Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch08 09/13/20040 F n Plan n ng!Division 1:1 English Street. Petaluma,; CA 94952 70:7/778 =4301. ATTACHMENT 8 Initial S,Wdy of Environm6ntal Significance- • 0. Introduction: This Initial Study has .Been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21 000 et seq) 'and the CEQA Guidelines. , Additioinal information incorporated by reference herein includes: the project application; environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals, staff report, General Plan, EIR and, Technical .Appendices, and' other applicable planning .documents (i. e. , Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan specific plans, etc.) on `file at the City of Petaluma Planning Division. Project Name: Sweed School Adaptive Reuse and Townhouse:Project Site Address: 331 Keller Street Posting Date: April 8, 2004 Lead Agency Contact: Kim Gordon Assistant. Planner c Applicant: West Bay Builders, P.O., Box, 3474, San 'Rafael CA-94912-3474 Property Owner: P & K Properties; P.O. Box 3474,,SanRafael, CA 949:12 -3474 Phone: (707) 778 -4301 .O File No: 03 -REZ -0067 APN: 006 -213 -004 Comments Due: April 27,2004 Phone: (415) 456 -8972 Project Description: The applicanCis requesting approval of a, rezoning of the property to'Planned Unit District (PUD) from Garden Apartment Residential (RMG)'and a tentative subdivision.map to subdivide the property into 14 residential parcels and one common area parcel. The existuig historic $weed School building would' be converted into eleven two bedroom townhouse units. Two new buildings would be,const"ructed on the Liberty Street side of the site. Access to the site would be from a driveway on Liberty Street that - would be located,betweenthe two new buildings. Each new would,provide covered surface parking for the project. One building would include two units above the covered', parking; the second.building would have one unit above the covered parking. The new buildings on Liberty Street would be setback 15 feet from the Liberty Street property line, 5 feet from the - north side property line, and .5 feet;fromathe south, side property line. TheOruaximum height of the buildings would be 34.0 feet measured from average finished grade. to the. midpoint of the, highest, roof. The `project includes a total of 29 onsite parking spaces, 15 covered parking spaces, and .14 uncovered parking spaces. The existing Sweed School, building is a brick structure. The two new buildings would be wood construction. Environmental Setting: The proj e , wouldr be located on a 3;1;906 square foot in -fill site in the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District. The subject'parcel is a' double frontage lot with frontage on Keller and Liberty`. Streets. The site is currently developed with the vacant - historic Phillip Sweed School building. The majority of the remainder of the site is'paved with the exception of front yard landscaping on the Keller Street project frontage. The project includes modifications necessary to convert the existing,' historic' former school building, to residential units. The majority of the modifications are on the interior of the building; however, new cuts will be made on -all elevations and thezoof of the structure. The property is located adjacent to an apartment building to the north and surrounded by single- family residences to the east; west, and south. There are single and multi family residences located in the vicinity of the project ; site. The only "significant vegetation on the site consists of two existing mature pine trees. Page 1 i 1 Project Name: Fife No. Page 2 Potentially bessAhan: Less Than No Significant Signifcant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation_ Impact Measures: • Responsible /,Trustee Agencies (Discuss other permits„ financing or- participation required): The project requires a: recornmendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the, City Council of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Rezoning, and Planned Unit District Design Guidelines and Unit Development Map. Following approval from the City Council'the project wll,go before the Historic and Cultural. Preservation Committee' for approval. Lastly, the project will be subject' to building permit review and approval by;the ,Coinmunity Development Department. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental' factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist onthe following pages. 1. Land Use !! &:.Planning _ 7. Noise 13 Utilities Infrastructure 2. Population,. Employment, &°,Housing _ 8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics _•14. Minerali Resources, I Geology & Soil's _ 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 15. Cultural Resources 4. Air 10. Transportation/Traffic 16. Agricultural Resources 5. Hydrology &Water Quality. 11, Public Services 17. Mandatory Findings of Sigriificanc�' 6. 'Biological' Resources 11 Recreation. P�Ojec�t Name. File' No: Page 3� WDetermination 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 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 signifcant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is, required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant , impact "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 leg Istandards, 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 be addressed. I find that although the .proposed project: could -have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effectsea) hav'e been analyzed adequately in�an earliefEIR or'NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b), have been avoided or nutiga"ted pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measdres`tfiat imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. 40 A Notice of Intent to adopt. a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed' and posted for the public comment period of April 8, 2004 through April 27, 2004: Prepared by: Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner' Name CITY OF PETALUiMA Title Signature • Date Project Name; File No.. Page .4 r i Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation pis required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are, adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses 'follow ings each question: A "No" Impact" answer is t ely (eeg. i the project fall reference s outside a fault rupture:.zone)� A no impact simply. ^does.not,apply to projects like the one impact answer should be explained where it pollutants, on a: project -specific screening g sta ndard's,. i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to P J P 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved; including: off -site as well as on -site cumulative, project - level indirect, ;direct,, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency `has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then ,the 'checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant: less than significant with mitigation, or "less than significant. "Potentially Signif cant;Impaci" is'appropriateif there is.substantial evidence that an effect maybe significant. If there" are one or more "Potentially'Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is equire,d. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.' applies where "the ;incorporation of nutigation measures has reduced" an effect; from "P,oientially Significant Impact" to , a `Less'Than° Significant'. Impact." 'The lead agency must, describe the, mitigation measures and briefly explain "how they reduce theeffect to a ess than significant level (mitigation measures from Sec #ion XV,II, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross= referenced): 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the a'iering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration;pursuant to Section 1560(c)(3)(1)). 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 Adequate ly"Addressed:'Identify"which effects from °the labove checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed ;in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.. - c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated;"- describe, the" mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which. they address.site- specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies; are encouraged: to incorporate into the, checklistcreferences to information sources for potential impacts (e.g general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously ;prepared or outside document should;' where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement.is substantiated. e d be cited in the discussion. sho 7 Su ortin c Information Sources: A source_ list should be attached- and 'other sources used or indivi duals contacted 11. 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: 4' - ,I Prol ° ecf Name: File Na Page 5 0 ,. A Environmental Analysis Land Use and Planninc -Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ,policy or regulation of an.agency with jurisdictich over,the (including, but not linuted;to:the general plan, specific p lan local' coastal ' program ,'or- ,,zoriing ordinance) adopted for the purpose: of avoiding or mitigating , , ,an environmentafe ffect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potential, Less Than Less Than No 'Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X 9 91 Discussion: The subject parcel is located in an established residential neighborhood,a nd:is surrounded by both single - family and multi- fanuly development. The parcel is developed with a historic former school building that the project proposes to adaptively .0 reuse as 11 residential units. Three new'dwelling- units; would be constructed on the Liberty Street side of the site. Since the project "site is surrounded by similar residential uses the project will :not, divi&an established community. The zoning designation for the property is Garden Apartment Residential (RMG) District which allows both single- family and multi- family uses. The project proposes to rezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would allow the development of 14 townhouse units. The' 'General, Plan land use designation for the property is Urban High which has a density range of 10.1 to 15.0 dwelling units per acre and is intended primarily';.for multi - family ,dwellings. This land use designation allows an increase in density of up to 2.0 units to the acre for projects that meet,the,Tollowing requirements: 1) the project provides a measurable community 'benefit2)'infrastructure' services, and facil tiestare available to serve the increase in density and 3) where the effects of the project density is compatible with major General Plan goals. Without the increase in density, a maximum of 10 units would be allowed for the project. With a density increase to 20 units to: the acre, the maximum number of units for the project is 14. The project 'is cons'stentwith• the requirements for an increase, in density in that 1) the project proposes to adaptively reuse and upgrade'the historic Sweed School building that, has been vacant. for several years 2) services, infrastructure and facilities are available to serve the 4 additional °units 3) the project will provide: 14 new housing units that are consistent .with General Plan goals to .provide housing for people of all' income levels and.to provide a range of housing types and 4) the project,is consistent with General Plan goals to preserve the architectural heritage' Petaluma and to upgrade the quality of development throughout the City. There is no. existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that exists for this area of the city. Therefore, no impact to the current land use would' occur as a result of the proposal. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A Population, Employment and Housing Would the project: a. Induce substantial populatrongrowth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or'indi"rectly (for example, through extension of roads or other'infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing pn"p 5 Name: File: No. elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction.ofreplacement housing elsewhere.? Page 6 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant ?Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated Discussion The proposed subdivision :would create 14 new dwelling ,units. Eleven. units would be created,as part o 'the adaptive reuse of existin g g vacant building on the site and three hewunits� would be located in twtwo new buildings to be constructed on - the; Liberty :Street side. of: the site. The project density is consistent with: the density contemplated for�the 'site in the ,General Plan, which allows for an increase in density when specific requirements' are met (See discussion under Iterm #1„ Land Use and Planning).. Since ,the project proposes to. convert an existing vacant building to 11 new dwelling ; units and' to: construct three additional dwellin" units the supply of housing in the g pp y g , area will -- slightly increase. Due to "the ;small' number of new housing units being created the project does not . have - the'potential,t o` induce substantial population growth. Residential development projects of 5 or more units are ,required `to. contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to Policy 4,2. and Program 4.4 of the Housing Element of the 'Petaluma General .Plan. The :applicant shall participate 11 by paying an in -lieu housing fee , "for each residential unit payable at the close escrow. Mitii?ation .'Measures[Monitoriii : N/A Geoloq.y and'Soils Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse: effects, including the risk,of loss, injury, or deatl in i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineafed:on the most , recent Alqust- Priolo Earthquake Fault - Zoning iMap issued iby the State = Geologist for the area or based on other, substantial evidence of a.known fault ?'.R'efer to. Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Sirong seismic- ground shaking? iii. Seismic- related ground failure; including, liquefaction? b. Result -in substantial „soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic.unit or'soil;that is unstable; or thamouldbecome'unstable as,a result in on= or off -site land'slid'e, lateral,spreading, subsidence;. liquefaction or collapse ?' d. Be located on soil, as:defined in Table 18 -1 -.B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life orproperty? e.. Unstable' earth.conditions of change's in geologic substructures? f. 'Disruptions displacements, compaction.or overcovering of the soil? Noe 6 0 Project Name:' File'No. 1] g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? h. The des truction,'covering or.modification of any unique geologic or physical features? i. Any increase:inwind or water'erosionof soils; either on or off site? j. Changes in deposrtion or,erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or, erosion which:may modifyy the channel. of a river'or stream or `the bed of the ocean or any bay, inletor lake? k. Exposure of people or property`to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, rrtudsiides, ground failure or similar hazards? Page 7 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant. Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incor X X X /1 Discussion: The Bay Area is a seismically active region with .faults characterized by :right-lateral, strike -slip movements (movement is predominately horizontal)., T,he: major,.active .faults in this area are the San Andreas (approximately 8 miles north) and the Rodgers Creek faults (approximately'23 miles east), `.Other faults in the vicinity, include the Tolay fault, however, recent * studies indicate this is not an active fault. The site is not located within a presently designated .Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential for earthquake - induced' ground failure from soil'liquefaction ' at the site is considered low. Since the project involves changing the use of the existing_ building ro residential, the project is required to seismically upgrade the building in compliance with the 2001 California Building Code. The seismic, upgrade is - required to be included on plans submitted for building permit. The project is an infill development and the site, is currently developed with the historic'Phillip Sweed School building. The majority of the remainder of the site is paved. There. are no unique geologic or physical f: ,tunes on the site. The project will not result in destruction or covering of any geologic features,, result, inchanges,,or erosion to water channels or water bodies, or expose people to,any geologic hazards not typically, associated with;this region.. The project.site is: flat. Existing drainage patterns may be altered with grading, but any modifications aie subject to review by the City and Sonoma County Water Agency. The level of impervious surfaces will slightly decrease with�the planting of new landscaping along the Liberty'Street side of the site which was cur paved. With the applicationof the City's standard mitigation measures such.as those thaffollow; these impacts would be short -term 1. Prior to issuance of,a ,grading building permit or'approyal •of an improvement plan or Final M_ ap, the Applicant shall provide a Soils1rivestigation and Geotechnical Report prepared. by a registered. professional civil engineer for review and approval of the�City Engineer 'and Chief Building Official4n accordance with'thel, Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and,Erosion Control Ordinance. The P s're rep shat adngs foundation and soil engineering de ghly expansive g P P soils and include recommendations for: site re aratton and sign; pavement design, utilities,, and structures. 2. Final project improvement •and grading plans shall be prepared Eby a California registered Civil Engineer (P.E.), and accepted by City staff prior to Final Map approval. The ,plans shall be prepared in compliance with,the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion `Control Ordinance. A comprehensive erosion control pl an sh all be measurere s ared a y to n rs such ase ecial' attention to prevention of increased discharge control plan required above shall an shall grading to the non -rainy season; b) protecting storm drainage outlets from erosion and siltations; c) 'use of silt fencing, and straw wattles to retain sediment on the project site or Best Management Practices (BMPs). as: recommended by the Regional- Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Required improvements shall be reflected on plans submitted in conjunction with the•project's improvement drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Prior to City acceptance, all public improvements shall 'be subject ; to inspection by City staff for compliance Pndr-. 7 Project Name: File. No. Page 8 'Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated with the approved Public Improvement Plans, construction permits and p "roject, mitigation measures /conditions of approval. All public and/or private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City,staff' for r compliance with the approved:Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance. All construction activities shall. comply with the Uniform.Building Code regulations.for seismic safety-(i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls,, bracing parapets; etc.). Foundation and: structural design for - buildings shall conform to theje,quirements,ofthe Uniform Building Code, as well as state - arid local laws/ordinances-Construction plans shall be subjects to review. and ;approval by the Division 'prior to the issuance of a building °permit. All work shall be subject ;to inspection ;by the Building Division and in conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitigation 11Zeasures /iMonitorin:? N/A 4. Air: Where available; the significance of critefia established by 4 control.district may be relied upon to make the,following determina Conflict with'or obstruct implementation of the• applicable air quality. plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or 'contribute. substantially'to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result - in_a cumulatively consi&rdble net increase „of any criteriaEpollutant for which the project region is tion- 'attainment under an,applicable federal or state ambient air quality” standard,'(including`releasing enssions' which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone.precurso W d. Expose, sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? e. Create objectionable odors affectinga substantial number of people? Discussion: Temporary short-term increases in exhaust emiss • ions and; dust would result from the use of construction equipment:. However, with the application of the City's standard mit_igati'on measures (such as watering. grad`ed;stirfaces Ito reduce dust and shutting 'down vehicles• when not in ;use), these :impacts would be short -term. Per City requirement, the° project would' incorporate only gas - burning fireplaces or approved wood= buining 'fireplaces with a low particulate ,per hour ';rating as described in Ordinance 1881 effective on April 2, 1992. Due to the age of the 'existing - building, it: is expected that the building contains asbestos and lead paint Prior, to. issuance of a building; permit, the applicant is required;to obtain a permit-from Bay 'Area .Air Quality Management for lead paint'and asbestos remediation and removal.. Documentation of the permit is 'required to be provided as .part; of the building; permit. These requirements have been included'as conditions of project :approval': • 0 ' Per City requirement, the .applicant shall incorporate the ;f011owing.,Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and shall clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor'shall incorporate• these measures into the required ':Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and' exhaust :emissions during construction. ® 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. PaoP R r Pro1e-t Name: File No. Page 9 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated ■ Exposed soils shall be watered a minimum of twice daily during construction. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15' - mph: ■ The construction site shall provide a,;gravel pad area consisting of an. impermeable. linerand drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior`to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely.swept and cleaned of mud and:dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles: ■ During excavation activities, haul 'trucks used to transport 'soil shalt utilize tarps or .other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. ■ 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 verifed'by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. ■ Applicant shall designate a person with authority .to require increased watering to:.'monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and, phone number to the City of Petaluma prior'to'issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A 5. Hydrology 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 neudeficit 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 throughthe alteration of the course ofa stream or river in manner - which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantiallyalterthe existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including throughrthe 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 contiibute.runoff'water which would exceed the capacity of existing 'or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff'? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within:a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 91 R9 X X X 0 G9 1DI__ a Project Name: File No: Page 10 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard:delneation map? Place within a 1'00 -year flood hazard:area structures which, would impede or redirect,flood.,flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, . injury or'death involving flood ing ;;including'flooding`as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation'by seiche, tsunami ormudflow,? Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation, Impact Inc. orated: X X Discussion: The project will not substantially deplete ground water in that the project will not tuse groundwater and the amount of impervtous surface will be slightly reduced . -since new landscaping will be planted in some areas that are currently paved. The project will, not.substantially alter "the; existing drainage pattern or substantially increase the rate of amouaof surface water runoff due to the, following: 1)�half the site is currently developed and this development will remain,.a"s part•of the :project 2) no "additional paved surface will added to the site 3) and the amount - of impervious surface will be slightly reduced with the installation of new landscaping:. There'is no aver, stream .or other watercourse'on'the project site: The project will, not contribute additional runoff to. the City' storm dratrr system since the, site is currentlydeveloped with a building and the.majorityyof the remainder of the site is paved. The site :is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area and will not expose people to the ri sk of flooding or tsunami: Mitieation Measures/Monitorin! N/A Biological Resources Would the project: a. Havea substantial adverse effect, either directlyor through; habitat: modifications, on ariy spedesidentified asaa candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species,in'local, orregional;plans; policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and .'Game or U;S. Fish. and Wildlife Service? X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on. any riparian habitat or other sensitive:natural community idenfified local or regional plans, policies regulations orby the California Departrtent of Fish and Game or US` Fish and Wildlife Service? " C. Have asubstantia] adverse effect on- federally protected, wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (incl'udmg limited to, °marsh, vemal,pool coastal, etc.) through.Airect removal, filling, hydrological. interruption; or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident-or migratoryfish or wildlife species orwith established native residerit orm4ratory.wildlife corridors &impede the use of nativewildlife nursery ,sites? e. Conflict, with any policies or ordinances, protecting biological resources,, such as a tree p'reservation�policyior ordinance: X 0 1 A/ 0 11 • Ppnp_ i;ll. , • Proleet_:Namp -' File. No. Page 1 1 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w,/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Conflict with the of anradopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local regional, or state. habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The project site is developed with "the historic: Phil lip'Sweed School' building:and the majority of the remainder of the site is paved. ,Themature'landscaping on.'the Keller Street side of the site, including 2mature pine trees will remain as part of the project. No other significant vegetation and no biological resources or wetlands exist on the project site. There are no habitat conservation plans apply to this site. Mitieation Measures/Monitorine N/A Noise Would the project result in: • a. Exposure of persogs.toodgeneration of noise levels•;in excess of standards established in 'the aocal.general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborrie noise levels? C. A substantial permanent.'increase in-ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above.Aevels existing without the . project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located; within an airport land' use plan or, where such a plan has pot been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or•public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive'noise levels? 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? Discussion: The addition of..14. new housinwunits will not:increase the ambient noise level in the vicinity to levels that exceed the standards established in the City's General, Plan Land. Use/Noise Compatibility Standards or , Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards. The project willresult in some additional noise associated with typical residential uses;'however, it is expected that the noise levels would remain below the maximum levels considered acceptable for residential development stated in the City's general plan and all future uses are required to comply with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards related to noise. , Oased on the Noise Study submitted by Illingworth and. Rodkin dated July 8, 2003 the construction of the carriage house dwelling units, the adaptive reuse construction of the existing Sweed School building, and site improvements will result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project. The Noise Study includes mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts to less than significant. Pane 11 X X X X X X Discussion: The addition of..14. new housinwunits will not:increase the ambient noise level in the vicinity to levels that exceed the standards established in the City's General, Plan Land. Use/Noise Compatibility Standards or , Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards. The project willresult in some additional noise associated with typical residential uses;'however, it is expected that the noise levels would remain below the maximum levels considered acceptable for residential development stated in the City's general plan and all future uses are required to comply with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards related to noise. , Oased on the Noise Study submitted by Illingworth and. Rodkin dated July 8, 2003 the construction of the carriage house dwelling units, the adaptive reuse construction of the existing Sweed School building, and site improvements will result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project. The Noise Study includes mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts to less than significant. Pane 11 Project Name; File No. Page 12 Potential Less Tlan Less Than No Significant Significant Signifi cant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and is not within an airport, land use plan; therefore, no impacts related noise generated to airports or airstrips are associated with the project: Mitieation Measuresm'Ion torinE J. Consfruction. hours are limited to' Monday' through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m and Saturday from'9;00 a.m. to . 5:000M. - Noise. generating . construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all 'holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. Oonstructiomactivities that generate little'orno exterior�noise, such as painting, et ' trical, work, plumbing, etc., 11 may be exempted from these more restrictive requirements if approved in writing by the Community Development Department. 2. There shall be no start, up of internal combustion engines on construction related machinery`: or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Mdrtday through Friday. 3. Delivery of'materials or equipment is limited to Mondaythrough Friday (non-holiday.) between 7:3.0 a.m. and 6:00 pmm 4. Machinery shall not be cleanea.past 6:00 p.m.;or'serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday through Friday.. 5. All construction equipment powered by internal, combustion engine shalt be properly;mufflered and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when,not'in use. Unnecessary idling of infernal combustion'is prohibited, 7. All stationary generating construction::equipment shall be located as faras practical from;existing nearby residences and other' noise+ sensitive 1and uses. All such'equipmentshall be;:acoustically, shielded. 8. Quietconstniction equipment; in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. 9. The ro'eet a licant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" such as the contractor or contractor's P J PI?. g representative who is responsible for responding to any :local complaints -about construction noise:. The disturbance m coordinator shall,determine the cause of the noise complaint (e ?g.'starting too early, bad uffler etc) and take measures to corrept problem. The name i and phone. number of the disturbance coordinator shall be t conspicuously;posU,:dt the construction site, included on the plans submitted for building permit, and included in a .mailing "regarding the construction schedule °to all neighbors within.500 :feet of the;subject parcel. 8. Visudl Quality and_A'esthetics W..ould the project: a. Have a:substantial adverse effect on,a scenic Vista? b. Substantiallydamage scenic resources including, but not limitedto trees, rock outcroppings ;'and 'historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially' degrade' the existing visual character or quality' of the site and'itsisurroundiiigs? d. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttiine views in "the area? . Discussion: The site.is -not located with'in.a scenic vista and is not within a,state scenic highway. The lawn and- two:mature pine trees on the Keller Streev'side of 'the site will be'retained . as part of the project: Three small trees will - be ;removed :as part of the project ;,however, these trees are not significant and are-nof,protected as part. of a tree: preservation ordinance'.' - The site 'is located in. the Oakhill= Brewster Historic District and is developed with 'the historic Phillip Sweed School building. The project will not • •. Pace 12 X X X X . Discussion: The site.is -not located with'in.a scenic vista and is not within a,state scenic highway. The lawn and- two:mature pine trees on the Keller Streev'side of 'the site will be'retained . as part of the project: Three small trees will - be ;removed :as part of the project ;,however, these trees are not significant and are-nof,protected as part. of a tree: preservation ordinance'.' - The site 'is located in. the Oakhill= Brewster Historic District and is developed with 'the historic Phillip Sweed School building. The project will not • •. Pace 12 4 Pfole.ct , Name: File No Page 13 ^0 Potential, Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated degrade the existing visual character or'quality of the site in that a historical evaluation was conducted by Carey and Company to evaluate the Standards for roject f on cons istency ncy with the Qakhill- Brewster Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic .Buildings. Wheie therproject was not consistent with the Guidelines and Standards the, evaluation included recommendations to make 'the p"rgject consistent with the Guidelines and Standards. These recommendations,;have been. incorporated. into the project or included as ,project mitigation measures and conditions (See Discussion under Item Cultural Resources). In addition, the project requires Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review and approval. The:project would have lighting typical of anyresidential use would not increase light in =the area such'that it creates a hazard. Proposed outdoor lighting in conjunction with the devel,opment,shall include design' measuies,to reduce private light impacts such as no flood ,lights, only ,low profile fight standards, and/or wall mounted' lights;, lights attached "to buildings shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall, no direct "glare „no pole mounted 'lights, etc Plans.submtted for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review shall incorporate lghtingplans, which reflect the location and design of all proposed street and other exterior lighting proposed and conform to City'Performance Standards. Mitigation Measures/Moriitoring N/A 9. Hazards & Hazardous - Materials Would the project a. Create a "signfcant`hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create significant 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 or`handl,e, ,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;pursuant.to Government Code Sectiom65962.5. and, as a result; would it create significant'hazard�to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan, has,, not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public`useaairport, would ^the project result in a safety ; hazard, for people residing or working in the project area? f. Fora project within the vicinity.of aprivate airstrip; Would the projectresult'in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the;project area? g. Impair implementation of orphysically interfere with pan adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures-to a significant risk of' loss, injury or death involvingrwildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacentto;urbanized areas or where Paee 13 X X X X X X X X Project Name: File No. residences are internuxed .with wildlands? Pacie 14 Potential Less Than Less Ttian No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated ' Discussion: Due, to; the, age of the'Philip Sweed School'building,:it is assumed that the project will include the removal of ;lead paint and. asbestos. `The project Js required.to comply with Bay Area Air Quality'requirements related to the removal 'of lead paint and. asbestos and prior, to building. perinii issuance, to submit,documentation that,a Bay Area Air Quality Perntit has been obtained. The project site is not listed on,a hazardous materials sites list. The project siteis riot located withiman airport land use zone, is not within.2'miles. of an auport or within the vicinity of a private. airstrip. The project was reviewed by the Fire- .Marshal's ,office and the Police Departmentaand�is not expected to interfere with anaadopted emergency response plan. The project site is located in an urbanized ;area in the, center of the, city and does not;havethe potential do expose people or structures to loss 'due 'to wildfires'. Mitigation MeasuresMonitorine N%A 10. ., Transportation /Traffic Would the project: a. Cause an increase in'traff c which is, substantial in relation,to the existingtraffrc load and capacity of the street `system,(i:e., result in :a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the, volume to capac'ity.ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed; either individually or' cumulatively,_a level of service. standard.established�by the county congestion managementagency for designated °roads or highways? C.. Resti]H ,aa change in air traffic patterns, including 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 itt.mections) or incompatible uses (e:g farm ecquipnier t)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 X X. �. X X X . g• Conflict' with adopted policies, plansor programs supporting.altemative transportation, i:.e., bus turnouts Bicycle racks)? /1 Discussion: As partl of the project submittal the applicant provided a 'traffic 'impact study prepared by Wilson Engineering, and Transportation Consultants dated March 10, 2004. The traffic, study included. an, evaluation n of the project's trip generation, intersection level oftservice, and site circulation -and access: The project',is expected'to,gene'rate!82 trips, 'of these 6 wouldbe a.m peak'hour trips and;7 would 'be p:m peak hour trips The trip generation is based on the pro�ectand does:' include any credits °of discounts for the previous use of the site as a.school. The traffic study evaluated the level of service for 'the Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project ,Conditions, Future 20.10 Conditions and Future 20.1;0 Plus. Project Conditions for the intersections of Petaluma Blvd.' North/Oak Street; Petaluma - Blvd. •' North/Washington Street, Washington Street/Keller 'Street and Washington. Street /Liberty Street Since the City s new traffic modeling, for the Central: Petaluma Specific Plan and the General Plain, only' evaluates the p.m: peak hour condition the Future 2010' Conditions and Future 201'0 Plus 'Project. Conditions provide only pm. peak hour information. For urisignalized intersections, the traffibstudy evaluates the relevanvindividual turning�maneuyers. NO 1.4 1 Prolec,t. Name;: File No_ Page 15 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w%Mitigation Impact Incorporated :Under Existing Conditions, the intersection of Petaluma Blvd. North/Oak Street operates at LOTS .A for northbound on Petaluma Blvd. North with a left turn onto Oak Street'for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours: The project would not add any a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips to this maneuver; therefore the Existig Plus Project LOS at. thus intersection - would remain the same as the Existing LOS: Under Future 2010 Conditions, this; marten . ver would operateat LOS.A. Since the'project does not add any trips, the Future 2010 Plus Project condition would also be LOS A.'Under Existing conditions,, ;,the eastbound approach of Oak Street operates at LOS D during the a.m: and p.m. peak,hours. The.project would add 2 a.m, peak.hour trips. and one p.m. peak hour trip to the Oak Street approach; due to the minimal, number of new trips, the Existing Plus Project LOS would' remain the same as the Existing LOS. Under Future 2010,conditions, the LOS;for this,maneuver would be LOS D. Due to the minimal number of trips added by the project, the Future 2010 Plus Project:L'OS Would be'the same as.iheFuture 2010 LOS'. Under Existing Conditions, the intersection of Petaluma Blvd. No'rth/East Washington Street operates at LOS'D for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The project would,add'.three a.m peak hour and three p.m. peak hour'trips to this intersection: Due to the small number of trips, added by the project, the Existing; Plus Project - LOS; would remain'the same as the Existing LOS. Under Future 2010 conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS' D:. Due to the 'small number of trips added by the project, the Future 2010 Plus Project LOS would remain at LOS D. Under Existing Conditions the intersection of Washington Street/Keller Street, operates at LOS C for the southbound on Keller Street maneuver dorm the a.m. ' peak hour and LOS .E during the p;m. peak 'hour. The project does not add any trips to the southbound on Keller Street man euver,for the a.m; or peak hour therefore °the Existing--Plus Project LOS remains the same as the Existing LOS. Under Future 20,10 conditions, the southbound on Keller Street maneuver operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak. Since the project does not add any trips to this maneuver, the Future 2010 iand Future 2010 Plus Project LOS would be LOS E. Under Existing Conditions, the maneuver of eastbound, Washington Street with a lef , turrt onto Keller Street operates at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The maneuver of westbound on Washington Street` ,with a.left turn onto Keller Street operates at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour and "LOS B during he p.m. peak.hour. The project does not;add any trips to the eastbound or westbound Washington Street with a left turn maneuver; 'therefore, the Existing Plus Project LOS would be the same as the Existing LOS. Under Future 2010•conditions, eastbound.on'Washington Street'with a left turn onto Keller Street operates at LOS A during the p.m. peak hour. Since the project does not add any trips. to the eastbound. or westboutd on Washington with a left turn maneuver, the 'Future 2010 Plus ;Project condition would, ahso be LOS A: Under Existing Conditions,, the intersection of Washington Street/Liberty Street operates at LOS E for the northbound on Liberty Street maneuver during the a.m. and;p:m. peak hours and the southbound on Liberty Street maneuver operates at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The project does notadd any trips to,these maneuvers; therefore, the Existing :Plus Project LOS remains the same as the Existing LOS for this maneuver: Under Future 2010 conditions; northbound' and southbound on Liberty Street operates at LOS Ffor the p.m. peak hour. Since the project•adds;no trips to this maneuver, the Future 2010 Plus Project condition would'remain LOS F and`there is,no impact to the LOS due to the project. Under ,Existing Conditions, the maneuver of eastbound Washington'' °Street with a7eft turn onto Liberty Street operates at,LOS A duringahe a.m: and,p.m,,peak hours. The project -adds no trips to this maneuver during the a.m peak hour and one trip to this maneuver during, the p.m. peak; therefore, the Existing Plus Project LOS remains the: sameasthe Existing, LOS., Under Existing Conditions, themaneuver'of.'westbound on. Washington with . a left turn onto Liberty Street operates at LOS B. The project adds no trips to thus maneuver; therefore the Existing Plus. Project LOS would be the same as the Existing LOS. Under Future 2010 'conditions, "the eastbound on Washington Street with a left turn on Liberty Street operates at LOS ,A, Since. the _ project adds one trip to this maneuver,. the:Future `2010, Plus Project LOS remains LOS A., Under Future 2010 conditions, westbound on Washington with a left turn onto Liberty operates, at LOS B for the p.m. peak hour. Since the project'adds no'trips °to this,maneuver, the Future 2016TIus Project LOS wouldiremain LOS B. The project provides a total of 29 parking spaces; 1.5 covered and 14 uncovered. The traffic study indicates that 29 parking spaces should be adequate; particularly given theproject's' proximity to downtown, Hill. Plaza Park,. and' other nearby commercial areas. or this type of use, studies by the Institute .of Transportation. Engineers (ITE) showed an, average weekday peak period need for 11 spaces;per unit. The peak weekend demand was .95 spaces per unit. The demand rates are based on, surveys of more than 30 evelopments.. The City's zoning. ordinance requires one parking space for each bedroom for multi -family dwellings. Using this standard; 29 parking spaces would be required since the project includes, 13, two bedroom and one three bedroom unit. The project will not substantially increase; hazards due to design features., Theo site has an existing access driveway on Liberty Street that will be relocated to the center of Liberty Street project frontage..'The speed limit on,Liberty Street is 25 mph and the Pane I5 Project None: File No. Page 16 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact : w %Mitigation impact Incorporated required stopping "sight, distance at this speed on wet pavement .is 150 feet. The available sight distance for a: driver approaching the projects driveway from south,on Liberty Street is 1`75 feet, which is more than required. The evaluation assumed a 3 -foot eye height of the;driver and1being able io see a 6'inch high.object street. The project will not result m inadequate emergericy access.. As requested by the Fire Marshal "s office, the traffic: study reviewed the project to verify that,an ambulance would be able to; access the parking area. An exhibit, Showing the parking area circulation for an ambulance'was by the traffic engineer for review by the Fire Marshal's office and` access to the site was found to be adequate.. 0 The project is subjec "t to the City's Speciat:Development for Traffic Mitigation. Traffic.Mitigation_Feess_tall be calculated at time of a building permit and:shall.be due and;payable before final inspection or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. In March 2000; the City,Council adopted.the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an amendment to `the City's. General Plan Cireulation'Element. 'The. Plan states that the Cityshall route; development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian;and Bicycle Advisory Committee ( PPBAC),.allowing�consider_ation of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The.Bike,Plan Map. does not include•any,proposed''bike by for City transit oordnatoreand no for transit service at the site was maden the carport area, "The. project was reviewed NVlitization Measures/Monitoring N/A T I . Public Services 'a. Would Ahe project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated. with - the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically:altered governmental facilities, the, construction:of'which could cause significant; environmental in order to maintain acceptable service ratios', response times or other perforirtance objectives forany of. the public services: Fire; protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? services Additional fire and police ser calls may occur as a result at and sery is urbanized, developed, ed by a variety of public Discussion: The - develo _ment is proposed to occur in at! area th proposal this ro but no more so, than ,would be expected based on the General Plan designation. Due to the relatively small size and number of units included in'the project, the project is anticipated to have =a less than significant impact on:services. 40 The impact to other, governmental ''servicessand,public� facilities .wouldbe.rrunimal''as °a result`ofthe project., The applicant will be required to pay the applicable development fees'thavare assigned to alt proposals prior to issuance' of!a Certificate of Occupancy to address the incremental impact that the proposal presents to all public services,. • Mitieation 1Vleasures/Moriitorine N/A 12. Recreation Project Name:, File No. _ Page 17 O t a. Would the project increase.the:use of existing neighborhood and regional parks; or other recreational,, facilities such that physical deterioration:of, the facility would occur, or accelerated ?' Does the projectinclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion on :'recreational facilities which might °have physical.effect.on the environment? 'Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X Discussion: Due to the small size of the project, any increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks would be insignificant. The project does not include recreational facilities and since any increase` in the use of existing recreational facilities would be minor no construction or expansion of facilities - would be necessary;, therefore the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment Also,, the .applicant will be required to pay the :applicable park fees that are assigned to all proposals prior to issuance',.of a Certificate of`Occupancy to address the incremental impact to park usage. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A,' 13. Utilities Infrastructure Would.the project: • a. Exceed wastewater treatment-requirements: of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control`Board? b. Require or result in the construction ofa new water or, wastewater treatment facilities.or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects ?' C. Require'or result imthe construction of storm, water drainage facilities or expansion. existing facilities -the construction of which.could.cause significant environmental effects? . d. Have sufficient watersupplies available serve the project from existing entitlements needed? e. Result 'in a de'tetnunation by wastewater treatment provider which sery es' or`rnay serrve the. project that°it -has adequate capacity to se rve the.project's projected demand in addition to' the providers existing commitments? f Be. served by a landfill. with ;sufficient permitted capacity to "accommodate:the project's'solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X M X X 0.4 F.9 iscussion: The project site is currently developed with the vacant Phillip Sweed School building; however, the site was reviously used as a school and has utilized: water, sewer and landfill in the past. The land use designation allows up to 14 dwelling units on the subject °property and the. project is consistent with this number of units; therefore, the project is consistent with the service needs anticipated b the General Plan and will not.. result„ in the need to construct new treatment • P Y facilities �or to expand existing facilities: The site is currently developed with the historic Sweed School building and the majority of the remainder of`the site is paved: The project is likely to. reduce `the amount of runoff since some existing paving will be replaced with landscaping. The ,previous use of the site that will be replaced by the: project was served by existing Page 17 Projecf Name: File .No. Page 18 Potential. Less nan Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigalion Impact Incorporated entitlements and the new use °ofthe site can also be supplied:by existing entitlements.-The amount of solid waste expected to be generated by the project is consistent with the service needs. anticipated by the Petaluma' General 'Plan. Residents will be given the opportunity to participate in recycling programs :and recycling areas are provided as, part of - the project. The project will only generate solid waste typical of multi- family residential uses., Mitigation MeasurLWMonitorinQ N/A .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? X Result in the: loss ofavailability of a aocally- important ,mineral,resource recovery size delineated on a.local' general plan, specific plan or other "land, use - plan? ;X Discussion: There is'on information that indicates that this site has been known to be a mineral resource. Mitieation'Measures/MonhorinQ N/A 15. Cultural Resources Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change`in the - significance of a historical resource as defined in. §;15064.5? b Cause a , substantial adverse change,in'the significance of an aichaeological.resource pursuanf to' §.15064'.5 ?, C. Directly orrindirecily 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 Discussion: The site is developed with the; historicalty'significant Phillip Sweed School building that was designed.by arc}i test Brainerd Jones and built 'in.1427. The project site is located in the City's Oakhill- Brewster Historic District and is- considered a contributing'property in the, district. The Phillip Sweed School building-:has been determined to he individually eligible °for listing„ on the National Register of Historic;Places. As such, ahe Phillip Sweed School -is also eligible forlisting on theCalifoinia Register of Historic: Resources. The building has been designated a'Sbnoma County historic,landmark (1997 0006626). The project proposes to adaptively reuse the Sweed School building by converting the building into '1.1 residential units'. Two' new buildings wouid'be constructed on the Liberty Street side of the • site. Each,new building would provide covered surface parking for the project. One building would include two units above the covered parking; the second building. would have one unit above the coverepro i . Working under contract with - the City, of Petaluma, Carey & Company prepared a historical ect d evaluation of the dated November 2003^. The report evaluated the project for consistency with the Oakhill= Brewster Historic District Qiideli and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for, Rehabilitating Historic Buildings': Carey and Company's : evaluation ;indicates that the project :is generally consistent with most: of the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District Guidelines, and Secretary, of''the Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation. Where the project was not consistent with -the ;Guidelines and' Standards; the evaluation included recorarriendations to, make the project consistent with the Guidelines, and Standards. These recommendations have been 4hcorporated'into the project by the applicant or included as project mitigation measures therefore, any °iinpactto the. site and the: significant Sweed School`building would be less than significant: 0 • • Page 18 Project. Name: File No. Page 19 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w /Mitigation Impact Incorporated The following modifications were made to the project after the historic.e.valuatiori was completed: 1) new cuts in the roof of the Phillip Sweed School building for the,installation of additional skylights 2) additional and modified cuts for windows and doors on the north, south and west elevations of the" Sweed, School building 3)- modifications to' the design of the carriage units on Liberty Street and 4) modification to the height of the�northern,most carriage unit Mittgatiort measures and conditions for the project require Carey and Company review of the. modifications made`to the project in order to: determine consistency with the Oakhill- Brewster Historic District. Guidelines and the :Secretary of the lnterior's Standards for Rehabilitation. and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring 1. Prior to the project being scheduled. for review by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee, the windows and doors that will be replaced and, the windows and doors that. will be, repaired will,be' identified. Which windows can be repaired and the windows that require replacement due to . the extent of damage shall be determined by staff in conjunction with. Carey and Company review of the existing windows and doors and information provided by the applicant. 2. Windows and doors that are damaged beyond, repair as determined; incompliance with .mitigation #,1 above may be replaced. The replacement: windows :and doors shall be wood true or simulated true divided light (Carey & Company recommendation pages 14, 17, and'20), 3. The windows and doors for the new carriage house; units shall be wood frame and true or simulated true divided light (Carey & Company reconunendationpage 17). 4. Prior to the project being,scheduled for review by the Historic and Cultural. Preservation Committee, the following items shall return to Carey and Company for evaluation of consistency with the�Qakhill- Brewster"Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: a. Window and door cutsheets for replacement windows and doors; b. New cuts for the additional,skylights; c. New cuts and°modified;cuts °to.the north, south and west elevations of the Sweed School building; d. Height of the revised carriage house units; and e. Redesign and materials of "the carriage.house units. 5. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee'shall . review the color palette for the carriage house units'to ensure that the, colors are: harmonious with surrounding structures and consistent 'with the architectural time period of the buildings. The plans submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review shall include proposed colors for the carriage units ;(Carey &•Company recommendation page 17). 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.Farniland •or Farmland X 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? X Page 19 04/19/2004 1 3 . 0 3 FAX 4154590665 W E S T BAY BUILDER3 4t 0 2 2 0 '22 Project NaMe:' Fie No: Page 20 P616ti Less Than - Less"I'lian No I Sigruticani !Ilnoorporatcd S,ignificmi Sigqiflcant: . impact lMPQ W/Miligation Impact I C. Involvetother changes in the existing enArDrinieriuwhich, X dvOci their'location or nature,, coul&result in conversion of Farmland, to non-alviculturil we? Discusslorki, The site is design,ate& as, Urban and El.uilt-up Land"by theTarrnland;Mapping and Monitoring Program: The is'zoned,, Garden ,Apartment kesidentialgand "is not , under, a Wil lia,mson Act convict. gram property MlttiA_tkh Measures/Mon toein N/A IT Mandatary Findinin of'Slankslau- a; Does the cproject have d I e&a Oelhe quality�of the environment, substantially'Toduce the habitat fish-or wildlifetspqcies,, cause a fish or wildlife pcipu lationitoo'drop below self.rsust.aining, plant or animal community rcducc,th number , otieittict",Oltftnggofsrare 6riendanliefed..plantor animal'or*RmInareimportant examplcs the major periods of California history-or prehistory! - b. Dots 'toe project have impacts that aremdividuRfly limited, but"Cumulatively coniiderablO means th at Nit tht'ifidrerrientil effects of ; a proJeci, are congiderable when viewed in connection with the effects of pasuprojects,,the effects of "other current projects, and the effects of probable f0ture projects)? d. Poes project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, 6thirr directly or Olscusslon:r The pToject with mitigation measures, ,w6uld, significant effect on the environment, achieve short4errn, to the disadvantage of'Iong- environmental goals have cumulafiVe�adve:rte Impacts, or 6ausr substantial idn"rk iifipacts on human beings. MItIgatio AMemy"ri/Monitaring: N/A IM MEMENTATION: MONITORING: CONSTRUCTION: POST-C-O NSTRUCTION: A 4�- 4 the, pqjed,�applicant,, have'reviewed,this* I nitial S tudy :and hereby agreeIo iricbrOorate'lhe rnru",ation,mewures and monitoring prograrn$ (dent i fid,herein into the project.. Signaturco(Applicani Date • I : 0 Page,20, . • Yea - No a Ci y of Petaluma, California Community Development: Department Planning Division X8 5$ 11 English 'Street, Petaluma CA 94952 Project Name: I ile,Nu.mber: AddresslLocation: Sweed. :School Adaptive!- Reuse.and Townhouse Project 03 -REZ -0067 331 Keller Street Reporting /Monitoring Record e Mitigation Measures This document has been developed, pursuant to the; California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to ensure proper and adequate monitoring or, reporting in conjunction with project(s)' approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. 1 *41 11 414- AiQ i�.PR1 � IFVL d RI U �Rl� t1 D��I t � 4i 4 �D1 Pf iu �yY' UIt UI r c t r IN 1 11 Noise: Mitigation Measures 1.; Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6 :00p.m. and Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5`00p.m. Noise .generating construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all :holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. Construction activities that generate little or no exterior noise, such as painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., may be exempted from these more restrictive requirements if approved in writing by the Community Development Department: 2. There shalLbe no 'start. up of internal combustion engines on construction related machinery or equipment prior to 8s00:a.m. Monday through Friday. 3. - Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non - holiday) between 7:30 a.m: and 6:00 p.m: 4. Machinery shall ,not be cleaned past 6;00 , p ; m.: or ,serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday through `Friday. 5. All construction equipment powered by 'internal combustion engine shall be properly mufflered and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion is prohibited. 7. All stationary noise generating construction, equipment shall be located as -far as practical from existing :nearby residences, and other noise .sensitive' land uses. All such equipment shall be 1 acoustically shielded. 8. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. _ D epartment Requested By.or Due Date Page 1 PD Planning Division FM Final Map FM Fire Marshal BP t Building Permit ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee i,TM Long- Term`Monitoriii ) �1� UI I Ird� Ultnl)1 F, i �,,j 9. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator " such as the contract or contractor's representative who is responsible for responding to any'local "complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint'(e,g. starting-too early, bad muffler, etc , .) and take'; measures to correct the problem. The name and. phone number +of'the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site; included on the plans submitted' for building permit, and - included in a mailing regarding the construction,sehedule sent to all„ neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 1: Prior to the project being, scheduled for review by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee, the windows and doors that will be replaced and the windows and doors that will be repaired, will be identified.. Which windows can be repaired`and'the windows that require replacement due to the extent of damage shall be deterrriined by staff in conjunction with Carey and Company review of the existing windows and doors and `information provided by the applicant. 2. Windows and doors that are . damaged beyond _ repair as: determined in compliance with true or simulated tiue divided light (Ca ey C crommendati doors hall be wood and tion pages 14, 17, and 20). - 3. The windows'and doors for the: new carriage house units shall; be wood frame and true or simulated true divided aighti (Carey & Company recommendation page 17). — 4, . Prior to the project being scheduled for review by the Histonc and Cultural Preservati,. Committee, the following, 'items shall return to Carey and Company for evaluation consistency with, the Oakhill- Brewster'Guide lines 'and the-Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: a. , Windovand door cutsheets for replacement windows and doors; b. Newicuts for the additional skylights; C. New cuts and modified cuts to the north, south and west elevations of the, Sweed School building; - d. Heighcof the revised carriage house units; and e. Redesign and materials of the carriage house units 5. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee shall ;review `the' color palette for the carriage house "units to ensure that the. colors are harmonious with surrounding :structures and consistent with the architectural time period of the buildings., The plans. submitted..for Historic and 'Cultural 'Preservation Committee review shall 'include- prop roposed colors. for the carriage units ( Carey &'Company recommendation ,page 17). S: \monitoring \Sweed School Mit Monitoring.doc • DeGartinent PD Planning,Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division FM Final &fdp BP Building Permit CO Certificate 'of Occupancy SPARC, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Lon e= T.erm.Moniiorine Page 2.