expansive soil, as def ned in Table 18 -:1: -B
of the Uniform- Building Code (1994), creating
substantial' °risks to life or property?
e. Unstable earth. conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
g. Change in topography orground surface relief features?
h. The,destruction,. covering}or modification of any unique
geologic 'orphysical features ?'
i. Any,increase..in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off site ?'
j. Changes in deposition,or erosion:of beachsands„ or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channetofa.river or'sti-eam or the bed of "the
ocean any`bay,.inlet or lake?
k. Exposure ofpeople or , property to geologic hazards_ such
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure: or
0
I I
•
Page, 9 ,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
0
I I
•
Page, 9 ,
Southgate Initial Study
9 1
Page 10
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
:Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
similar hazards?
Discu §lion: The topography of the site, can .be characterized as nearly level. ,In the ,past; the property was used as pastureland
and for hay production. More recently, a portion of the site was used to stockpile fill material from nearby construction sites,
for which a use permit was granted. According to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site, the
fill material was loosely placed on the subjects ite and spread. No compaction or engineering controls were performed during
fill placement (Kleinfelder, March '1999)'.
There. are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Based on the borings that were taken as part of a preliminary
geotechnical investigation, the report states that near- surface soil conditions beneath the site (0-4 feet) consist of black clay
'(adobe) which exhibited shrinkage cracks to. a depth of four feet (Harding Lawson, 1982). Alternating layers of clay and sandy
clayey gravel were encountered'below clay level to the maximum depth of the boring ,(20.feet), Groundwater was encountered
at a minimum depth of . approximately 6.5 , feet: below the existing grade. ''The report states that no free groundwater was
encountered in the borings. The . soil encountered is typical, of an alluvial soil deposit. Adobe soil often requires reconditioning
prior to site development. This may require the import'of additional soil.
The seismic activity of Sonoma County, as as the entire North Coast region, is the: result of readjustments to opposing
forces along various northwest trending strands of the San Andreas Fault between the: North American and pacific crustal plate
boundary. No active faults are known to, exist on the,. site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Known active faults near the site include the San Andreas Fault and the Rodgers Creek. 'Fault. The San Andreas Fault is
located approximately 14 miles southwest of the subject property.. The Rodgers Creek Fault is located approximately 4 miles
g g ' g red to have a high northeast of the site. However, seismic round shakin is a eolo is hazard considered potential to affect the g p
site during the life of the project. Ground shaking is '4 hazard potentially affecting all structures in the North Coast region and
is typically mitigated through appropriate structural design and construction of buildings. Due to the presence of sandy soil
the site may be subject to liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlement during a significant, seismic event.
Mitigation measures recommended below would reduce these potential adverse impacts to a -level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
3.1 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 20304 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and
Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
3:2 The project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment. Control`Plan prepared:by a. registered professional engineer as an
integral part of the grading plan: The Erosion and ;Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the
Planning Division and Engineering' Section, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall `include temporary erosion
control measures to be -used during construction of cut and 'fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading
operations at the site to prevent - discharge of sediment and.contaminants into the drainage system.. The Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan•shall include the following measures as applicable:
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized and the existing vegetation shall he
retained to'the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including short- term needs
(equipment" staging areas, storage areas, and 'field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed.
Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
® b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas° and creek channels_ shall be protected from silt and sediment in storm runoff through
the use of silt fences, diversion berms and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all
cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate.
Page 10
Southgate Initial Study Page 11
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
'Impact
Inco ,
Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control_:measures shall be on -site by October Ist. All grading
Activity shall be completed by October 15th, priorito the on-set of the rainy season,: with .,all disturbed areas stabilized
and re; vegetated by October 31st. Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer; ,extensions for ;short-term grading
may be allowed. The Engineering .Section in conjunction with. any specially permitted rainy season grading may
require "special erosion control measures. '
3.3 All .construction activities shall.meet the Uniform Building,Code.regulations for seismic,safety(i.e., reinforcing. perimeter
and/or load.bearing walls, `bracing parapets, etc.).
3.4 Improv public
Plans,tpno to City acceptance. lb subject to inspection by City staff for comp liance with the; approved
P P J
3.5 Foundation and,structural design for buildings shall' conform to the requirements of the Uniform ;Building as well as
state and local laws /ordinances. ',Construction plans shall be subject to'review,and.approyal by the' Building Division prior
to °the. issuance of a building; permit.. All work :shall be subject'to, inspection by the Building -,Division and must conform to
all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior'to issuance of,a Certificate,of'Occupancy.
16 Prior to issuance ofa grading or building permit, the project sponsor shall - submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of.
work'.tn'progress ' to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented
through construction of the project.
•
3.7 The: Site Plan and Architectural. Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and approve the landscaping plans, which show
how'disturbed areas are to be replanted. Any changes to the landscaping plan as required by`SPARC shall be.incotporated
into plans 'that are submifted for building permit: issuance.
3.8 Prior to issuance of a: grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement, plan or Final Map Ahe project
sponsor shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Rd ortprepared by a registered professional civil engineer for
review and approval' of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in. accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and
Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil, conditions' (i'.e. highly expansive
soils) .and include recommendations for site. preparation. and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement
design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures.
3.9 The design of all earthwork; cuts, and, fills drainage utilities, foundations and ,structural components shall
conform with the'specifications and,criteria contained ^in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City °Engineer: The
geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the. design as conforming to the specifications. The
geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall'. certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the
improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the
geotechriical specifications. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotecIthical
specifications by the Engineering Section, of the Community .`Development ;Department +and the; Chief Building Official
prior to issuance. -of grading or building permits andor advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional
soils,:informat on may be required by the+ Chief 'B'uilding,Inspector during the check. of building plans in accordance with
Title 1`7 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
Page 11
Southgate Initial Study Page 12
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
4.
Air. Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following detemiinati Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality - standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quali
violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increa
criteria pollutant for which the projectregion is
attainment under an applicable federal or state a
air quality standard (including releasing emissio
exceed quantitative thresholds -for ozone precun
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial polluta
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substanti,
of people?
Discussion: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (BAAQMD) is the regional agency .responsible for overseeing
compliance with State and Federal_ laws, regulations', and programs within 'the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.. The
BAAQMD has prepared and/or implements specificylans to meet the applicable, laws, regulations, and programs. Among
them are the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (4994), Bay Area Clean Air Plan (1997), and the Ozone Attainment Plan
(1999.). The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest major metropolitan areas in the country with
respect to air quality. For the most part, air quality in Petaluma is considered to be very - ;good. Based on measurements taken
at the BAAQMD monitoring station in Santa Rosa (the station closest to 'Petaluma) the pollutants of most concern to the
Petaluma area are ozone and smallparticulaie matter (PM Automobiles are primary source of air pollutants in Petaluma.
The combustion of fuel for space and water, heating is, another source of air pollutant emissions. Wood burning and other
outdoor burning is a source of air pollutants during late fall and winter.
Short -Term Construction Impacts
Construction- related activities such,as grading„ paving and building construction,would,generate dust, or small particulate matter
(PM that could lead to both.health,and "nuisance impacts ifnot controlled. Mitigation Measures identified below would reduce
temporary construction- related air quality impacts to less than significant.
Long- Term.Air Quality Impacts
After construction" of the proposed project is completed, the main project - related impact to air, quality, would result from increased
automobile traffic. To, assess. long-term air quality impacts, air pollutant, emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002
model. The model predicts °eemissions from both mobile sources (i.e., project generated traffic) and area sources (i.e., residential
space and water' heating, 'landscaping and consumer products). Emissions were predicted for the year 2007, when the project is
expected to be completely developed and operational. The volume of automobile�traffic generated by the project was based on the
traffic assessmentpreparedby Dowling Associates.
The Bay Area AinQualiy Management District (BAAQMD) has identified significance thresholds_ for project emissions of ozone
precursors " (reactive orgariic gases and nitrogen oxides) and PM 10 as 80' pounds per day each of the pollutants. The
Urbemis2002 modO'included defaults for San Francisco Bay Area region. Emissions for each of the pollutants would be less than
the significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. Model results are summarized in the table below:
Page 12
Southgate lnitial'Study Page 13
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated.
Table 1
SOUTHGATE — URBEMIS2002 Emissions for 2007 in pounds per day
BAAQMD Threshold
ROG
(801b /day)
NOx
(80 lb/da
pmfo
(80_Ib /day);
41
29
24 _
Source: Illin worth &;Rodkin - Southgate Air Quality Emissions Report, 1'0/24/03
Given the low background carbon monoxide concentrations and, relatively low traffic volumes, 'traffic conditions associated
with the project-are not expected to cause or contribute to any violations of ambient carbon monoxidetstandards.
Construction of the - project would lead to. temporafy.emissions of dust and; equipment exhaust, especially during grading. The
BAAQMD considers projects that; °implement appropriate PM 1.0 control measures to have .a less tlian significant impact on air
quality :during construction. Without appropriate control measures, construction activities, could result in a significant impact
to air: quality. Mitigation Measures identified below would reduce construction- related air quality impacts to less than
significant.
Mitigation- , Measures/Monitorine :
4.1 The Project sponsor shall incorporate Best Management Practices into grading, building and/or improvement: plans, and
clearly indicate these provisions in the plan spec'ifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate th_.e following 10
measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and. exhaust emissions during
construction:
a. Grading and : construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly_ mu
and maintained
to rmnim ze emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice 'daily: The frequency of
watering shall be increased, if wind speeds exceed 15 ;mph. Only purchased city "water or reclaimed water 'shall be
used forAhis purpose Responsibility for watering 'to include weekends and holidays when wof js not progress.
c. Construction sites involving earthwork shall. provide :for a gravel pad area consisting ofan impermeable 'liner and
drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud: and debris 'from construction vehicles,pnor to entering thepublic
roadways. 'Street`surfaces in the vicinity of'the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried
onto the street by construction vehicles.
d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil'shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices, of"
maintain,.at, least 'two feet of freeboard to reduce dust emissions.
e. Pave; apply water three times daily, or .apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites.
f. Sweep daily (wiih water sweepers) all paved access road's, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily
(with water "sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited `onto the adjacent roads.
g. HydIOseed or'apply(non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previouSly.graded areas that are inactive
for 10. days or more)
h. Enclose cover, water twice daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
i. Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Page 13
Soufhgate Initial Study
•:
14
Potential
Less,nan
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt to public roadways.
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 'Post- construction re- vegetation, repaving or soil
stabilization of exposed soils shall'be completed in a timely manner according to the approved' Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan and verified by City `inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
1. If necessary, install windbreaks, or use trees /'vegetative windbreaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas to
prevent visible dust clouds from affecting nearby sensitive uses (e.g., residences).
m. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and visible dust emission
cannot be prevented from leavin&the construction.site(s).
n. Limit areas subject to disturbance during excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
o. Project sponsor shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion
control program and provide name and.phone•number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits.
d. If applicable, the project sponsor shall obtain operating permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
and shall provide evidence. of compliance prior to requesting a Certificate. of Occupancy. The Planning Department
and/or Building Division shall verify that the project' sponsor has obtained.an operating permit and that the facilities
conform'to the permit requirements prior to authorizing the Certificate of Occupancy.
5. HYd'rolociy and Water - Quality Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater' recharge such that there
would be a net deficit 'in aquifer volume -or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would'.not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration -of the course of.a
stream or river in a,manner which would result in
substantial:'eiosion orsiltation on- or off -site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the; site
or area,' including thiough4he alteration of the course of a
stream or river;, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of;surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on =or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
• the capacity of existing:or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
I Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Page 14
M
X
11
X
X
X
Southgate Initial Study Page 15
g: Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a; federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood'hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a .100 -year flood.hazard?area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people,or structures to a signi_ficantrisk of loss,
injury 'or death;involving flooding, including,flooding as
a result of the failure ofa levee or'dam?
i- Inundation by seiche,'tsunami =or mudflow?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w %Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated.
X
X
X
194
Discussions The site,, which has historically, been used. for agricultural production, has a slight slope ,(less than 1%o) .A shallow
drainage. ditch runs along the northeast side of the property adjacent to Ely Road. Groundwater is estimated to,occur'at.depths of 5
to 10 feet and,,drain;to the south/southwest. The site is.not'within the flood plain of.°the Petaluma River (FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 0603790003 C Revised. September 29, 1989).
Development of the site would result in increased, runoff as a result, of new impervious surfaces due to buildings,, parking areas,
street improvements ,,(i.e: stub /gutters /sidewalks)., Site clearing grading and compaction. of soil :necessary for project
construction has, the potential to result in discharge of sediment and temporary water quality,impacts The project would be
required to employ best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the City of Petaluma standard, conditions irrorder to
minimize water,quality impacts.
A key feature of the proposed Southgate site design is an extensive storm water management/biofiltration system that allows
runoff to be captured and absorbed on the site. `The 120400t wide linear park that runs alongithe'east edge of'the project site is
intended to function as: a• collector of storm water "from the 'entire site It; in turn slowly feeds into .a retention basin, which is
also intended to serves as a wildlife, habitat. and recreational amenity This storm water, system is expected to minimize the
amount' of runoff generated by site development. The runoff that would flow off-site into the'City's storm drain system would
be cleaner from bio- filtration and sediment load reduction:
Should the , Dam fail, there is potential for inundadomalongAdobe Creek, located approximately' %4 mile from the 11
projec"t;,site. A geotechnicaI. investigation of the Lawler Reservoir concluded, that -the embankinents,are,basically stable and
should not fail due to liquefaction, ground shaking, or °single =break rupture „were an earthquake with•a.magnitude of Tio occur
along the Rodger's Creek Fault (Community Health and,•Safety, Chapter 11, Petaluma General Plan): Furthermore; since the
property is.not within the 100 -year flood zone, no physical,improvements or'coristruction are:proposed as part of the project
that would increase exposure of people or structurmto flooding hazards.
A seiche is 'a rise or fall of-the surface of a water body that typically is! induced by strong winds. blowing "across a lohp_; axis in a.
lake or embayment. - A. tsunami generated by , a high magnitude earthquake- along:the,San Andreas or Rogers,Creek °fault. could'
generate, wave run -up along the western shoreline of the Bay: Perhaps more significant tsunami .waves would'be generated by
a large earthquake in the - nearshore waters of the Pacific 'Ocean, outside ;the ,Golden Gate. However, _giver, the distance of the
project site from the Bay and the Pacific Ocean, seiche effects, +and tsunami waves do 'not a significant threat to the site.
Likewise, mudnows would be insignificant due to the location of'the site relative to hill slopes.
The following mitigation, measures would reduce water related impacts'to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitor.'ine
5.,.1 All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that: minimizes . the sediment, and/or pollutants entering, directly
or indirectly' into the storm.drain system' or ground water. The project sponsor shall , incorporate the following provisions
Page 15
0
H
Southgate Initial Study Page 16
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
into the construction plans and' .specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits.
a. The project sponsor shall designate on the improvement plans, construction staging areas and. areas -for the storage of
any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction staging
areas shall be located away from any.drainage areas to prevent runoff, from construction areas from entering into the
drainage system. Areas designated, for storage of hazardous materials: shall include proper containment features to
prevent contamination from entering drainage areas 'inthe event of a spill or leak.
b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete, or washing thereof, or other,construction related materials or wastes, soil
or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall,.be allowed to enter any drainage system. All
discarded material including .washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed, of at an approved
disposal site. The project sponsor shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction
plans or in the specifications.
5.2 The project sponsor shall submit a.detailed grading and drainage plan for, review and approval` by the Engineering Section
and the Planning Division prior to approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of a grading permit. Project grading
and all site, drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in, conformance with the City of Petaluma
Engineering Department's "Standards Specifications, and with the Sonoma 'County Water Agency's "Flood Control
Design Criteria," if applicable. Drainage plans shall - include supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using
acceptable engineering methods. All hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design, if applicable, shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and the City Engineer.
® 5.3 The project sponsor shall pay all applicable Storm Drainage Impact Fees prior to final inspection or issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
5.4 The project sponsor shall submit Sonoma County Water Agency letter of approval.
5.5 The project sponsor shall develop and implement a comprehensive Urban'Runoff Control Plan submitted for review and
approval of the Planning Division prior to approval of improvement plans, or issuance of grading or building permits. At a
minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify specific types and sources of storm water: pollutants; (2) determine the location and
nature of potential impacts; and (3) specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design and
improvement plans. Construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning _Division for conformance with the Urban
Runoff Control Plan prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors
shall ,inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. Urban Runoff Control Programs shall include the following as appropriate:
a. Pesticides and fertilizers, shall not be applied to public landscape areas or any maintenance access way during the
rainy season.
b. All drainage improvement• plans shall include installation of permanent signs (concrete stamps or equivalent) at each
storm drain inlet:. The. sign at each inlet shall read "No Dumping Flows To The Petaluma River" or equivalent, and
shall be installed of the time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
5.6 The landscape irrigation system shall be designed to connect to the City's reclaimed water irrigation system, in accordance
with State Department of Public Health guidelines for use of reclaimed water.
0 6. Biological Resources Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
Page 16
Southgate Initial Study Page 17
as candidate sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional.plans, policies .or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game. or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Potential
Less
Less Than
No.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
.Impact
Imo orated,
b. Have a substantial, adverse effect on,any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
C. Have a subs tantial.'adverse effect on.federallyprotected'
wetlands:as; defined by Section 404 Off the Clean Water
Act (including, but. not limited to,, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc) 'through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with, the movement of any native
resident or migratory f sh orwildlife species or with
establis*d-mative resident or migratory�wildlife
corridors, or`impede use of native wildlife nursery ,
sites? .
e. Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting
biological. resources; such as a tree:preservation,policy or
ordinance.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an;adopted.Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community. Conservation.
Plan'or other approved-local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
/1
X
X
X 0
/1
Discussion: The is undeveloped and is sparsely vegetated with'remnant grasses. There are no trees on the subject
property. In. the past, the, property was used as pastureland and for hay production. .More recently, a portion of the site was
used to stockpile fill material, from nearby construction, sites for which a use permit was granted. The- site is bordered on three
sides by;three major. roadways, with,light industrial, residential agricultural uses beyond.
A Biological, Evaluation of the property concluded that the property does not provide.habitat °forany status plant
or animal species; and that there are no, jurisdictional wetlands on the property (Resource Management International, February
1997). Therefore, no impacts related to biological resources would result from the proposed project:
Mitii=_ation Measures/Monitoring Not applicable.
7. Noise Would the project result in:
a. Exposure persons 4o or generation of noise levels :in
excess.of standards established in.the,aocal' general plan
or'noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of'persons to,or generation of excessive
groundborne, vibration or groundbortie'noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
X
V_
X
Page 17
•
a�Pli 9 City of Petaluma, California
Community Development Department
Planning Division
'850 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA.94952.
�
Project Name: Southgate Residential Development
File Plumber: 03TSM0417
Address /Location: Northeast corner of Frates Road and Lakeville Highway
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures
This document has been developed pursuant ,wthe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to
ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Geology. and Soils. Mitigation Measures
3.1 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 .Pefaluma Mun cipal.Code) and Grading Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17,
Chapter 1 -7.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
•
32 The °project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a
registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and
Sediment Control' Plan shall be subject to review and, approval of the Planning Division and
Engineering Section, prior to issuance of'a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary
erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for
foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and
contaminants into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include
the following measures as applicable:
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be
miiiimiz and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to
reduce soil erosion. All construction.' and grading activities, including short- term
needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall
minimiz the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed
areas" shall be used for such purposes.
Iartment Requested By or Due.Date Page 1
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of 'Occupancy
BI? Building Division SPAR_C Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitorin
Southgate Residential Development
Re.porfng /Monitoring, Record Mitigation Measures for,Approval
ar�x %
AIRFF�1 `7A", ;4 RhQ ,Hl�'� ' DST �Sr IrrT� hl7k.
1]IIE d SFINItiHh ;l"; dPy I ,n�TrV { �4 g�, t 1 M1I111LSk,
•
b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protecte& from silt 'and;
sediment in storm runoff the use, of silt fences, :diversion berms, and check dams.
All exposed surface areasshall be mulched and. reseeded and all =cut and fill slopes shall be
protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control,blankets!as appropriate "
c. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on -.site
by October 1 sf. All grading activity shall be 'completed,by October 15th prior to the on-
set of the rainy'season,.wifh all disturbed areas stabilized and,.re�vegetated by October
31st, Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer;, extensions for short-.term grading
may be allowed, The Engineering Section in conjunction with any. specially permitted
rainy season grading may "require special erosion control measures.
3.3 All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic
safety (i reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls; bracing parapets, etc.).
3.4 All public and private improvernents'shalli be. subject to inspection by City staff for compliance
With the approved Irr proveinenf,Plins, prior to City acceptance:
3.5 Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of'
Uniform. Building Code, as well as ,state and local laws /ordinances. Construction plans s011
be subject to review and approval,by the Building Division prior:to: the issuance of a building
p ermit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building' Division and must conform
to all ,applicable code requirements 'and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
3.6 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a detailed'.
schedule for field inspection of work in progress, to ensure that, all applicable codes,
conditions and mitigation measures are being pro perly. implemented through construction of
the project.
3.7 The ,Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and approve the
landscaping plans, which show how disturbed areas are to be replanted. Any changes to'the
landscaping plan as required by SPARC shall be incorporated into plans that are submitted
for building permit issuance.
3.8 Prior to issuance of;a grading permit;" building, permifor approval of an improvement plamor
Final Map, the project; sponsor shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report
prepared by a registered - professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City
Engineer and "Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance" and
Grading and Erosion. Control Ordinance. The soils. report ,shal] ,addre"ss' site specific soil
conditions (i'.e.I highly �expansive and'include recommendations =for site preparation and
grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement; design, utilities; roads, bridges
and structures.
Department Reuuested By or Due Date
P15 Planning Division, FM Final Map
FM Fire Marsh. al BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD 'Building Division, SPARC Site Plan and.Architectural Review Cornrnitt_ee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
City of Petaluma, California
Southgate;, R'e'sidential'Developrnent
.d -Mitigation MeasuresJor Approval
r. \ If \ \� inglttQBY awl UpT6�� 9'�,�UlN1"��'�.
.,y' �., i�' li F111SIIELr� I��eST \NFL '�a
'Petaluma, California
3.9 The design of all, earthwork, cuts 'and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities., foundations and
structural components shall conform with the specifications and. criteria contained in the
geotec- finical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign
the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The
geotechnical - engineer shall also inspect, the construction work and shall certify to the City,
prior to ;acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the
improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
geotechnical specifications by the Engineering Section of the Community Development
Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits
and/or advertising for, bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may
be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in
accordance with'Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
Ai[. Mitigation Measures
4.1 The Project sponsor shall incorporate Best Management Practices into grading, building
and/or improvement plans, and clearly ,indicate these provisions in the plan specifications.
The construction contractor shall incorporate the following measures into the required
Erosion and' Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during
construction;
•
a. Grading and construction equipment; operated during construction activities shall be
properly, mufflered and maintained'to "minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned
off when, not in use.
b. Exposed, soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice
daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose.
Responsibility for watering to include weekends and holidays when work is not in
progress.
c. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area consisting of
an impermeable liner and drain, rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and
debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces
in the vicinity of the project shall be.routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust
carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other
similar covering devices, or maintain at least two feet of freeboard to reduce dust
emissions:
e. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non= toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging -areas at construction sites.
W rtment Requested By or Due Date Page 3
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering. CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Southgate, Residential Development.
City, of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record Mitigation Measures for Approval
f. Sweep daily (with water :sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited'
onto the adjacent,roads.
g. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible' soil .material is deposited
onto ihe.adiacent.roads.
h. Enclose, cover; water twice daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
i. Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
L Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as ;possible. Post - construction re-
vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely
manner according'-to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by
City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements Or issuance of Certifcate
Occupancy- +.
1. If necessary, install' windbreaks, or use trees /vegetative windbreaks at the windward
side(s) of construction areas 'to prevent visible dust clouds from affecting nearby'
sensitive uses- (e.g., residences).
m_ Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (iiistantaneous gusts) exceed 25
Mph and visibleAustemission cannot be prevented fromvleaving the construction site(s)'.
n. Limit areas subject to disturbance` during excavation,. grading, and other construction
activity at any one time.
o. Project sponsor shall designate a.person with authority toxequire increased watering to
monitor the dust and erosion control program and .provide name and phone number to
the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading' permits.
p. If 'applicable; the project sponsor shall. obtain operating permits from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, and shall provide evidence -of compliance. prior to
requesting a Certificate, of Occupancy. The Planning Department and/or Building
Division shall verify that the project sponsor,has obtained an operating'perinit' and that
the facilities conform, to the permit requirements prior to, author_ izing •the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Department Requested.By or`Due "Date
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate Occupancy
BD Building. Division SPARC Site.Tlan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring.
Sout1fgate Development City of Petaluma, California
�
° 14116
U6PT S OR Dlik IC FINISIIEC ��ST1FF1 '+�
Hydrology and Water Quality. Mitigation Measures
5.1 All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment
and/or. pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water.
The project sponsor shall incorporate the following provisions .into the construction plans
and specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits.
a. The project sponsor shall designate on the improvement plans, construction staging
areas and areas for the storage of,any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints,
etc;) to 'be used during construction. All construction staging areas shall be located
away :from any drainage areas to prevent: runoff from construction areas from entering
into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall
include proper containment features to prevent contamination from entering drainage
areas in the event of atspill or leak.
b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete; or washing thereof, or other construction
related materials or wastes, soil or pefroleum products or other organic or earthen
material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including
washings and any accidental„ spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved
• disposal site. The project sponsor shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or
facilities on thei construction plans or;in the specifications.
5.2 The project sponsor shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and
approval `by the Engineering Section and the Planning Division prior to approval of any
improvement plans or issuance of a grading permit. Project grading and all site drainage
improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma
Engineering. Department's "Standards Specifications," and with the Sonoma County Water
Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria," .if .applicable. Drainage plans shall include
supporting calculations of stone drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering
methods All hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design, if applicable, shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and the
City Engineer.
5.3' The project sponsor shall pay all, applicable rStorm Drainage Impact Fees prior to final
inspection or issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy.
5.4. The project sponsor, shall submit Sonoma County Water Agency letter of approval.
artment Requested By or `Due Date
PD Planning'Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Page 5
Southgate Residential Development City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record d - Mitigation'Measures for Approval
5.5 The project: sponsor shall develop and. implement a comprehensive Urban Runoff Control
Plan submitted for review and ,approval of the Planning Division prior to approval of
improvement pans,, or issuance of grading or building permits. At a. minimum, the ,plan
shall: (1) identify specific types and :sources of storm water pollutants; (2) determine the
location and nature ofpotentiat impacts and (3) specify and incorporate appropriate control
measures into the project design and improvement plans. Construction plans shall be
reviewed. by the Planning Division for conformance with, the Urban Runoff Control Plan
prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading; or'building permits. City
inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of
improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Urban Runoff Control Programs
shall include the following as appropriate:
a. Pesticides and fertilizers shall. .not. be applied to' public landscape areas or any
maintenance access way during the rainy season.
b. All drainage. improvement plans shall include installation of permanent signs (concrete .
stamps or equivalent) of each storm drain inlet. The ,sign at each inlet shall read ' No
Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River" ,or equivalent;. and, shall be installed at the
time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Noise. Mitigation Measures •
7.1 All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. -to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on Saturdays: Construction shall.be,prohibited on 'Sundays and
all holidays recognized by the :City of Petaluma, unless a permit is firsi secured from the
City Manager (or his /her designee) for additional hours. 'There will- be no start up of
machines nor equipment' prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of
materials nor equipment prior to 7 :30 a.m., nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no
servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m.,, Monday through Friday: Plan submitted for City
permit shall include the language above.
7.2 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly
muffled'and maintamed'to minimize, noise. Equipment shall be turned off when navin use.
7.3 'Construction maintenance, storage, and' staging areas for 'construction equipment .shall avoid
proximity to residential areas to; ,the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction
.equipment, such -as compressors, mixers, etc.,, shall be placed away from residential areas
and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when
possible.
7.4 The project sponsor shall designate a Project Manager with authority to ;implement the
mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from the
neighborhood, prior to issuance 'of a 'building /grading permit. The Project Manager shall
determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early;: faulty ° muffler, etc.) and shall
take prompt action to correct the problem.
Department Requested By Due Date
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
:FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG' Engineering; CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division n, SPARC Site Plaand Architectural Review Comm_ ittee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Southgate Res deun l 'Development City of Petaluma, California
Rec - Mitigation Measures for Approval
r�lFV1f,� 'F:FQBY� ��gU�7F.sryi �ry1�hNT ^tu!'��
DFN7 y� raOF:UULr� r�
�FI�ICIILL� S7 OFF
7.5 Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the Southgate Subdivision, the project sponsor
shall submit an acoustical report prepared by a qualified acoustical professional, which
demonstrates that the specified location, construction and height of the. proposed noise walls
will provide the mitigation necessary to comply with the Ldn 45 (interior) and Ldn 60
(exterior use areas) noise standards for residential and open space uses, as established in the
City of Petaluma General Plan. The acoustical report shall be subject to peer review and shall
be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of the Final Map.
7.6 The project sponsor shall submit an acoustical report(s) prepared by a qualified acoustical
professional, which demonstrates that the proposed' applicable interior and exterior noise
standards as established by general plan noise policies shall be met. Said report shall be
submitted in conjunction with applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review for each
phase of development, including park and future affordable housing uses. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit for that
phase,of development. The report shall include'but not be limited to the following:
a. Recommendations regarding placement of buildings and/or installation of sound walls that
would shield.roadway noise from exterior use areas in order to meet City noise standards.
b. Sound transmission class ratings .(STC) for windows and floor /ceiling assemblies on
multi - family residential units necessary to achieve Ldn of 45 dBA interior noise level, as
well as STC'levels between units.
c. The need for modified exterior wall constructions at second floor rooms along the
roadways necessary to -achieve Ldn,of 451 dBA interior noise level. These modifications
may include extra layers of gypsum board or additional stud framing.
d. Plans submitted for a building permit shall conform to the specifications identified in
this study.
7.7 All land uses shall conform to the Performance Standards listed in Section 22 -300 of the
Petaluma Zoning Code.
Visual'Quality and Aesthetics Mitigation Measures
8.1 All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the. project site and access ways and shielded to
prevent glare and - intrusion onto adjacent residential, properties. Plans submitted for project
review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which include photometric plans of active
open space areas, and identify the location and design of all proposed exterior lighting,
including streetlights.
8.2 Detailed site plans, architectural plans, landscape plans, including details for exterior lighting
and soundwalls shall conform to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Design Guidelines and
shall be subject to review by the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to
issuance of building permits.
8.3 All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
placed underground.
artment Requested By or Due Date Page 7
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Southgate Residential Development City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval'
•
8.4 Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and
other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility. Development
plans for lots proposed at ,street intersections or in other potentially lighi- sensitive locations
shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features, to screen'4riterior living space from
the headlight glare.
Transportation /Traffic. Mitigation Measures
1'0 -1A four :way. stop control or. traffic signal shall be installed, at the,.Frates Road intersection
with Calle Ranchero.
10 -2A four way,stop control or a traffic ,signal shall be installed at Frates Road intersection with
South Ely Road.
10 -3 Stop controls shall be provided for. exiting the project at the, proposed:.access point at Lakeville
Circle.
104The project shall comply with the requirements of the City of'Peialuma Bicycle Plan. Plans
for each phase of site development shall be referred to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PBAC) for review.and comment to ensure compliance with the City Bicycle
Plan.
10 =5The project,, sponsor shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval' of •
City's Traffic Engineer; prior to issuance of a building or gradiing permit. At least one lane
of traffic in :each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction period,
unless a temporary detour plan is submitted and approved the City Traffic Engineer. Heavy
construction traffic and haul trucks shall avoid school -zones between school arrival and
departures'times. During non-'working hours, open trenches and construction hazards shall
be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades approved 'by the Street'Superintendent to
warn oncoming, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential safety: hazards.
1.0 -6All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after 'completion , of'any project'
related utility instal lation,activities. All trench' pavement restoration within existing asphalt
streets shall receive a, slurry. seal. If the trench cut 'is' within the parking strip, then only. the
parking strip needs a. slurry seal. 'Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry seal.
10 -7Any pedestrian access through and/or adjacent to the project, site :shall remain unobstructed "
during project construction or an alternate route established as approved by the Police Chief
and City Engineer.
Department
PD PlannmgDivision
FM' Fire Marshal,
ENG Engineering,
BD Building Division
Requested By
°.or Due Date
FM
Final Map
BP
Building Permit
CO
Certificate. of Occupancy
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM
Long-Term Monitoring
Southgate Residentia Development
.. MeasuresJor Approval
� llF.NT r OIiDUEi iFINISI1hC �^'�SIAFF��
F %. t ,�`; s �sr. , i u •.m i . Ilt, ; �` � � .,} `13z ki r - .s.m.:�' "f
S \monitoring \Southgate111.doc
City of Petaluma, California
10 -8 Frontage improvements shall be installed'in accordance with the City's Street Standards to
provide for safe access to and . -from .the site. Turning lanes, acceleration and deceleration
lanes, curb cuts, median islands, signing and striping shall be incorporated into the design
plans as required by the City s Traffic Engineer. Pedestrian and bicycle access connecting
the City's bikeways and pedestrian circulation through the site shall be incorporated into
the development plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to review and
approval of Traffic Engineer prior; to issuance of a grading or building permit. All
street frontage improvements shall be constructed to City standards and inspected by City
Inspectors, prior to final inspections, or acceptance of improvements
10 -9 The project sponsor shall be responsible .for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation
Fees. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a building
permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy
10- 10Theproject sponsor shall install - a transit stop on Frates Road including a bench, shelter and
pedestrian access, as required by the City of Petaluma.
10 -l1The project sponsor shall be responsible for a fair -share contribution to fund to the
construction of signal and/or other improvements at the Frates /Adobe Road intersection.
The fair -share contribution shall be based upon the project's contribution to the cumulative
traffic projected for this intersection.
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
15 -1 . If, during the .course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological
resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted
immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist. The City of Petaluma Planning Division and a qualified
archaeologist (i' .-e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional
Archaedlogists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on -site.
When contacted, "Community Development Department staff and the archaeologist shall
immediately visit the site. to determine the ektent, of the resources and to develop proper
mitigation measures required for the discovery.
rtment Requested By or Due Date Page 9
PI) Planning Division FM Final Map
FM F.ire,Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Southgate Initial Study Page 18
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. A substantial temporar or periodic increase in'ain6ient
noise:levels °in the project vicinity above, levels existing
without 'the project?
e. For a project located within as airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a,public aitport'orpublic use airport, would'the project
expose people „residing or working in.the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f For a:project within the vicinity of private airstrip
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potential
Less Tfian
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant'
Significant
Impact
Impact:
w /, Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated .
X
X
X
Discussion: The: major' noise, source affecting the project site is vehicular tra-ffic on Lakeville. Highway, and to a -much lesser
extent; Frates and:'.Ely Roads., The site is. not.significaritly impacted by aircraft noise, and is not within the noise contours for the
Petaluma 'Municipal Airport located approximately 1.5 ;miles northwest of the site (Coml)rehensiVel Airport Land Use Plan for
Sonoma County, January 2001:). Surrounding land uses include, residential uses to the north and northwesY(across Frates Road),
light 'industrial - uses to the west/southwest (across Lakeville Highway), :and agricultural uses ,to .;the east and northeast. The
Community Health. and Safety Chapter of P.etaluma,General Plan, which:includes the State mandated Noise Element; identifies
residences, schools, churches and hospitals as examples of sensitive noise receptors. The General' Plan stipulates that interior
noise levels for residential uses shall be mitigated to,Ld 45, .and L d ; 60 is'established,as the reasonable noise level for exterior
use areas. Noise environments with levels up to 70 L are considered conditionally acceptable', ,provided that a detailed
analysis of 'the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the project design.
The General Plan notes 'that :conventional construction, assuri ing closed windows and 'fresh air, supply systems or. air 1.
conditioning, will normally meet- these requirements. The nearest residential property is located across .Frates Road,
approximately 1.00 feet from the project site. A masonry wall is located along the north side of Frates, between the sidewalk
and.the residential properties.
According to the 'CEQA Guidelines Appendix; G, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it
would result in "exposure of persons to or gerieratioli of noise. levels in excess of : standards established in , the local. general
plan of noise ordinance; or applicable: standards of-other agencies: For purposes of assessing noise impacts associated with the
proposed project; an interior noise level of Ld„ 45, and L d „ . 60' for• exterior use areas was used as the significance threshold,
based on,the CEQA criteria•cited above.
A Noise Mitigation Study prepared by Rosen Goldberg & Der Acoustical Consultants presents the results of on -site noise
monitoring and the zpTojected future noise levels calculated for the backyards of homes proposed along the two major
roadways: Frates:Road and Lakeville•H ghway (S R1,16). The future noise levels were calculated,both with.and without a noise
barrier (soundwall) proposed as,part.of'the project. Note: The addendum: to the Noise Mitigation Study:assumed the height'
of the proposed wall to range from 6 to 10. feet in height.
Noise measurements were conducted to quantify the existing noise environment, including one .continuous 36-hour noise
measurement and. three short-term 15- minute _measurements. To determine the sound level in"the proposed backyards,
adjustments were made to account for distance and future traffic. The in noise sources That affect the ; project site are
vehicular: traffic on Lakeville ,High. way and Frates' 'R'oad. Lakeville Highway has a significant amount of truck traffic. Frates
Road also has truck traffic, but to a lesser extent: According to the; project traffic study traffic volumes are ,expected to .
increase by.7% and 19 % along Lakeville Highway and Frates Road, respectively. This traffic volume,' increase corresponds to ”
a future roadway noise increase of less than 1 dB for both roadways.
Page 18
Southgate Initial Study Page 19
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signi:ficam
Significant
Impact
Impact
wNitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Interior Noise Levels
The noise mitigation report concludes that an interior noise level of Ldn ,of 45 dBA: can be met through the use of high quality
sound rated windows. In addition, modified exterior wall constructions may be .needed at second floor ;rooms along the
roadways. These modifications may include extra layers of gypsum board or additional'stud:framing.
Outdoor Noise Levels
An: addendum to the original noise. studywas submitted on February 6, 2004, to address the revised plans submitted for the
project. This addendum concludes thai , noise levels in all backyards would be reduced to a DaylNight= Average Sound Level
(DNL) of 60 dBA provided that a 6 to IOfoot noise barrier (sound wall) is provided along Lakeville Highway.
Mitigation Measures below, which require that all - proposed residential uses meet interior and exterior significance thresholds,
would be necessary to reduce noise impacts to less than significant. "Itshould be notedithatthe original Noise Mitigation Study
characterizes the interior Ldn' 45 and exterior Ldn 60 noise levels referenced in the City's General Plan as "goals" rather than
standards. In addition, the study also references Caltrans' noise abatement criterion. ,If the City of Petaluma' general plan did
not specify any noise standards, it night be appropriate to consider the Calirans noise abatement criteria. However, that is not
the case. The study further points out that although the Ldn for these 45 homes is up to •4 dB above the City's outdoor "goal ", a
MB increase in noise levels is considered a just noticeable difference, while a 5 dB change is clearly noticeable but not
dramatic. Nevertheless, absent any clear policy bythe City of Petaluma that points to a different interpretation of the general
plan noise standards, the interior Ldn 45 and exterior..Ldn 60 noise levels referenced' in the City's General Plan are considered
to be the'most appropriate thresholds for assessing' noise impacts, in accordance with.CEQA criteria.
Temporary Construction Noise
• Construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily increase noise levels on the site and adjacent
properties. Noise levels during construction would fluctuate depending on the ',particular construction phase (grading,
foundation, framing, painting, etc). The, mitigation measures identified below would reduce temporary construction - related
noise impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorine
7.1 All construction activities shall' be limited to 7 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through.Friday and (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a
permit is first secured from the City °Manager (or his/her, designee) for additional hours. There will be no start up of
machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery Of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30
a.m. nor past 5:00 p:m., Monday,through,Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6 :45 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plan
submitted for City permit shall include ,the. language above.
7.2 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to minimize
noise. Equipment shall "be turned off when.notin use.
7.3 Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas
to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction equipment such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall be
placed away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used
when possible.
7.4 The project sponsor shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the- mitigation measures who will be
responsible for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building /grading permit. The
Project Manager shall determine the cause of noise. complaints (e.g. starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take
prompt action to correct the problem.
• 7.5 Prior to the approval of Improvement.Plans for the Southgate Subdivision, the project;sponsor shall submit an acoustical
report prepared by a qualified acoustical professional, which demonstrates that the "specified location, construction and
height of the proposed noise walls will-provide the mitigation necessary to comply with,the Ldn 45 (interior) and Ldn 60
(exterior use areas) noise standards for.residential and open space uses, as established in the City of Petaluma General
Page 19
Southgate Initial Study Page 20
Potential. Less ;Than Less Than No
significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact w /Mitigation Impact
Incorporated'
Plan. The acoustical report shall be subject to peer review and shall be approved' by ,the. Director of Community
Development prior o approval:of tl e Final Map.
7.6 The project sponsor shall submit an. acoustical .report(s),prepared by a. qualified acoustical professional which demonstrates
that the proposed, applicable interior and exterior noise standards as established by general plan.. noise policies shall be met.
Said report shall be submitted in conjunction with applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review for each phase of
development, including - park and future affordable, housing uses. The report shall be reviewed, and, approved by the Planning
Division prior issuance of a building permit for that phase of development. The report shall include .but nocbe limited to
the following:
a. Recommendations regarding placement; of: buildings and/or, installation of sound walls that would shield roadway noise
from exterior use areas in order to meet City noise standard's.
b. Sound transmission class ratings (STC) for windows and floor /ceiling assemblies on multi - family residential' units
necessary'to achieve Ldn of 45 dBA interior noise level, as well as STC levels between units.
c. The need :for modified exterior wall constructions at .second floor rooms along the roadways' necessary to achieve Ldn
of 45 dBA interior noise level. These modifications may include extra layers of gypsum board' or. additional .stud
framing.
Plans submitted for a building permit shall conform to the specifications: identified in this study..
7.7 All land uses shall conform to the Performance • Standards listed in Section 22 -300 of the Petaluma Zoning Code.
•
0
Page-20
;Southgate,lnitial Study Page 21
•
8: Visual Quality and Aesthetics Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potential
Lcss Tlian
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not
limited to,, treesjock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual, character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create anew source of substantial light or which '
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion: The project site does not presently contain any structures or natural` features (e:g. trees)'having aesthetic significance.
However, the proposed development, combined with existing and other proposed development in the vicinity, would visually
impinge upon the open, semi -rural character of the lands east of the project site: Although the site is not designated as a scenic
resource, the Sonoma CountyGeneral Plan designates Lakeville Highway, which runs. along the west side of the; site, as ,a scenic
corridor, and requires thath gh visibility 'natural vegetation landscapes be maintained. As such, County staff has requested
that the City consider these objectives ;in environmental analysis and mitigation, and specifically during review of landscaping,
- fencing and the location and height of near Lakeville Highway (the project; site is not within the County's jurisdiction).
• Relevant policies in the City's general plan include the following:.
• Preserve the rural backdrop and maintain views of important natural features including the Sonoma Mountains, Petaluma
River, and western hills (Community'Character, Chapter 3, Objective 3.5b)
• Preserve ridgelines and hilltops in view corridors in view corridors in their open state (Community Character, Chapter 3,
Objective 3.5c)
• Within the context that growth will occur, every effort shall be made to preserve and enhance the views of surrounding
lands, hills, and ridges (Community Character, Chapter 3,, Policy 2).
• Low- profile, horizontal development shall be encouraged. Locations and criteria to allow for taller buildings will be
studied (Community Character, Chapter 3, Policy32).
• Well- designed developments that will be harmonious with their setting and/or enhance the city's image shall be
encouraged.
Revised plans submitted' for the project, propose 21;6 detached single-family homes, and includes a 2.51 -acre future
affordable senior housing site (Parcel A) that: could be developed with a, maximum of 80 units. The project also proposes a
1.09- acre,public park (Parcel B), a stormwater4etention facility4inear open:space along thesouth, side of the site within the
Urban Separator;and;adjacent to the City limits (Parcel C), a 1.12 -acre parcel at the corner of Frates Road and Lakeville
.Highway (Parcel D), and severai'linear parcels along Frates and South. Ely Road to be used for entry landscaping (Parcels
E -K). Per the revised PUD development standards ;submitted by the.,applicant, the single family homes would have a
maximum height of 32 feet. Future affordable housing buildings proposed on Parcel A would.,have a maximum height of
47 feet for three- story,buildings 35 feet for two -story buildings. Givenrthat ihe.mqj6rity of the site would be limited to two
story single-family homes with a_ maximum height of 32 feet, no significant visual obstruction would be expected from the
proposed buildings.
As discussed in Section 7 of'thi's Initial Study (Noise), the Noise Mitigation. Study prepared.for the project indicates that a noise
barrier, or sound wall ; proposed along the perimeter property line as part of the. project tire assumed height of the wall
for purposes :of noise mitigation is six to 10 feet, : based on the addendum to noise study submitted February 6, 2004.
Assuming that,perimeter walls along,.Lakeville Highway and Frates Road are as high as 10 feet, iris possible that these walls
could result in some view_ blockage of 'the mountains for drivers traveling along the..project: site. However, such an impact is
considered less than significant, any -view blockage would be partial, and a significant horizontal field of view'would remain open
to toward the mountains.
Page 21
X
X
X
X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not
limited to,, treesjock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual, character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create anew source of substantial light or which '
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion: The project site does not presently contain any structures or natural` features (e:g. trees)'having aesthetic significance.
However, the proposed development, combined with existing and other proposed development in the vicinity, would visually
impinge upon the open, semi -rural character of the lands east of the project site: Although the site is not designated as a scenic
resource, the Sonoma CountyGeneral Plan designates Lakeville Highway, which runs. along the west side of the; site, as ,a scenic
corridor, and requires thath gh visibility 'natural vegetation landscapes be maintained. As such, County staff has requested
that the City consider these objectives ;in environmental analysis and mitigation, and specifically during review of landscaping,
- fencing and the location and height of near Lakeville Highway (the project; site is not within the County's jurisdiction).
• Relevant policies in the City's general plan include the following:.
• Preserve the rural backdrop and maintain views of important natural features including the Sonoma Mountains, Petaluma
River, and western hills (Community'Character, Chapter 3, Objective 3.5b)
• Preserve ridgelines and hilltops in view corridors in view corridors in their open state (Community Character, Chapter 3,
Objective 3.5c)
• Within the context that growth will occur, every effort shall be made to preserve and enhance the views of surrounding
lands, hills, and ridges (Community Character, Chapter 3,, Policy 2).
• Low- profile, horizontal development shall be encouraged. Locations and criteria to allow for taller buildings will be
studied (Community Character, Chapter 3, Policy32).
• Well- designed developments that will be harmonious with their setting and/or enhance the city's image shall be
encouraged.
Revised plans submitted' for the project, propose 21;6 detached single-family homes, and includes a 2.51 -acre future
affordable senior housing site (Parcel A) that: could be developed with a, maximum of 80 units. The project also proposes a
1.09- acre,public park (Parcel B), a stormwater4etention facility4inear open:space along thesouth, side of the site within the
Urban Separator;and;adjacent to the City limits (Parcel C), a 1.12 -acre parcel at the corner of Frates Road and Lakeville
.Highway (Parcel D), and severai'linear parcels along Frates and South. Ely Road to be used for entry landscaping (Parcels
E -K). Per the revised PUD development standards ;submitted by the.,applicant, the single family homes would have a
maximum height of 32 feet. Future affordable housing buildings proposed on Parcel A would.,have a maximum height of
47 feet for three- story,buildings 35 feet for two -story buildings. Givenrthat ihe.mqj6rity of the site would be limited to two
story single-family homes with a_ maximum height of 32 feet, no significant visual obstruction would be expected from the
proposed buildings.
As discussed in Section 7 of'thi's Initial Study (Noise), the Noise Mitigation. Study prepared.for the project indicates that a noise
barrier, or sound wall ; proposed along the perimeter property line as part of the. project tire assumed height of the wall
for purposes :of noise mitigation is six to 10 feet, : based on the addendum to noise study submitted February 6, 2004.
Assuming that,perimeter walls along,.Lakeville Highway and Frates Road are as high as 10 feet, iris possible that these walls
could result in some view_ blockage of 'the mountains for drivers traveling along the..project: site. However, such an impact is
considered less than significant, any -view blockage would be partial, and a significant horizontal field of view'would remain open
to toward the mountains.
Page 21
Southgate, Initial Study Page 22
Potential
Less .Than
Less Than.
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w%Miti'gation
Impact
Inco orated
The proposed development will introduce new landscaping and site improvements to a highly visible All proposed buildings,
landscaping, noise barriers (sound walls) signage and lighting shall be subject to review and approval liy°theCity of Petaluma Site
Plan and Architectural,Review Committed (SP.ARC) to ensure that the bulk, height, color and siting ^:of the proposed structures and
other improvements are appropriate and compatible with the immediate neighborhood and Site P,lan:and Architectural Review
criteria. The following mitigation measures would reduce visua /aesthetic impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Mea "sures/Monitoring
8.1 All -exterior fighting shall be - directed onto .the project site and access ways and shielded, to prevent glare and intrusion onto
adjacent residential properties. :Plans submitted, for project 'review and approval shall incorporate `lighting plans, which
include photometric plans of active open ,space areas, and' identify. the location -and design of all proposed exterior. lighting,
including; streetlights:
8.2 Detailed. site plans, arc hitecturalplans, landscape plans including details for exterior lighting and souridwalls'shall conform to
the Site Plan, and Architectural `Review 'Design Guidelines and :shall be subject to review by the City's Site. Plan and
Architectural Review Committee,prior to issuance of building permits:
8.3 All new a rid "existing, overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shalLbe placed underground.
8.4 Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and other. light-sensitive living
areas of any nearby;,residential lot, ''home or facility. "Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections; or in other
potentially light- sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to. screen interior living space
from. the glare.
9. . Hazards &, Hazardous Materials Would the project:
A. Create a significant hazard to, the public or`the
envtronment'tht.60 h'the routine transport use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a signifiwant hazard to the public or -the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset_and .
accident conditions involving the ,- release of hazardous "
materials: into the environment?
C. Emit hazardous . emissions orhandle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials substances, or waste within one-.
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. ,Be located on a,site which is'included on a list of "
hazardous materials, sites compiled pursuantto.
Government Code .Section 65962:5, and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the or the:
environment?
e For a project located within an airport land use plan or,,
where such a'plan; has; not:been..adop'ted, within two miles
of a public airport,or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in
the project area ?'
For a project within the vicinity of a,private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
X
X
X
X
"X
r
11
Page 22
Southgate Initial Study Page 23
•
residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency°response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a sigtficant risk of loss,
injury or death involvingwildland fires; including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
inco
a
Discussion: The site is currently vacant, and undeveloped. Based on, the conclusions of a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment prepared for the project site, there 'is no indication that are ,any hazardous substances, above or below the ground,
that would result in the release of hazardous substances during grading or construction. . Given the past agricultural use of the
site, it is possible that agricultural chemicals, including ;pesticides, were applied in : conjunction with past farming practices.
However, this typically does not.pose a concern except where pesticide- storage or mixing occurred resulting in concentrated
residues. The report concluded that there. were no unusual surface conditions observed to, suggest the presence of pesticide
residues and there were no previous structures identified on the site which might have been used for pesticide storage of
mixing. As stated previously a portion of "site has been used to stockpile fill material from nearby construction sites, for
which a use permit was granted. Duritig the Phase I Assessment, information was obtained that'identifies the source of the fill
material as originating from local residential or commercial developments or from native soils: underlying roadways where the
potential for contamination is low. Except, for miscellaneous inert materials (concrete, plastic irrigation pipe), there were no
i other observations made to indicate that fill soils contained potentially hazardous materials.
The Phase I Assessment identified two properties near the project site that are known to contain or have contained hazardous
in Sola Optical USA, located southeast and downgradient from the site, across Lakeville Highway at 3600 Lakeville
Highway, Js listed as a federal'Superfund site supervised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Sola site
has been subject to extensive remedial: work and continues to be monitored. Groundwater samples taken at upgradient
monitoring wells located between'the _Sola site and the project site did not show signs of contamination. Groundwater has
consistently been shown to'be in a southwesterly flow direction beneath the Sola site, in the opposite direction from the project
site. The other property identified in the Phase' I study is located at 1,520 Rio Nido Court which is located northwest, and cross
gradient from the project site in a residential area.. In February 1997, an apparent .sewer line break allowed the discharge of
approximately 1375 gallons of raw sewage to - enter a storm drain that discharged to surface waters of Adobe Creek. The
release appears to have been a one -time incident, and does notpose a threat to the project site (Kleinfelder, Inc., 1999).
The proposed project is,. not expected 'to. involve the use or storage of hazardous substances beyond those standard cleaning
supplies found +most residences;,throughout Petaluma., Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any hazard' to the
public or the "environmeni. related .to the release of hazardous substances.
The proposal will. not interfere with emergency evacuation plans, create potential health hazards, or result in an increase due to
flammable, brush, grass or trees The proposal is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Petaluma Airport, is not within the
boundaries of.,airportland useplan and wouldnot create a safety hazardfor people residing in or working in the project area. The
property does not exist withiwan area where, wildfires are, likely to occur. Therefore, no_ significant impacts related to hazards or
hazardous materials are expected to occur as a result of this proposal.
Mitigation Measures/MonitoriLig None, required.
10. 'Transportation %traffic Would'the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the xtumber of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
Page 23
Southgate Initial Study Page 24
on_roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed,, eitherindividually or cumulatively..a level of
service standard established' by'the county congestion
management agency for designated:roads,or highways?
C. Result ma changein air traffic pattern s, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change 'in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
'incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Resultin °inadequate emergency access ?.
f Result in inadequate, parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies; plans or programs
supporting Alternative transportation,: i.e., bus turnouts,.
bicycle racks)?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated'
•
Discussion: Three major' roadways border the project site. These are Lakeville Highway (State Route ,116), Frates Road ,and
South Ely Road. For the purposes of this traffic assessment, Frates Road is, considered an.easf= west °roadway while South'Ely ,
Road and Lakeville Highway are considered north south roadways. The project proposes vehicular access at:two.locadons °on°
Frates Road opposite Calle Ranchero and Lakeville Circle, and a third access is proposed on Ely Road. The :following is a
description of the roadways "that border the site:
Lakeville Highway'is a four -lane arterial roadway with signals at of the major intersections in the vicinity of the`project site.
Easterly, -of Frates Road, Lakeville:Highway narrows to a two-'lane highway.
Frates Road is .a two 'lane. arterial :with side street .stop controls" at Calle Ranchero, Lakeville Circle, South Ely Road ,and
Adobe Road. The project proposes to 'maintain Frates Road in its' current location. The existing intersections along Frates
Road Calle Ranchero,and Lakeville Circle would`be used to provide access into the$roject site:
South Ely Boulevard/Ely Road is a two lane arterial is- a,four -lane road north of Frates, but narrows to two lanes at Casa
Grande Road' to accommodate a roundabout at thatintersection. South of Frates Road, Ely Road is a two-lane road.
A. traffic analysis was prepared by Dowling Associates, Inc. (October 2003); which e Valuates the potential traffic impacts that
would be expected from the project as currently proposed. An addendum to the traffic study was submitted on February 6,
2004, which analyzes'the,proposed,South Ely access.
The methodology used for this ;analysis is consistent with 'industry standards and practices. The traffic_ analysis evaluates 1.
operating conditions Suring the AM (l,'15 to 815) and. PM (430 to 5:30) peak hours under four "scenarios: existing conditions
(March 2001) „:existing plus project conditions; future (cumulative) conditions and future (cumulative), plus project'conditions.
Further, this analysis "builds upon the existing condition and "cumulative traffic conditions evaluated in the March 7,'2001. Park
Central Development cumulative analysis. However, new peak hour turning movernent traffic counts, were' conducted .along
Frates Road! at Calle Ranchero, Lakeville Circle, Ely Road and Adobe Road to insure counts which best, reflect existing,
conditions. The counts along Lakeville Highway are within 0 to 3 years old: as required,by City staff.
The, following intersections were included in thisanalysis: �!
• Lakeville Highway and'U.S'. 101 Southbound Ramps
• ” Lakeville Highway and U S. 1 10 1 Northbound Ramps
Page
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
Discussion: Three major' roadways border the project site. These are Lakeville Highway (State Route ,116), Frates Road ,and
South Ely Road. For the purposes of this traffic assessment, Frates Road is, considered an.easf= west °roadway while South'Ely ,
Road and Lakeville Highway are considered north south roadways. The project proposes vehicular access at:two.locadons °on°
Frates Road opposite Calle Ranchero and Lakeville Circle, and a third access is proposed on Ely Road. The :following is a
description of the roadways "that border the site:
Lakeville Highway'is a four -lane arterial roadway with signals at of the major intersections in the vicinity of the`project site.
Easterly, -of Frates Road, Lakeville:Highway narrows to a two-'lane highway.
Frates Road is .a two 'lane. arterial :with side street .stop controls" at Calle Ranchero, Lakeville Circle, South Ely Road ,and
Adobe Road. The project proposes to 'maintain Frates Road in its' current location. The existing intersections along Frates
Road Calle Ranchero,and Lakeville Circle would`be used to provide access into the$roject site:
South Ely Boulevard/Ely Road is a two lane arterial is- a,four -lane road north of Frates, but narrows to two lanes at Casa
Grande Road' to accommodate a roundabout at thatintersection. South of Frates Road, Ely Road is a two-lane road.
A. traffic analysis was prepared by Dowling Associates, Inc. (October 2003); which e Valuates the potential traffic impacts that
would be expected from the project as currently proposed. An addendum to the traffic study was submitted on February 6,
2004, which analyzes'the,proposed,South Ely access.
The methodology used for this ;analysis is consistent with 'industry standards and practices. The traffic_ analysis evaluates 1.
operating conditions Suring the AM (l,'15 to 815) and. PM (430 to 5:30) peak hours under four "scenarios: existing conditions
(March 2001) „:existing plus project conditions; future (cumulative) conditions and future (cumulative), plus project'conditions.
Further, this analysis "builds upon the existing condition and "cumulative traffic conditions evaluated in the March 7,'2001. Park
Central Development cumulative analysis. However, new peak hour turning movernent traffic counts, were' conducted .along
Frates Road! at Calle Ranchero, Lakeville Circle, Ely Road and Adobe Road to insure counts which best, reflect existing,
conditions. The counts along Lakeville Highway are within 0 to 3 years old: as required,by City staff.
The, following intersections were included in thisanalysis: �!
• Lakeville Highway and'U.S'. 101 Southbound Ramps
• ” Lakeville Highway and U S. 1 10 1 Northbound Ramps
Page
Southgate' Initial Study
•
Page 25
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inc o orated
• Lakeville Highway and Baywood Drive
• Lakeville Highway and Marina Avenue
• Lakeville Highway and Casa Grande. Road
• Lakeville Highway and South McDowell Boulevard
• Lakeville Highway and Frates Road -Cadet Lane
• Frates Road at Lakeville Circle (proposed access point)
• Frates Road at Calle Ranchero (proposed access point)
• Frates Road at South Ely Blvd./Ely Road
• Frates Road at Adobe Road
The traffic analysis assumed the following mix of land uses:
Single - Family Residential 230 units
Senior Housing 80 units
Park 1.3 acres,
The major findings and recommendations discussed in this report are summarized below:
Project Trip Generation. The proposed project is expected to generate 2,493 daily vehicle trips, which includes 179 new a.m.
peak hour. trips and 242 new p.m. peak hour 'trips. Regarding the 4.6 -acre open space park and the 1.34 acre neighborhood
park, normal usage of these facilities would be by local residents and employees. These facilities are not intended to meet
• other recreational facility demands for the other residents within the City. Therefore, it is assumed that the use of these
recreational facilities would not generate a significant amount of trips.
Existing Intersection Conditions (no project). All of the study intersections currently operate, acceptably at Level of Service
(LOS) C or better except for one location:
• Frates Road at Adobe Road operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Based upon the peak hour signal
warrant criteria, a traffic signal is warranted for Frates Road at Adobe Road.
Existing Plus Project Conditions. When the traffic generated by the project is added to the existing condition, all of the
analysis intersections operate at LOS D except for two locations, which operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F).
• Frates Road at South Ely Road is reduced to LOS E in the PM peak hour
Frates Road at Adobe Road is reduced to LOS F .
Based upon the peak hour signal warrant criteria, a traffic signal is only warranted for Frates Road at Adobe Road.
Mitigation measures are recommended that would result in acceptable levels of service at all intersections under existing plus
project conditions.
Cumulative Conditions (no project) -With the exception of the Frates Road intersections at South Ely Road and Adobe Road,
which operate at level of service E or F, all of the other intersections operate at level of service D or better under cumulative
conditions without any development on the site.
Cumulative plus Project Conditions - When the project traffic is added cumulative conditions, four intersections along Frates
would have unacceptable levels of service (all intersections unsignalized ),.
• • Frates Road at Calle Ranchero — LOS E
• Frates Road at Lakeville Circle -LOS E
• Frates Road at Ely /South Ely Road — LOS E
• Frates Road at Adobe Road — LOS F
Page 25
Southgate Initial Study Page 26
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
All other analysis intersections operate at LOS D or better under this scenario. It.should be noted that,based upon the peak hour
signal warrant criteria, a traffic signal is only warranted for Frates;Road at Adobe Road. Signal warrants were not met for the
other three intersections. Mitigation measures are recommended that would result in acceptable levels of service at all
intersections under cumulative plus project conditions.
The following tables provide a listing of the LOS at the analysis 'intersections under the different study scenarios.
•
Page 26
Southgate Initial Study Page 27
•
CJ
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
wlMitigation
Impact
Condition.
Plus Project
Incorporated
AM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Table 1 - AM Peak Hour Levels..of Service - Development' Scenarios
Note: Results are expressed as Level of °Service /Delay in average seconds per vehicle.
(1) = The levels of service at STOP controlled intersections reflect the, level of service: associated with the most impacted approach at the
intersection.
(2)'= The decrease in average delay is associated with the addition of traffic to movements with less - than- average delay.
(3) = Additional mitigation measure intended to improve operations, however, not required due to project impacts.
Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., October2003
Location
Existing
Existing
Existing With
'Cumulative
Cumulative.
Cumulative'
Condition
Plus
Project
Condition.
Plus Project
With Project
Project
Mitigated
Mitigated
(2)
C_ ondition.(3)
Condition
Lakeville Highway at
C (23.7)
C (216)
C (28.4)
C (28:9)
US 101 southbound
ramps
Lakeville Highway at
B (12.5)
B ('12,6)
B (16.9)
B (17.1)
US 101 northbound
ramps
Lakeville Highway at
B (19.5)
B(10.6)
C (24.3)
C (24.8)
Baywood Drive
Lakeville Highway at'
A (6.3)
A (6.2)
A (7.4)
A (7.5)
Marina Avenue
Lakeville Highway at
C (23.3)
C (23.2)
'C (30.7)
C.(31.3)
Casa Grande Road
Lakeville Highway at
B (12.4)
B (12.0)
B (13.8)
B (13.7)
Mc Dowell
Boulevard
Frates Road -Cader
C (22.8)
C (22.6)
C (25.7)
C (25,9)
Lane at Lakeville
Highwa
Frates Road at Calle
C (16.0)
0'(28.4)
C (17.5)
D (34.8)
Ranchero (1)
Frates Road at
C (15:0)
D (3 '0:0)
C (16.6)
E (38.1)
Lakeville Circle (1)
Frates Road at South
C (17.4)
C (19.2)
C (20.1)
C (22.5)
Ely Road (1)
Prates Road at Adobe
F (60
F,(.62.5,)' :
&(18.5)
F.(79.0)
F (81.4) :
B (19.1)
Road
AM Peak Traffic Levels of Service
Page 27
Southgate Initial Study Page 28
•
PM Peak Hour Levels of Service
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Sficant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Condition
Plus Project
Inco orated
Note: Results are expressed as Level of ServiceOday'in average seconds per vehicle.
(1) = The levels of service at STOP controlleda'interse.ctions reflect'the level of service associates with the'most impacted approach at the
intersection.
The decrease
=
( 2 ) In average delay is associated with thc�addition,of traffic to movements with less =than- average delay.
(3) = Additional mitigation measurelintended'to;improve operations, however, not required due to project impacts.
Source: ;Dowling Associates, Inc:, -October 2003
PM Peak Traffic Levels of Service
Page 28
Existing
Existing
Existing With
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Location
Condition
Plus
Project
Condition
Plus Project
With Project
Project.(2)
Mitigated
Mitigated
.
Condition (3),
Condition
Lakeville Highway at
C (21.5)
C (21.8)
C (23.8)
C'(24.2)
US 101 southbound
ramps
Lakeville Highway at
C (21.6)
C (21.8)
C (22.8)
C
US, 101 northbound
rams
Lakeville Highway at
B (19.7)
B (19.6)
D(36.6)
D (38.5)
Baywood Drive
Lakeville Highway at
B (10.3)
B (10. 1)
B "(10.2)
B (10.9)
Marina Avenue
Lakeville Highway at
C (213)
C (21.,10
D (44.0)
D (46.0)
Casa Grande Road
_
.Lakeville Highway at
B (17.8)
B (l 7
C (25.3)
C (25.6)
Mc Dowell
Boulevard
Trates Road -fader
C (24:9)
C (28:3)'
D (39.2)
D (47.1)
Lane at Lakeville
Hi hway
Frates Road at Calle
C (15.4)
D (32.8)
C (16.8)
E?(- 39:4)
Ranchero (1)
Frates Road at
B (10.8)
0'(34.0),
1'(11:2)
Lakeville Circle (1)
Frates Road at South
D (33.2) -
E�(37.4) , , '
B (16.8)
E (39 7)
E '(45:4)
B (16.1)
Ely Road (1)
Frates Road at Adobe
F(53.4) .
T (54;()
C (25.8)
F'(67 9)
F (70.8)
C (27.3)
Road
'
Note: Results are expressed as Level of ServiceOday'in average seconds per vehicle.
(1) = The levels of service at STOP controlleda'interse.ctions reflect'the level of service associates with the'most impacted approach at the
intersection.
The decrease
=
( 2 ) In average delay is associated with thc�addition,of traffic to movements with less =than- average delay.
(3) = Additional mitigation measurelintended'to;improve operations, however, not required due to project impacts.
Source: ;Dowling Associates, Inc:, -October 2003
PM Peak Traffic Levels of Service
Page 28
,Southgate Initial, Study Page 29
Potential
Less,Than
No
S gnificant
Siginfican
ant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated
Reeional Traffic Issues
The existing and "future conditions, at the Frates /Adobe Road intersection require signalization <and'the addition of,left turn lanes
to maintain level.,of service D,or better. conditions.. This. improvement has been included in the County Circulation Element for
some time. However; the neighbors within the Penngrove area have suggested that other types of traffic mitigation be
installed. Traffic' diverters and other strategies intended to shift traffic away from the Adobe; Road corridor onto the Frates
Road. and Lakeville Highway corridor have been suggested. These types of improvements should' be evaluated in the context
of area -wide traffic patterns and the regional roadway system.
The project does .contribute to an existing ub- standard level of service: at the Frates. /Adobe. Road ,intersection under existing
and cumulative conditions. A mitigation measure is recommended that would require that the project sponsor contribute its
fair share to the construction of signal and/or other improvements at the Frates Road and Adobe Road intersection. The fair=
share contribufion.shallbe based the project's contribution•to the cumulative traffic projected.for this; intersection.
Intemal'Circulation; and' Parking
Plans submitted with the project;applications, which,consist;ofrequests for a general, plan ;amendment; rezoning,,andapproval of.;a
Development plan and Vesting, Tentative Map .include details plans; for the internal street system. In addition, parking for the
single family homes will be provided by 'a .combination of each home having a two -car garage with two parking , spaces in the
driveway and intermittent on-street parking: Furthermore, Southgate has been designed to provide' for all the :necessary fire
apparatus access'to hydrants and homes.so that conflicts with,parked cars, landscaping and °buildings are avoided.
•
Transit . _ ..
Bus stops °that .currently .exist:: on Frates Road are proposed to be enhanced as part of the Southgate development. The traffic
assess ent prepared by Dowling. Associations, Inc. recommends a transit; stop should be provided on Frates Road at Calle
Ranchero 'and' that the transit stop should conform, to, industry standards and include a beach and ' access. This
recommendation has been included as a mitigation measure.
The City of Petaluma General, Plan, land use -map designates the corner of the property near the Frates /Lakeville Highway
intersection, as. a Transit Terminal, (Park and Ride,) location. The applicant has requested that this. designation be removed. "
Please see discussion.under Section 1 of this Initial Study, Land Use and:P,•lanning.
Bicycles
Frates, Road and Ely Road have been designated,as.bike.routes on.the. City's Bicycle System. Therefore, it is recommended that
the street improvements for Frates ,Road.and 'S. Ely Road include,provision for bicycle facilities consisteht-4ith City policy.
Furthermore, each. phase of project; development will be reviewed by the -City of Petaluma 'Pedestrian , and. Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PBAC) to ensureconformance with the City's Bicycle'.Plan.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures were revised to reflect the•addendum traffic report prepared'byDowlingAssociates, dated. February 6,
2004, and revised projectplans submitted February 13, 2004, which propose d, third access point, to the projectyon South Ely
Road. Transportation impacts attributed °to the project wouldbe reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the
following mitigation measures.
10-1 A four way slop control or: traffic signal shall "be installe&at the Frates Road intersectioiewith Calle Ranchero.
10 -2; A four way stop. contr'ol or a traffc signal shall be installed'atFrates Road, intersection with South -Ely Road.,
1:0 -3 Stop controls shall be,provided for exiting the project at the proposed access point at Lakeville Circle.
10 -4 The ;project shall comply with the requirements of the_ City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan. Plans, for each phase of site
development shall be; referred to the 'Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory_ 'Committee (PBAC) for review and comment to
ensure: compliance with the City. Bicycle Plan:
Page 29
Southgate Initial Study Page 30
i
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant_
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
incorporated
10 -5 The project sponsor shall provide�a Traffic Control Plan for review and, approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, prior to
issuance of a building or grading permit. At least, one lane of traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all. times
through the construction period, unless a temporary detour plan `is submitted. and approved the City Traffic Engineer.
Heavy construction traffic and 'haul trucks shalt avoid school zones between school arrival and departures times.
During non - working hours, open trenches and construction ,hazards shall be provided with signage, flashers, and
barricades approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential
safety hazards.
10 -6 All road surfaces shall be restored to pre project: conditions after completion of any project- related utility installation
activities. All trench pavement, restoration within existing asphalt streets, shall receive a slurry seal. If the trench cut is
within the parking strip, then only the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry
seal.
10 -7 Any pedestrian access through and/or adjacent to the project site shall remain unobstructed during project construction
or an alternate route established as' approved :by the Police Chiefand City Engineer.
10 -8 Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's Street Standards to provide for safe access to
and from the site. Turning lanes, acceleration and - deceleration lanes, curb cuts, median islands, signing and striping
shall be incorporated into the +design "plans as required by the City's Traffic .Engineer. Pedestrian and bicycle access
connecting the City's bikeways , and pedestrian circulation through the site, shall be, incorporated into the development
plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Traffic Engineer prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit. All street frontage improvements, shall, be constructed to City standards and
inspected by City Inspectors prior to:final inspections or acceptance of improvements.
10 -9 The project sponsor shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fees. Traffic Mitigation Fees
shall be calculated at the time" of.issuance of a, building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
10 =10 The project sponsor shall install a transit stop on Frates Road including a .bench, shelter and pedestrian access, as
required by the City of Petaluma.
10 -11 The project sponsor shall be responsible for a fair -share contribution to fund, to the construction of signal and/or other
improvements at the Frates /Adobe Road intersection. The fair -share contribution shall be based upon the project's
contribution to the cumulative'traffic projected -for this intersection.
11. Public' Services
a. Would the,project result in substantial, adverse physical
impacts associated with theproyision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically Altered : governmentatfacilities, the
construction of whichcould cause significant
environmental, impacts, in order to maintainacceptable
service,ratios, response timesor other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
• Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Page 30
Southgate Initial Study Page 31
Other public facilities?
Potential
Less Than
I Less'Ttian
No
'Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
I I I X I
Discussion: Additional fire and police service calls, as well as road maintenance, may occur as a result of`this proposal.
However, the impact` schools; parks,.or other goverrithe.ntal services'would be minimal. The project; sponsor will,l e subject
to the applicable;development .fees that are required-of all developments in order to offset'the`impacts that the would have
on public services' `These .include; school fees, traffic mitigation fees and .cor imunity facilities fees, as required' Title 17, Chapter
1.7:14 of the Mudicipal' Code. Fees;are calculated by the City at the time of building permit .issuance and are due and payable by
the project- sponsor prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, no significant environmental
impacts will occur as result of this project.
Mitigation Measures/Moiiitoring Not applicable.
12. Recreation
a. WouldAe,project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks -or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the include recreational facilities orrequire
the construction or expansion on recreational facilities
which mighthave an adverse;physical effect on the
environment ?'
1►1
Discussion: The' Southgate Plan proposes a L 09 -acre- neighborhood park to Abe. located ,along the Urban: Separator/PG &E
easement, which is to.provide:a 4.46- acre,passive'!reereational area along- the southern edge. of the site. Proposed recreational
facilities .would - provide on -site :recreational opportunities,, and combined with the payntent of �comtnunity :facilities fees„ would
reduce impacts on existing and regional parks to significant: Furthermore, proposed recreation,facilities are not expected
to have an adverse physical effect -on the environment.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not applicable:
13. Utilities Infrastructure Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality, Control, Board?
b. Require or result in the con. struction of a new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion; of'existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
C. Require or result in the construction of new stonwwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing, facilities, the
construction of which could cause,significarit
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies, availableto
project from existing: entitlements needed?
e. Resulvin a determination by the, wastewater treatment
provider which serves ormay serve•the project'that it has
X
X
X
X_
X
•
•
•
Page 31
a .,
Southgate Initial Study Page 32
6 1
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by landfill with sufficient.permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state,,and.local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste ?'
X
F4
Discussion: The proposal will.have an incremental effect upon existing utility services. New extensions of service lines will be
required to provide water, sewer, natural gas, electric, and storm drain utilities to the new structures. This extension is
consistent with the expected service needs: of the General Plan. The proposed on -site storm water management/bio - filtration
system (landscaped detention areas); would allow runoff to be captured and absorbed on the site. This storm water system is
expected to minimize the amount of runoff generated by site development to the extent that the system achieves a "zero -net-
increase" in runoff rates during peak,rain events. The system will hold water, on, site so as not to impact properties downstream.
For the above reasons, it is expected that no significant impacts to the utility infrastructure would occur as a result of the proposal.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not applicable.
14. Mineral Resources Would the project:
a.. Result in the loss or availability-of a known mineral
• resource that would be or value to the region and the
residents or the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a.locally- important
mineral resource recovery size delineated 'on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land.use plan?
Fi
M
Discussion: There is no information about this site from the General Plan or additional studies, which indicates that the site has
been known to be a mineral resource. The proposed project would not create a significant impact to known mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not applicable.
15. Cultural Resources Would the project: .
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical. resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique, geologic feature?
d. Disturb any,human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
X
X
X
Discussion: The project site has been assessed as part of several historic and archaeological investigations, including an
• evaluation of the entire Frates Ranch.study area which covered over 580 acres including the project site (Origer and Roscoe 1981);
pipeline alignments for the City Petaluma Zone IV Water Delivery System (Flynn 1990) and Lakeville Highway improvements
(Roop 1992). Although several prehistoric and historic sites were identified on the larger Frates Ranch property, none of these
sites are located on the subject property. A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the property prepared by Katherine Flynn,
Archaeological Resource Service, 1997, concluded that given the negative findings of the earlier archaeological studies pertaining
Page 32
Southgate Initial Study Page 33
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
to the property and.adjacent properties, the archaeological sensitivity of the site is considered low. However, there is still the
potential that buried artifacts could be present but not presently visible This is due primarily to the site's proximity to Adobe
Creek. It'is likely that-the original. meandering course of Adobe Creek would have been used as trail by Native Americans. In
addition, the Area where Adobe Creek joined the Petaluma River was known to have contained wooden wharves and docks used
by General Vallejo during his occupation of Rancho. Petaluma, centered at the Petaluma Adobe (located approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of the project, site), and was used in the early 19` century as a landing area for boats used to transport the bides and
tallow from General Vallejo's rancho to other places,in the San Pablo and San Francisco Bay areas.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to Tess than significant.
Mitigation: Measures /Monitoring
15 -1 If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site
(surface or subsurface resources) work shall be; halted immediately within 50 meters : (150'feet) of the find until it can
be evaluated 'bya qualified professional archaeologist. The City of Petaluma Planning Division and a qualified
archaeologist,.(i.e.., an.archaeologist:registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately
contacted by the responsible individual presenton =site. When contacted, Community Development Department staff
and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper
mitigation measures required for the discovery.
16.
Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant, environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California' Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as,shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland' Mapping -and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non - agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act.contract?
C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion.
of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
X
V
Discussion: In the past, the site was .used as pastureland and for hay production, and more recently,, a portion of the site was
used to stockpile fill material from nearby construction sites: ,However, the project site is not currently used for agriculture and
has not been used productively for at.least the last five years. Land must have been used for agricultural production at some
time during the two prior update cycles of the Farmland Mappingand Monitoring Program of the California Resources. Agency
(FMMP), each of which covers a two -year period, to be ,classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. The map of Sonoma County Important Farmland — 1998, prepared by California Resources Agency,
identifies the project site as "Farmland of Local Importance ". Furthermore, the site's "Study .Area" zoning 'designation
indicates that something other than an agricultural use is for the property. The site is not subject to a Williamson
Act contract.
•
•
Project implementation would not relocate or affect the area's agricultural infrastructure (farm and feed supply stores
veterinarians, and other agriculturally related businesses) which, in turn could discourage' or make infeasible: continued •
agricultural use of other property in the area. Therefore, impactsto agricultural resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not applicable:
Page 33 ,
Southgate .initial Study Page 34
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Potential
Less, Than _
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Im_ pact.
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Does the project have the potential to degrade the _quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish, :or wildlife
population to,drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or:restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental, effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the - effects -of past projects, the
effects of other current, projects, and'the effects of probable future projects)?
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings,, either directly., indirectly?
Yes No
X
M
KI
Discussion: The property does not provide habitat for any special status plant or animal species, and that there are no
J urisdictional wetlands on the property, nor is it considered to be archaeologically or historically sensitive.. Based on the analyses
• contained throughout this Initial Study" the proposed project would not achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on. humans. Furthermore, mitigation
measures are recommended throughout this checklist:th'atwould reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant
•
Page 34
Southgate Initial Study Page 35
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
IMPLEMENTATION:.
1. The- project sponsor /project sponsor- shall be required to .obtain iall required permits from responsible agencies and
provide proof of compliance'.to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals o'f' mprovements plans.
2. The: applicant/project sponsor shall ;incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and
conditions into the .design m
esign and improvements plans and for the project.
3. The applicant/project sponsor shall. notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved yin the implementation
of mitigation measures and .conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with.'such measures and
conditions. Applicant/project sponsor shall notify alI assigns and transfers of the same.
4. The z plicanVproject sponsor shall provide for the cost ofmonitoring °of any conditiomor mitigation: measure tat involves
on- going operations at. the site or long -range improvements, such as archaeological resources, etc.
r�
MONITORING:
1. The Building Division, ,Planning Division, E_ ngineering Section and Fire Departments shall `review the improvement and
construction plans for conformance with the approved. description and all applicable codes, conditions; mitigation
measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site desi_gn.review, improvement plans, .grading plans, or
buildingipermits.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the projectsponsor..has obtained applicable required permits from all responsible
agencies and that the plans and specifications conform 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.
CONSTRUCTION MEASURES:
1. 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 contractorresponsible for construction.
2. Mitigation. measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and
signed by the contractor, responsible for construction.
3. City inspectors shall; insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans. and conditions of approval.
4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant/project ;sponsor shall arrange a pre- construction conference with the
construction contractor, City staff and..responsible agenciesAo review the mitigation measures and.conditions of approval
prior to the issuance of grading and building permits..
the project applicant/project sponsor, have reviewed this Initial
Study and.hereby °agree to incorporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified herein;into the project.
Signature of Applicant/ProjectSponsor
Date
i s '
i s
35
L
Southgate Initial Study Page 36
REFERENCES
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
A. City of Petaluma General Plan 1987 -2005, City of Petaluma
B. City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, City of Petaluma
C. Application Packet submitted by Basin Street Properties July 29, 2003, including revised plans and additional materials
submitted October 24, 2003.
D. Site Inspections conducted January 2002, October 2002 and July 2003.
E. Noise Mitigation Study for Southgate Housing Project, Rosen Goldberg & Der, November 13, 2003.
F. Southgate Air Quality Emissions Report, Illingworth & Rodkin, November 2003'.
G. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Update Report, Southgate.Project Site, Kleinfelder, Inc., March .12, 1999
H. Southgate 2 Storm Drainage Report, BKF Engineers, September 25, 2003
I. Cultural Resources Evaluation — Frates Ranch, Katherine Flynn, Archaeological "Resource Service, November 18, 1997
• J. Comprehensive Airport Lanai Use Plan for Sonoma County —Final Report Sonoma County, January 2001
K. Noise Contour Map at Buildout on Major Streets, Earthmetrics (Petaluma General Plan Appendix)
L. Biological Resources Evaluation of the Lakeville/Frates Project, Resource Management International, Inc., February . 1997
M. Memorandum from Lonnie Armstrong, Plans. Examiner, Petaluma Fire Department „November 13, 2003
N. Memorandum from Bob Gaiser Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department, Comprehensive Planning
Division, August 26, 2003.
O. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel No. 06039
0003 -C, revised September 29, 1989.
P. Southgate 2 Residential Development Project Traffic Assessment, Dowling. Associates, Inc., October 2003
Q. Comprehensive AirportLand Use Plan, Sonoma County, January 2001
R. Map of Sonoma County Important Farmland, California Resources Agency, 1998 .
S. Addendum to Noise Mitigation Study for Southgate Housing Project, Rosen Goldberg & Der, ,February 6, 2004
T. Addendum to Southgate Traffic Assessment, Dowling Associates, Inc., February 6, 2004
U Revised Application Packet submitted by Basin Street Properties February 6 and February 13, 2004, including revised
plans and PUD DevelopmentStandards.
0 S: \CC -City Council \IS \SouthgatelS 030104.doc
Page 36