HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A-Attch11 09/20/2004C1tyofP.:etA11'uma
Community ,Developrent Department
Planning Division
11 Eng lish ' Street
Petalu t;�9
7071778-4301
11hificil Study
of Environmental,-S
Z Introductio I n: This Initial' Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code, Se'ctiqn 21600 et seq), and the CEQA Guidelines; Additional information inc61bor - d b ' ft herein
ate y re, erence
includes: the project appl ication ; lkatio , en.viforn 4rifoFmation.4ties.tiormaire, environmental review data sheet referrals,
staff report, General Plan, E I I R- and Technical Appendices, 'I
s,and, other .p anning docurnent (i.. e:, Petaluma River
Access and Enliancemerit Planlurda, River Watershed aster DtAag6 Plan, specific plans; etc.) on file at the City
Enhancement - - - Plan , Peta I - . M in
1 .__ I e f 0
ivis i ion.
Petaluma Planning b
Project Name. RiverviewS."bdivAsion.
Site Address; McNearAVehile atMJssion.,Driv
file No: 03.!PR-Z-0187
A 0,19- 2'10 - 017.;; - 019, 7026, -027, -030, -031 & -037
Potting Date! April 21, 2004 ClornMe'rtts Due:- May 11, 2004
Lead AgencyContact: City"Of Petaluma, Jaym Allsep; Contra:qi Phone: (415) 789-0736
Applicant/Owners: Cobblestone Homes, Inc Phone: (707)'707.528.8703
• 1406N. Dutton Ave. Ste. I
Santa Rosa,, CA 95401
Project Description', The pro ject site, consists of seven different. parcels under seriafalfe ownership that total ±22.9 acres-
including re
g a 4.9-a uarcdl occdpied'by.: St. ,John Luthdran Ch&c h, located southeast of the intersection of McNear Avenue and
Mission Drive. All properties are currently located outside the Pe.talunia. City ty lirrit§, butalI are within the City's Urban Growth
p
Boundary. The roposal' would annex al parcels - into , the City of, Petaluma and pre -zone; to the Planned Uni I t Development (PUD)
.
zoning classification! The proposed PUP for 4 I he annexation area would allow a -total:of 6 7 singfe4amily homes, the existing St.
John Church facility and afut parsonage4o.be constructed-on th&church prop6rty. A.Iffiore detailed description of the proposed
PUD/Annexation area, as the applicant's application submittal is�provided below:
The%sfte,'is comprised of land use areas.-'
The "St. John Church, LandUs el Area�% ferred to as "Church ',Prqperty'', occupies a ±4,:9-acre 'parcel aHhe southwest comer
o . f'the, project. site adjacent to. McNearAyenueJAP 019-210 -0.17). The existing ch
urch:facilities are. proposed to remain.
The -proposed _Plarin d Unit'Developffidint would provide for�thc, construction , of a parsonage on ffieChurck property north of
the , proposed'Missioh , Drive ektensiom and
I. The "Single Family Residential'' Land Use Area, which;makes; up the rema►nder.of the - site This land use area is dividedinto
two stib-areas: Sub: Areas `A and"'B ` , as .,�dekfibed further below:
Sub-Area "A" is 17.11 acres. A Tentative Subdivision 'Map application.' for this property propose - s 63; lots proposed for
residential Jand uses, including: two existing homes to remaim(Ldts 8 n 1.7) �a' dfwo �Ous1orn
a d I n home -sites (Lots 9 and 16). In
addition, two open space parcels (Parcels, A and B) are proposed withihlihis sdbLarea., A 0.18-acre open.space parcel (Parcel
A) is proposed in the :northern .part of the "site, and a 2.48-acre open space ,parcel '(Parcel . B ) -is proposed in the southeastern
portion of the site. Access iwihe McNear Avenue via a;pribpqspd, ,.p te sionof Mission Drive, and
a new street between Mission Drive, and ' Boulevard (Nadiiie 'Lane), - The - Propdsed project also provide's for a
possible street connection to `the development proposed on the DutraOuaffy site (Lomas Ntalumd) 16catedpofth and east of
ATTAC,HMENT.11
Project Name: Riverview Subdivision- file No. 03- PRZ- 01 Page
the Riverview property. Lot sizes. would, range from approximately 4,900 square feet. to 2 square feet. The homes
(except for the existing and custom hciniesj' would be 'two stories (some split level), have three to : five, bedrooms and each
would have a' two -car garage, with some plans ;offering a third' optional tandem, garage. space. Home sizes would-range from
approximately 2300 + /- to _3600 + /- "square °feet. Two ormore phases, are anticipated' for the construction -of the new homes.
p
,property; P
rea "B" is. comprised of it e 0.8'1 -acre Young Property, A separate. tentative :map application is on- file for this
°which, for `sin le-fariiil residential homes. Development of Sub-Area , would
,ro 1?- oses the >creation of four parcels g Y
be;subjecCto`the Riveryiew•PUD development standards.
The Petaluma General Plan (amended :1995) land use designation for this site is Urban Standard with a permitted density of 2. 1, to
five :dwelling, units per` acre (36 to 89 dwelling units :for the' 22.9 -acre .site).. Development proposed for Sub Area A ,(63 homes)
and,,Sub,Area B' (four homes) would result, in an overall density of2.9'dwelling units per acre, which is within;the density range�of
allowed by the.Urban Standard designation:
The request for annexation and pre - zoning applies,to the entire 22.9- acre proj'ectssite. �A,request fora and lot,lirie adjustments have
beensubmitted for SuhTArea "A ", and_as noted above a,separate tentative rnap application has been submitted forSUb Area ``$''
(Young Property). The Ciry of Petaluma would serve as the lead agency for, all applications related to the,proposed d'evelopme_nt
and would be responsible'..for'approval of °the environmental documentation.
•
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
S'igni'ficant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation.
Impact
Measures.
Page; 2
`_�� LOCAT OIV MAP
hi.. 4E RIVERV EW B
�.�`�'_.�-* �t - . , r i I I S U D 1 V S 1 O I*
ki y .'', f e l'\$ i. „S °y r
CITY. OF PETALU MP.
CALIFORNIA
T
ter; Project Site
Riverview Subdivision+ f ir, Legend
Parcel Boundaries
r
is
rn v
1 � 4
4m
�sl. " 5 ` r
.'?tYi��e. R .. � .x�'t� `� °:- '� `a _.� �.�i`�.�L:ax . � .fs ° r.. ?'° . � � ts.:'t �n . '�:x.. � :b• =,: �.' .. _. , r•.�� ,,, J*s1�':. _,.
r
Date: 9/14/2004
0 40 80 160 240 320
Feet
e moM v ewrw iru�...0aaw mp.M m. W .:u..e�M1 m
i. GMaa.wur. erumw m.spwewM.wa�q u+.avr.q
omeum awua nx.n b i.y Po.n.nwum. n...new. a
3` ��+ � F, �- •ci'i 4 t���, lr� �. .� � :1•t t f '' � a r.. `-
s'
S �q.. j .� ¢'Mt H� .G y t � �f ;,;�.i ''.` t +� ,�, � s 1, � 1_ �:•^�,
r
4
0
., Project Name:, Riverview Subdivision = File', No. 03- PRZ- 0187CR Page 4
Environmental Setting:
Potentially
Less than
Less,Than
'No
Significant
Significant
Significant
hnpact.
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
The site is comprised of § yeral separate parcels and can be characterized as rural residential. There are five existing homes on
the property, and several accessory buildings' (barns, carports, sheds, garages). .A portion of the. site appears to be an
abandoned .walnut orchard. St. John, Lutheran Church,, which includes a child care center, 'occupies 4.9. acres southeast of the
intersection of McNear Avenue and Mission Drive. The site.is gently to moderately sloping from:west to south, with an average
slope of 14.6 %. Elevations across the.site range from 28 feet along the northern; propertyfne between the Radio'Station access
road and McNear Avenue, to 170 feet near the southeastern corner of the property. Most of the site is covered with grassland
and oak woodland, which occurs:mostly on the hilly southern portion of the site. A separate cluster of oaks occurs in the more
central portion of the site. A. small seasonal ('ephemeral) drainage traverses the site. from the southeast corner to the area
adjacent to the church parking lot, where it becomes channelized and runs due northeast until it enters a culvert _and presumably
discharges into the Petaluma.River approximately %4 mile north of the site.
Directly north of the property is APN 01 9-210 -037 where the Radio Tower of'KTOB; the local radio station in Petaluma is
located. Also to t he north is the :Petaluma People Center and, COTS located ; at .1.500; Petaluma Boulevard South. East 'of the
project site is the, Dutra Quarry Group at 1600 Petaluma Boulevard South. On the - quarry property' is the San Antonio
Volunteer Fire Department (1550. Petaluma Boulevard South), which consists of two fire trucks housed in a metal
building /garage: South•of "the project isthe Petaluma; Golf &' Country .Club.
Responsible /Trustee Agencies::
LAFCO (annexation)
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
San'Francisco. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB)
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 ";a "s 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
5. Hydrology &Water Quality
6. Biological Resources
10, Transpoitation/Traffic
1:1. Public Services
12. Recreation
16'. Agricultural Resources.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Page 4
Project Name: Riverview Subdivision; File Number: 03 -PRZ -0187 CR Page 5
® Deti mination
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 significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated' impact on the environment but at .least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in, 'an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and,2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier •analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze. only the effects that remain to be.addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because.all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE,DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable- standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
'DECLARATION 'including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed: upon the proposed project nothing
further, is, re:quired..
A Notice of Intent to adopt, a,Negative Declaration Will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public' comment "period
of April 21, 2004 through May I I; 2004.
Prepared by: Jayn1 Allsen
Name
Contract.Planner
Title
Signature
Date
O
Page 5
.
Prpjec_t-Name ; Riverview'Subdivi ion; File Number 03 -PRZ -0187' CR Page b
Evaluation of Environmenfol Imp®cfs
fj A brief explanation required, for all answers except "No `impact` answers that are adequately "supported by ;the
information sources a dead, agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No :Impact',' answer IS .
adequately supported if' the referenced> information'soures ;show,thatthe impact simplyAoes not apply to projects like
`the one involived•(e:g:, the project falls outside a fault rupture;zone)'. A. impacfanswer shoul'd.be explained` where it
is based ,m project - specific factors'as well ;as general standards, i.e., the project will ;not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants based,on a- projest=specifie screening analysis.
All' a nswers,musttake 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. iimpact.'may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate' whether the impact is; - tentially significant less than, significantw`itli'mitiga ion, or less than. significant:.
"Potentially . Signdcant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial " evidence" that %aff effectrthay be ;significant. If There
I re one or more `,Potentially' Sigmf cant Impact" entries when the deterrriination is .made, an EIR is required_
4); "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" apphes '•where `the, incorporation ;of .
mitigation, measures has reduced an :effect from "Potentially 'Significant Impact'' -' to a "Less 'Than Significant Impact.
The lead'. agency ;must, describe 'the mit'iga :tion measures, and, briefly. exp'fam ;how ;they reduce , the effect to a less than
significant level.(rriiti "gation' measures from Section.XVII, "Earlier Analyses" ' '.may be cross - referenced)'.
5); Earher;analyses miay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR; `gr' other CEQA . 'an effect has been
adequately analyzed m,an,earlid EIR or riegative,decl`a - ratiori;pursuant to•Section 1 =5063(c)(3)(D).. In this ease, a brief
discussion should rdenfify, the following:;
•' a) E "arlier. Analysis .Used.,.Identifyandstate; whererthey are;available for review.
b) ; Impacts Adequately _Addiesse& Identify which'effects from.the above checkl'isi were within° the`, scope of and
adequately analyzed :in, an earlier document pursuant to apphcahle ` "legal "standards', and "state whether sucK,
effects: were addressed by - iii ga ion measures basedsori the "earlier analysis
c) d scrbe�the�mrtrgahon�measuress `thattwere corporated refned fr m h " " Iearlier ocument and rporattent
:
the extent
to `wh'ichAheyaaddress site- specific" conditions for 'the. project:
•6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into. the :checklist,xeferences to information "sources, for'potential impacts '
(e. g. general plans, ,zoning or Reference to a previously prepared or outside ?document should, where .
appropr- iate,,ihaiide;areference ;to the page or pages where the statement i's
Z;) Su ortin' Information Sources: A source list`shouid be' attached, other sources used. or individuals! contacted°
pp
should b.e the discussion.
8;) The of each..issue should identify --
A I si n'A' ance criteria,or; threshold,, if any,, wed „to each quest
g ion;.and_
b). „
'The mitigation, measure4d'erfified „'if any, to °reduce the - impact to less than significant.
:Page'6
Rivervievv initial Study Page 7
En kdh, Mental,Analysis
1, Land Use and Plannrtei Would the project:
Physically divide an established comrnunity3'
b: Conflict,with:any applicable land.use plan,,policyor
regulation ofan agency with °jurisdiction over the =project
(iheluding,,but.not liinited�to,the general pl'an,,specifc;
plan, local; coastal prograin,`or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding °or mitigating an
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any,applicable>habi't conservation planior
natural community conservation plan?
Discussion:
Potential'
Less;Tfian
Lesslliarc
No
Significant
Significant
Sigmficaht
Impact_
Impact • .
w /,Mitigation
Iiiipact'
Into ""orated
)c
6q
M.
The subJect property is located. southeast °of thel Petaluma city limits within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The.17.9± -acre
portion of the site referred to as the Single, Family Residential .,Land Use Area has an "Urban Standard" land use ;designation„ as
identified,in the Petaluma! General Plan ('amended 1995), which,permits a density r anging fromZ l to fire, dwelling units per, acre.
The General Plan :identifies this nand use category as Petal' uma's prototypical land use, anddens.ity ,It is the°density found iri tract
developments of , e"
sih &4amily homes. The 4 9f acres of..aand occupied,;by St. John •Lutheran Church 'has a "Public and
°Institutional General Plan designation. Examples of.land'uses within this designation. :include the'County library, fairgrounds ",the
historical: °museum,, the civic center, police and fire stations; private and parochial' schools„ churches and cemeteries: This
designation also;includes1ospitals, conyalescent'hospitals arAnursing•homes.
iota r f 67 retai which.t within ethe t hn pty paw and allow, to 65 _new single family homes would result:in.a
P J
g y nge of 36 to , 89 dwelling units allowed by the Urban Standard
designation of'the' Petaluma Genecai:Plan. The:site is notAci&ently •witliin the' Petaluma City aimits „and therefore has no Petaluma
zoning classification. The applicant is re- questing, anriexation.,into° the City., Consistent, with the: Local Agency ;Formation
Commissi_on's (LAFCO) :requirements for annexations, the proposed.,project = includes a; request ;to pre' zone the- property and then
annex into the City of Petaluma: Prezoning is the process by which. a city. prezones an unincorporated, temtory that it; expects to
annex The proposed zoning must be consistent with the C;'tY! General .Plan. Upon annexation into the City, - "the zoning; would
regulate the property.
The - pro pose-d project would prezone,the property to Planned Unit Development'(PUD): The, PUD District allows a;mix- of uses
and densities; and building intensity ,or design .characteristics that would not normally be permitted "in a "single use district.
Development .in, this zone w ould be allowable :after the City Council' approves, a complete Planned Unit 'pevelopment Plan
showing the:interrial design of4the. District and th_e relation:'fo suirounding areas and LAFCO approval of the annexation. TheCity
Council may approve the PUD, with:a recommendation from_the Planning Commission based bii a�series of findings (Article 1'9A
Section 19A- 300',City^of Petaluma' Zoning Ordiridnce). These:'findmgs i_nt lude' adequate mitigation. for.generaiion. of additional,
traffic; appropriate design, and arrangement of buildings, facilities and landscaping to `ensure com Atibili
p ty'with nearby'propertes;
protection of natural, and, scenic, qualities of the site and development of the property, in a way.'that would be consistent with the
general intent "of the Pefaluma,General'Plan, the Zoning and applicable "`plans adopted.by`the City.
The proposed project would;be subJectfo policies and`progran s,specifed in ihe:Petalunia General Plan., The _following Land Use;
(LU) Policieswould,apply:
LU Policy 3.:'Itis the!policy,of`tfie City ^to, build w.'ithin anagreed -upon urban limit line:
Page ~7
Riverview InifiblStu.,dy
Page'8%
Potc
LessIlian
Less` Ian
No
901i'ficant
1Si , ghj'ricant
Sig4k'aiit
fmpSct
Impact
W/wii'g 41�on
I'm p 4 c t
ImprPorated
LU Policy Growth.shall be contained. within4he boundari'essdf'theu `ban-lirriii`lin'e. The'n
ecessar f
y infraitructure br'gro"4h
will be provi&dwithiifilidurban Iiiiiii- line;
m densities shown
"21 �'T C does not 01arahtee that a ividilal qJ'ect'will' be able 'to achicvejhe; makiffiti
U Policy h ity any
pr
on. ahe Land U s e,Ivlap:
Conservation, -- ene —
The�O n Smfm �afid Energy _tioh of P
�(Aliiffia • 6 ral Plan _ states goals. of 1) retaining waterways! and, aoiaceht
'fand i n "their natural state, in tfie Petaluma- Planning Xefenr_aVAfba and 2) _g a p re serving re sources hatifr eso idifes
in
g _a, _ -
Petaluma Planning, eferralAreal., The! Restoration Guidelines -for the, 'Petaluma, Ri . ver Watershed ,Qul 11 y 1996) would al's to
the proposed' project. 'The-purpose of these,g4idelines encourage iiitegratedmanagerneiit an& maintenance, o stream corr I i rs o
d
and flood control channels Within, the Ntalurha River Watershed. Relevant. General 'Plan policies 'related to Open Space,
'Conservation, and'IEnergy include the following:
OS/C/E Policy 2; Watershed lands shallbe. protected, !and:any , .development of watershed area shall retain as much natural
vege6fion as,is f6asible.
A P promote, Water
'27; The City. shall conservation through , .development' standards,. building requirements,
- 'd line
pe esigpjgui e _.-s And other applicable citywide7p6li6ds,;and
programs,.
Tfie'Petaluiffd General, Pldii:s�e�ifiesthat-' pe shall hall prqvJd 15
I- - -1 1 - _... - - - - . _ . ts of `5 br more .units" _p S e 10-
a�jne re, i en t
percent their uruts,,a'affordabj6. Thiscan,be in one bf 1) paying an ' h ousing� fee for � residential lot
I. l
`&
payable at,the close, , -se, of escrow:fo ead,li'lotpr residential unit; 2) providing 10-16 - percent of units dffordable , to low and rhodeiate
incQmes;:pr3).,dedimting a.portion ofthe landto the City,fbuuse, A for aff6rdable housing
The projeasite would be tothe: City' &Billside Residential Development Combining District (H-R-D) regulations (Article
19 1, 'Section 19'.J -100, City of' Petaluma' Zoning Ordinance). The E_R-D. designation; regulates development on hillsides inIhe
interest 'of ,preserv natuial - top - 'pgrap hic features and aesthetic'. character of the City- controlling runoff, siltation, and erosion;
mai ntaining existin - - co ver _mg to , and wildlife habitdt. providing sak ;ahjd con access to hillside develo
_iiqriien� a hi - I- - - _ - __ - 1 .-
encouraging d psign :arill d ev elo pment, d eyqopme4t %
I practices to provide safety for human, habitation and enjciyment, dect6agi'flg. ;the 'risk of
- hig A6111 �in Jand use 4efisifi d 6 J didral` - lah.
png, g ha zard a J d g onsisteritvi ihthe G
a densities a ppn,space,(:�
Cheeklist. Items
il No Impact: The! proposed project would be located on a site Ahat,is surrounded' y existing residential communities, as well as
b
non- residential . uses ztothe north and'east. Directly ,north of the property is where the Radio, Tower :of KTOB, the local
radio station in Petaluma is''focated (APN . 019-21'0-03;7): . Also' to. the= north is the Petaluma People, Center' , and COTS- at
1590'? Petalu.ma, Bouleyard South., East the project site Js gthe'Dutra Quarry Group at I 600'Petaluma Boulevard'South.
South, of the proj qa site are s ingte-fami ly res idential nei jzhb orho6d§ All ofthe'surrounding uses are distinct neighborhoods,
sep arate ;from , the projeasftq therefore , the ppojectwould not physically divide existing, community.
b) Less, Than Si,&ni]ticant WA: Mitigatio?I14hCorm - ted. A& pro J
ra 'site is, not (urretitiv Within Petalumal's incorporated limits
.altho is Within- Pdtahima! Urban Growth Boundary dnd,is therefore wi
thn i
thetC Planning kekrril'Area.
The project ap c 'Tree Re a'cemeriffl that ht adheres, io the uide nmset�brth by the'Cit e
pli arit §bbiiiitt-ed a,,- , l
I p - - - " 1. �� I gll f
- the' City T,heprcj,ect:,do, s,
not p�opose the construction o Paffordabie;housin units. The '
9 be required toconIrifiute,to
'
affordable hou sing, program.pursuant to the Element ofttli'e Pdaluma,General'Plan. See Mitigation Measures section
below.
To the extent described above; ,'the applicant has taken into account xelevant� lans and policies iad6pted,bythe� City,, and has
attempted 'to ;incorporate these :concepts into the proposed project. With implementation of - 'the xhitig measures'
described, below.,, impacts related to consistency with .relevant plans,, p would, be- less than
significant.
Page .8
Riverview Initial
pnnpe 9
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
'Significant
Impact'
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
incorporated
c) Conservation Plan or other app oVed local, regional,, or state: habit tcon eprveation plan.Conservat gn,Plan, Natural .Comrriunity
Mitigation 81easures/Monit6rfn
I,: The Applicant shall' contribute to the Citys affordable .housing program pursuant to the Housing Element of'the
Petaluma Gen Plan-. The ,Applicant shall participate through:' (a) payment of an 'in'lieu -housing ;fee for each
P . 11. residential lot' _ ayable: gat ,the; close of escrow for each lot or residential unit; (b)Aedtcafion of land to the City fors.
;development of affordable housing; or (c) provision ;of between.l0'to 1 S percent of the'uni_ts' at below - market rents or
prices as described in;the Plan.,
2. ' Population,.Ernployment and Hous I ing .'Would. - thej) role
�
a: Induce substantial pop "ulation growth�in an area, eithei
directly (for'example, by proposing new hones ;and
businesses) orindirectly (for example;, through extens
ofYoads or
other,
'b. Displace:tsubstantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the cons truction;o_ f replacement'housing�
elsewhere?
ct Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating
construction ofJrepla(ement housing elsewhere?
X
Discussion
.Existing, , surrounding land uses pare °residentia'1, open space, and the D't
consistent with;the General Plan "`Urban Standard" ]and use: designation.
ChecklistItems
A) Less Than Significant: 'The proposed density of up to 67 dwelli
``Urban Standard "1 "and, use•:designation of to,five,dwelling units;:
b -c) Less Than There are five existing homes owthe projec
Two; m
of the existing homes are proposed to�rema, and thesother tlu
ne,w homes'. The dernolition of the three ,existing `domes ;would .no
Therefore, impactswould be;aess than;sigruficant.
'Quarry operation. - The ,proposed, land. use would `be
units would be consistent 'With .:density. range, of the
site, as' well as the St. John Church and,-related facilities.
e would be removed to:make way for the cons'truchon'of
result in di substantial displacement of existing, housing:
Mitigation MV asures/MonitorinE Naapplical le.
,3. Geolooy and Soils UVoul&the project -,,
a,. Expose ; people ,or structures to potential_ substantial
adverse effects; including °the risk of loss,; injury or de
involving:
is Rupture of a- known,,, earthquake fault, as
delineated on the'mostrecentAlquist- Priolo;
Earthquake Fault,Zoning .Mdp issued bythe
State, Geologist for tl enarea or basedxon other
substantial ev denceof a, known fault ?'Refer t
!age 9
d
Riverview Initial Study Page 10
•
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seisniicground shaking?
iii. Seismic- related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
b: Result. substantial soil erosion or the loss of'topsoil ?.
c. Be located on�a geologic`unitor - soil that:is.unstable,,or.
that would become unstable as a result in on- or
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil,.as defined in Table 19 -1 -B
of the Uniform Building Code (1 creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e. Unstable °conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
f: Disruptions, displacements, compaction or•overco)�ering
of the soil?
g. Change in topography or ground surface relief`features?
h. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geol',ogic'or physical features?
i. Any increase in wind :or water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
j. Changes, in deposition or erosion.of beach sands;, or
changes in siltation, deposition.or erosion which may
modify`the channel of .a river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
k. Ekpositre of people or 'property. to geologichazards, such
as earthquakes „landslides, mudslides, ground failure or
similar hazards?
Potential'
Less Than,
Less Than
No.
Significant
Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inc. orated.
X
Discussion:
The topography of1he site can be: characterized as gently to moderately sloping;grass and oak covered.slopes. Elevations across
,the site;range,from 28ofeet,along °the northern property line, between the '.Radio °Stationyaccess road and WNear Avenue, to, 170
feet near the southeastern corner of the property. Slopes in the western portion of-the property'are.typically`less.than 79 while
slopes :ort ;the eastern half of the ,property average between 20 .and 30 percent. A_Geotechnical Investigation of r4e,subject
property was prepared ° by RGH 'Geofechnical and'Environmental.,Consultanis; March 21, 2003, confirmed the presence of a
composite active 'landslide and soil creep on the 20 to :30 percent slopes in the eastern and southern portions of the: proposed
project site'. The report' concludes that, from a. geotechnical engineering, standpoint, the site can be developed.:with residential
construction as proposed, provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into its design and
construction. The most significant factors specified in the RGH report that: require consideration for special design .and
onstruction measures include: the, presence of unstable slopes, =including �S landslide on the eastern and southern portion of the
ite highly expansive, weak, creep- prone'uppe_r soils;. the long -term effects_ of uncontrolled surface runoff and- groundwater
seepage and the seismic ground shaking that affect the entire San Francisco Bay region. All recommendations regarding the
level ofri's "k related'to appropriate design features, and construction measures, necessary to minimize potential 'ad'verse effects
Page 1'0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
`X
X
X
X
x
.
Discussion:
The topography of1he site can be: characterized as gently to moderately sloping;grass and oak covered.slopes. Elevations across
,the site;range,from 28ofeet,along °the northern property line, between the '.Radio °Stationyaccess road and WNear Avenue, to, 170
feet near the southeastern corner of the property. Slopes in the western portion of-the property'are.typically`less.than 79 while
slopes :ort ;the eastern half of the ,property average between 20 .and 30 percent. A_Geotechnical Investigation of r4e,subject
property was prepared ° by RGH 'Geofechnical and'Environmental.,Consultanis; March 21, 2003, confirmed the presence of a
composite active 'landslide and soil creep on the 20 to :30 percent slopes in the eastern and southern portions of the: proposed
project site'. The report' concludes that, from a. geotechnical engineering, standpoint, the site can be developed.:with residential
construction as proposed, provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into its design and
construction. The most significant factors specified in the RGH report that: require consideration for special design .and
onstruction measures include: the, presence of unstable slopes, =including �S landslide on the eastern and southern portion of the
ite highly expansive, weak, creep- prone'uppe_r soils;. the long -term effects_ of uncontrolled surface runoff and- groundwater
seepage and the seismic ground shaking that affect the entire San Francisco Bay region. All recommendations regarding the
level ofri's "k related'to appropriate design features, and construction measures, necessary to minimize potential 'ad'verse effects
Page 1'0
Riverview Initial Study Page 1 1.
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
'Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
.Impact
In co "orated
associated with geotechnical failure and recommendations associated with fault rupture and related secondary effects have been
incorporated as,elements of the project: See Appendix A.
Soils
Soils on the site'are classified, as belonging'to the Los "Gatos series and the YbIO Series. The Yolo series soil• is located'on the
gentle slopes in the western portion of the property, 'and consists of a well - drained clay loam over sandstone :and shale•
alluvium. Runoff over the Yolo soil is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. The Los Gatos soil is located on the 20 to 30
percent slopes'on the eastern and southern•portion of the site and typically Consists of.loam underlain by sandstone and shale at
a depth of 24 to 48 inches. Runoff over the Los Gatos loam is rapid and hazard of erosion is high to very high.
Seismicity
The proposed site is located, in a region where earthquakes occur frequently. The San Andreas Vault is located approximately
15, miles to the. southwest, and the Healdsburg- Rodgers Creek Fault is located approximately:five miles northeast of the site.
There is no evidence to suggest the presence of active faults on project site, and the site Js not within a current Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake and Fault Zone.
Checklist Items
a)
.i) No impact. The proposed project site lias no known active faults .that pass through it; therefore development of
the project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects from fault-ruptures,
•
ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. .A major seismic event on the San Andreas Fault. or
Healdsburg— Rodgers Creek Fault could cause severe groundshaking at the proposed project site. While it is not
possible to eliminate all damage caused by earthquakes, implementation of'these xecommendations would avoid
structural collapse and reduce the damage associated with potential fault rupture to the extent practicable.
Therefore, implementation of the recommendations contained i t the site- specific geotechnical -study to minimize
the level of risk related t'o:ground'shaking reduce this impact to a less - than- significant.level.
iii) Less Than Significant. With Mitigation Incorporated. 'Liquefaction typically occurs in highly :granular `soils, such
as sand. The -soils on the site are clays and loams that are not normally susceptible to .liquefaction. Therefore, the
potential for such effects are considered to be low and related impacts would'be considered less than significant.
•
b) Less than Significant 1m)2act. The projectis underlain'by soilsthathave slow to very rapid runoff potential and'-slightto very
high potential for erosion. Proposed grading of the site could lead to .soil erosion and sedimentation. In. accordance with
requirements set. by the State Water Resources Control Board, the applicant °will prepare'an Erosion Control Plan (ECP) as
Part of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to protect. against excess erosion and siltation and to
maintain water quality. The ECP would be subject to review and approval by the Community 'Development Department,
prior to'issuance.of a grading permit. Im m
pleentation ofthe ECP_ would.reduce this potential impact to a less - than = significant
level. See also section 5. Hydrology and Water Quality
c) Less Than Significant- With Mitigations Incorporated. The site specific Geotechnical Investigation prepared: by RGH
Geotechnic.al'and Environmental Consultants, March 21, 2003, confirmed the presence of a landslide and _soil creep on the.20
to 30 percent slopes in'the' eastern and southern porfions of.the site: Based on these observations,' the report
concludes that there is a. high probability for future landslide movement at the project site. Removal of landslide debris and
restoration of the slope by construction of a buttress keyed. into the underlying bedrock, as well as other recommendation& of
the project geotechnical. engineers would be implemented to lessen risks associated with soil instability. Therefore,
implementation of these measures would reduce ibis impact to a less- than - significant level.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The RGH geotechnical, report indicates the presence of expansive
ansion potential
soils east of the existing landslide, which exhibit a high to very high exp, Expansive soils, such as those•
found. on the sitee., shrink and swell :as they lose and gain moisture during `the local weather cycle: Therresulting volumetric
changes can heave and crack lightly loaded foundations, slabs and pavements. Because of the limitations of the soils,
special design considerations, per recommendations in the geotechnical report, would be implemented to reduce adverse
Page 11
i „'
Riverview Initial Study Page 12
•
Potential"
Less Than,
Less Than
No
Significant
,Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
effects associated - with,. expansive soils. Implementation of the, recommendations contained in the geotechnical
investigation Would lessen 'this potential impacuto a less -than signifi cant level.
e) Less Than Signiftcant ,With Mitigation Ineor pora "ted. T}ie proposed project would involve the grading And earthwork to
_.
prepare the .site for development: The: RGH geotechnical `report recommends °the removal of landslide debris'and
excavating weak soils and replacing them with properly compacted engineered„ fill. Alternatively, " satisfactory foundation
support (drilled piers) could he obtained' ,below the weak.
n surface soils. P toy ide_d that the recommendations of- the
geotechical, study are 'followed,, impacts would�be reduced to a ,than - significant level.
f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation; Incorporated. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction
operations shall be conducted in, accordance with City. of. Petaluma" s `Subdivision. Ordinance ( #1:046, Title 20, Chapter
20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal. Code) +and,Grading and! Erosion Control'.Ordinance ( #1576,'Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the
Petaluma Municipal. Code). 'Furthermore; implementation of the recommendations of'the geotechnical study would lessen
this , impactto:less -than- significant level`s.'See also Sections 3.b.,,c„ and d,
g) Less Than Significant. The proposedr_subdivision..has been designed 'to minimize ttie `amount of grading that would be
necessary for development of the, ste..•Areas thatrequired extensive grading for landslide repair and/or site preparation
would be contour grading to blend withahe natural topography, and proposed open space areas would remain undisturbed
except fon improvements necessary for. emergency fire access, etc. Therefore; changes• in topography would be less than
significant.
h) No Impact. No unique ;geologic features are reported to exist on the site based on the geotechnical, study, cultural
resources survey and.,site' inspections.
i). Less Than Significant With' Mitigation Iiieorporated. The proposed project would involve the grading and earthwork to
prepare the site for development. T_ he amount of earth disturbance, combined with the soil type and topography of the
ro ect site would likel e th
proposed p j y increase potential for erosion of sails (See also Sections 3.b., c., d., and f): The
applicant shall submit• an Erosion Control, Plan that- will incorporate mitigatton mea "sores mto the project to reduce the
impacts of potential increases in'water and''soil erosion,(see also: Section 3:b) :Some wind erosion would .likely occur
during construction, .due to exposure of graded soils. Implementation- of�the ;Erosion Control. Plan and of mitigation
measures found in• Section 4, Air, Quality would lessen this impact to a" less- level.
j) Less Than Significant'With,Mitigation Incorporated: Hydrological features on the site consist - of a small seasonal drainage
that bisects the site Wand. flows into: the Petaluma, 'River approximately, % `mile, north of the site.. Based on the civil
engineering drawings, submitted for }'the 'proposed project, the drainage channel on the °southeast portion of the site would
be retained, within a proposed open space area. The drainage would be; placed -in an underground. culvert where it meets the
proposed iextension of Mission Drive near proposed Quarry Lane. In accordance with requirements Tset by the' State Water
Resources Control Board, °the applicant will prepare: an.Erosion Control Plan (ECP) as part of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan,(SWPPP)'in� order to protect, excess, erosion:and siltation and to : maintain water quality. The ECP
would be subject -to review and approval'by the,'Community :Development Department,, prior to issuance of a grading
permit. Implementation, of the ECP would reduce this:poten "tial impact to:a Tess- than - significant level.. See :also section 5.
Hydrology and Water °Quality
k be implemented i lessen altitn ,I asoi- i ed. The recommendations in the site - specific geoiechnical study would
) g .f g P
ated with exposure of people or to geologic• hazards to the extent
practicable. (See also, &ciions 1a., *c., d.,. - and' e
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin'g
• 1, All earthwork, grading trenching backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted'in accordance with the City
of Petalunia'.s Subdivisio_ ii Ordinance (# 1046, Title 20, 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading, and 1. Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title. 17, Chapter 17.31 ofthe Petaluma Municipal Code).
Page 12
M
Riverview Initial Study Page 13
Poteritial
Less Than
" -Less Than
N6
Significant
Significant;
gSignificant -
Impact
Impact
w7Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated_
•
2. The project sponsor shall submit an.Erosion and Sediment Control Plan' prepared`. by a, regi'stered,profess•ional 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 arid, 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 'sediriient,and.,contaminanis� 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 be•,retamed to the extent possible 'to reduce soil erosion. All construction. and grading; activities, 'including
short- term need (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 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 1st. All
grading activity shall %be =completed by October 15th, priouto the on -set of the rainy season', with all disturbed areas
stabilized and re- vegetated by October;3'lSt. Upon,approval.by the Petaluma' City Engineer; extensions for short
term grading may be allowed. The Engineering Section in' conjunction with anyspec ally permitted tainy season
grading may require special erosion control measures.
3. All construction activities shall meet `the Uniform Building: Code regulations for seismic safety G' e, fe nforcing
perfm terand/or load!bearing walls, bracing: parapets, etc.).
4. All public and private shall be subject to - inspection 'by City staff for compliance with the approved
Improvement,. Plans, prior to City acceptance.
5. Foundation and !structural design for buildings shall' conform to the ;requirements of the 'Uniformr Building; Code, as
well' as state and local , .laws %ordinances; Construction plans shall be subject to review ,and approval b'y 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 al] applicable code, requirements and :approved improvement plans prior 'to issuance of a
Certificate -of Occupancy.
6. Prior to issuance of a..:gmding or ,building permit the project sponsor shall submit �a ;detailed schedule for field
inspection of work ip `progress to ensure that all applicable�,codes •conditions ,and mitigation measures are being
properly implemented ihrough.construc'tioii of project.
7. The design of all earthwork;_cuts' and fills, drainage pavements, utilities; foundations and structural components; shall
,conform. with the specifications and'criteria contained ',the geotechnical report, as approved by the City. Engineer.
The geotechnical engineer shall;sign the improvement plans and cert ify the design as� conf6"rn3ing to the specifications:,
The4geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City priorto acceptance of the
ric
the geotechmcal specifications. Construction and imp oveinen planssha'll be reviewed for conformance a 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 irriprovement
projects.,,Addtiona] soils:mforination may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during °tlie plan check of building
plans iwaccordancel with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal, Code.
Page
;R,iueryiew Initial Study Page 14
4:
Potential
Less Than
"Less Than
No
Significant
Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
/Mitigation
Impact
Inc. orated
Air: Where available; the significance .of criteria establi"shed;by:the applicable air quality :management or air pollution
y p g eterminati Wouldthe` roject
control dtstrictma bevrelied,u on' °to make the followin d
a. Conflictwith.or obstruct; implementation of the
applicable+air qualityplan?
b. Violate any air,quality standard or contribute
substantially,to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
C. Result. in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany
criteria, p ollufant for which the project; region. ts non -
attainment under:an,applicable federal or state ambient.
air quality standard (including: releasing emissions which
exceed - quantitative'thresholds:for ozone precursors) ?'
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create odors.affecting. substantial number
of people?
X
R
KI
X
Discussion
Air qual_ityfor the project,area and the'City ofPetaluma is under the jurisdiction of Bay;Area Air Q,uality.ManagementDistrict
(BAAQMD). The district tadministers air quality regulations for the; region. The project site:is :located within the San Francisco
Bay Area,Air Basin. BAAQMD`CEQA Guidelines'indicate�ihat:a single- housing,.development -with greater.than 375 would
typically generate a sufficient number of tripsi to trigger the District's threshold for emissions.
Checklist Items
a Less Than Significant Im act The ro' osed
p p t p project would not . implementation of he air quality plan: for the
region. Emissions associated with,fhe project are included "as part of -the •growth;projecti'ons made for the area and the air
quality plan for °the region;a.n . any associated impact 'is expected to be less thamsigriifcant
'ti) Less Than Significant With' Mitigation Incorporated. Development of'the;,project would result in short -term emission of
particulates from grading, site preparatiori: 'and. construction along with e small quantity of pollutants from, construction
equipment. To minimize the local impacts from construction activiiies.•mitigafi'on measures for "dust suppression and
combustion engine, ,erssions control would be incorporated as part of tfie{ ^proposed project. Specifically, project
construction would incoiporate Bas c Control Measures (BCMs) recommended by the�.BAAQMD as' a list of feasible'
construction emissioibs
ese con rot measures e be into reduce construction_ impacts to a less- than - significant level.
Ilerrientation of th
_ measures that.
P incorporated during construction of. `the ;proposed project would' reduce
rn
related Impacts tq a:less- than = rgnl;fieant level.
According to BAAQMD °CEQA G uidelines; the proposedpro- I 1 well below the established threshold; therefore, emissions
associated with traffic related to. project would be less- than= significant.
c) -Less Than Signaficant,, Impact. Due to the scale of the project, it is anticipated that the. development would not create a
substantial net increase in. the cumulative level of any criteria pollutants 'for which the region "is in non- attainment.
Therefore there would be no, significant cumulative impacts.
d) Less Than• Impact. ° Development of the proposed. project would not subject nearby residents to substantial
• pollution "concentrations. The;proposed project is residential in, nature and'.is. not. expected to ;generate any hazardous air
pollutants. Development ofthe projectwould generate short- term;co tstruction emissions., ,Measures incorporated into the
project to control construction "emissions would reduce potential air quality ;impacts fromo construction to less -than-
significant levels. There would'be nonsignificant air quality impacts during future operation the.proposed site.
Page 14
Riverview Initial Stu
�H _7
Page 15
Potential
Less °Than
Less Than
No .
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
e) Less Than Signif canl.lmpact, There may be relatively minor objectionable . odors from ;the operation of diesel powered .
equipnnent during construction of the proposed new buildings However, these odors would be short-term.and intermittent,
and would °not,result'in a3sigif4icant impact.
Mitigation Measures/Nlonitoring
1) The Applicant' shall, incorporate Best :Management Practices to limit fugitive dust 'and exhaust emissions. 'into the
construction :and irtproveinent .plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. Specific practices would
be included as conditions of approval.
2) The Construction Contra&tor shall adhere to the requirements addressing emission control measures for asphalt pacing
emtsstons,trithe BAA Q MD Rulebook.
5. Hydroloay and Water Qualify Would :the project:
a, Violate any•water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements,? .
b. Substantially deplete; groundwater supplies or interfere.
substantially with,groundwate_r recharge such that°there
would be a :net deficit in.aquifer, volumc;or a.lowering of
thelocai'groundwatertable.level (e.g, the;production:
rate of pre- e)6'stmg nearby wells would drop to a level
°whi&would.�riot support�existing land' uses or 'planned.
usesfor whtehipermifs 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 resulvin'
substantial erosion orzsiltabon on- or off- -site?
d. Substantiallylalter .'ihe'existing drainage pattern of the'site
or area including the alteration.ofthe,course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the'.rate or
amount ofsurface runoff in a.inanner•which:would result_
in,flooding on -or off -site?
e. Create, or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity or- planned storrnwater'drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
pollute&runoff?
f' Otherwise substantially•degrade ,water'quality?
g. Place „hous`ing within a 100 =year flood hazard area, as
mapped on a:federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate';Map ono-ther_flood`hazard'delineation
map?
h. Place within x_:100 -year. flood hazard area•structures
'Which, would impede or redirect flood' flows?
i. Exp'ose people or structures to a significant rislc.of loss;
injury or death;involving flooding, including •flooding as
a,result•of•the failure`of a levee or dam?
•
0
Page 15
X
.
X
X
X ,
X
X
X
X
X
•
0
Page 15
Riverview Initial Study Page 16
•
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? }{
Discussion:
Hydrological features on the site consist of a small. seasonal drainage that bisects the site and flows into the Petaluma River
approximately '/4 mile north of the site. This drainage channel does riot possess significant aquatic or stream habitat values;
however, it does possess minimal riparian habitat value (see Section 5, Biological Resources): Therefore, it is considered 'a
special status habitat. The California. Department of Fish and. Game .(DFG) has jurisdiction over this habitat under Section
1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The wetland in the channel bottom istalso sobject the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Based on the civil''engineering
drawings submitted for the proposed project, the drainage channel on fhe southeast portion of the site would be retained within
a proposed open space are a..The drainage would be=placed in an underground culvert where it meets the proposed extension of
Mission Drive near proposed Quarry Lane.
In accordance with requirements set by the., State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), .the applicant shall prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout project
construction and operation. The applicant complete and submit a Notice of Intent and appropriate filing fee to the
SWRCB. The applicant shall. file a, Notice of 'Termination. (NOT) with the - SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP
shall be submitted for review and, approval by the Engineering Division prior to' approval of improvement plans, final map or
issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to
acceptance of improvements.
•a he Less Than Si ni ecant k7 act. The ro wed project includes the construction of buildin
g .f P. P P P J s and streets and would result in an g
increase of impermeable surface area :across the site. The mcrease m mpermeable surface area and potential associated
surface contarri'hants (e.g:, oil) would result ih, an increase in stormwater runoff and pollutants that could result in adverse
impacts on water quality. In accordance with requirements, set by-the SWRCB, the applicant shall prepare an Erosion Control
Plan (ECP) as part of a. SWPPP in order,to protect against excess erosion and siltation and to maintain water quality. The
measures in the ECP: shall be :consistent with applicable requirements Hof the Regional 'Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). 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 ECP shall also include a post - construction maintenance and monitoring program for the proposed
detention ponds. The ECP shall'be subject to .review and approval of !the Community Development Department, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. ;Specific requirements for the ECP included- in•conditions of approval. Implementation
of the ECP would reduce this potential impacttoa less- than- signific ant. level.
The- plan shall also include landscaping' „and: replanting measures in areas disturbed bygrading. (Seediscussion in Section
3, Geology and Soils).
b) Less Than Significant: Impact. Development' of_ the proposed project would not substantially deplete any sources of
groundwater. Operation of the development would involve water use on site; however, water forthe project would not be
drawn from groundwater supplies and would be provided by the City of Petaluma. According., to a ,groundwater basin
study conducted.by the California Department of Water Resources in 1974 (DCE 1997), the Petaluma Valley groundwater
basin underlies the project site: This basin includes most of the watershed of the Petaluma River. Development on the
project site would involve an increase 'in impermeable surfaces on -site That, would ;reduce the level of stormwater
percolation to subsurface soils. However, the '.local groundwater basin 'is- much larger than the proposed project site,
covering approximately. 60;000 acres extending from Penngrove,'south to the Marin County line and San Pablo Bay (DCE
1997). Therefore, it is unlikely that ..deye lop merit of the proposed project alone would result in a significant reduction in
groundwater recharge:
Less Than Significant Impact:, Development; of the project would involve grading and would result in an increase
in impervious surfaces "and would' therefore alter drainage patterns on. site The proposed water quality ponds would
accommodate the anticipated amount of runoff and siltation associated, with development of the project. Construction of
Page 16
Riverview Initial Study Page 17
Potential
Less Than '
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant,
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
•
the water quality ponds and implementation of the Erosion Control Plan would reduce impacts to levels less -than-
significant. See also section 5.a. of this checklist.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: Development of the proposed project would substantially alter the. natural drainage: pattern
of the.. site. ' Appropriate measures to mitigate the increase in surface water have been incorporated into the project.
See Section 5.c. for additional details. With implementation of'the Erosion Control Plan and construction of the detention
basin (pond), flood - related impacts would be less than significant.
o
e -f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project shall comply with.RWQCB requirements for maintaining, water quality in
order 'to avoid significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, erosion, or siltation on- or off -site. See also the
response to Section 5.c. and 8.c. and •the.Mitigation Measures section below.
g -h) No Impact. According. to Flood Insurance. Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management. Agency, the
proposed. project site is not located in an area subject to flooding from the 100 -year flood event. The proposed project
would not involve the construction of housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, 'there are no expected
.related'impacts.
i) No. Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Dam' Failure Inundation .Hazard Maps,, the project site
is not located in anlarea,that would be impacted by potential dam failures upstream. Therefore, there would be no impact.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a rise or fall of the surface ,of a water body that typically,is induced by strong
winds blowing across a long axis in.a lake'or embayment. A tsunami generated by a high magnitude earthquake along the
San Andreas or Rogers. Creeki 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. The project site is not located near the given the distance of the project site from the Bay and
the; Pacific Ocean, therefore the likelihood of a tsunami or inundation by a seiche, or seiche flooding, would be extremely
low.
Mitieation Memures/Monitorin :
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 Applicant 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 applicant shall designate construction staging areas and areas ,for storage of any hazardous materials. (i.e., motor
oil, fuels, paints,) used during construction on the improvement plans and the SWPPP. All construction, staging areas
shall 'be located 'away from any stream and adjacent 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 contaminants from dainage areas in the event of a spill or leak.
b. No debris,, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other construction,related materials or .wastes, oil
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 Applicant sha_ll.designate appropriate •disposal methods and/or ccilities on the construction plans.or
in the specifications.
c. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any creek channel. All 'in- stream channel work shall - be limited to the dry
season (typically defined as May 1st through October 15th) and performed in accordance with conditions specified, by
the Dept. of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement and the Army Corps Section 404 ,.Permit•: The
applicant shall provide a copy of the approved ' Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the
permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading; permits for work within any channel.
Page 17
?,
Riverview Initial Study 'Fade:18.
2.
The applicant shall,-piepare�an operation and maintenance •manual• for the :detention basin,.to include dredging and ongoing
maintenance; to; be submitted as part of the improvement plans.
I • Material, and equipment for implementation. of erosion; control, measures shall be on -s 'ite by October l st. All grading
activity completed: by: October 15t4, prior.to the on- setsof'the rainy season, withal ., disturbed areas stabilized,and
revegetated by October Ilst. Upon approval by the. Petaluma .City Engineer; extensions, for - short- , term grading; may be
allowed. Special 'erosion control measures may be required. by the• .City .Engineer in 'conjunction with any specially
permitted rainy season grading.
4. The project- ,sponsor shall submit a detailed`grading.and drainage plan. for ieuiew and approval.by the:Engineering Section
and the Plarinmg,Division,p ior�to approvaFof any improvementpIan's or-'the _issuance of a, grading permit. Project grading
and' all site i
g p _ - -
g g p oye n s shall be designed an d constr
Engineering De ucted m conformance with the City of Petaluma
artinent ss r " dards Stan Specifications," and wit '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
P $ g y.. g , h and d rain system design if applicable, shall be subject to
acceptable en ineerin methods. All h drolo is h .
the review and approval of the. Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA),, and the t Engineer.
5. The project ;sponsor, shall pay all applicable Storm Drainage ;Impact Fees .prior to final inspection or issuance of- a
Certificate of'Occupancy.,,,
• 6. The project sponsor shall:submit Sononiq County Water Agency of'approval..
r '6. Biolocical Resources Would the ,;project:
a; Have a ;subs tan tial „adverse effect either directly or X
through habitat modifications,:on any.species identified:
as a candidate; sensitive or;special stAus,speciesirdocal
or,regiona'l, plans, policies:o'r`regulations, orlby�the
California'Department of Fish;and Game•or U.S. Fish .
and' WildlifeLService ?.
b, Have a, substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X
ovbtlier sensitive nattifal coriununity identified in local.df
regional plans policies', regulations or by the California
Dep h
aitirient ofFisnd Game US,Fish.and Wildlife
Service'
' ” Have a substantial adverse n
effeet o- federally protected X
wetlands . as defined by_Section404 o'f.the CleW
an ater
Act (including, but not limitedao, marsh, vemal,pool,
coastal, etc) thiod — h direct removal, f filling hydrological'
:interruption; or. other. means ?'
d. Interfere substantially witfi the movement of. any native X
resident;or migratory fish or w- ldlife;species or with
estAfAed nafive•residerit or migratory wildlife
corridors; or impede: the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
•
e. Conflict with. any 'local , protecting
`biological resources, such,as a tree_preservatibWpolicyor
ordinance.
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Page, `I$
Potential
Less Thafi
.Less Than
No
,Significant,
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation.
Impact
loco orated
I
X
Riverview Initial :Study Page 19
Potential'
Less Thane
Less Than -
No
Signifcani'
Significant
Significant
Impact
.Impact
w /Mitigati'on
Impact
Incorporated
Conservation,Plan, Natural,Community Conservation.
Plan or other,approved local, regional; state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion. Tfie Biological Assessment of the site characterizes• most of the 22.9. acre area proposed for annexation as open
grassland, and. oak woodland. ,Non- native rassland occurs across the most of. the site: The we nature of the of the
ompetion. is liken plant to The oak f oak razib domestic livestock u to the recent ast and p ;ad of aggressi;vel y
Y p.` p the s re
woodland occurs mostly on the; hilly southern portion of the site. A separate cluster of
oaks ; occurs in the more central, area of the site A. small: seasonal (ephemeral) drainage, ,traverses the ; site ( from the, ;southeast
corner;to:the.area acent. the church parking lot, - where�it becomes channeli'zed and runs due until it ent'ers:a
culvert and,presumably discharges' into -the Petaluma'R'iver�approximately 1/4 iinle, north.of the site: Historically tfiis: drainage
;
channel was'probably a grassy,swale; but has .been, comprorrused .by increased urban runoff (Golden 'Bear B ostudies, July
2603). 'The, cottonwood ;trees -along the ,eastern portion'of the site were probably planted;, and not.remnants, of a former creek;
A srnalhcWhip of willows occurs at:the eastern property line. The Biological,Assessment for'the Riverview project is included
:as Appendix.B.
Special Status Plant Species As discussed above,,-natural plant=communities found on the _site consist of non native grassland.
rep th
2003 as dland., o special status- plant species• were observed during field surveys conducted on Januaiy'29 and April 8
e.Biological..Assessment.
•
Special ;Status Animal ,Species No special status animal species 'were ro bserved during ,field visits. Furthermore ,review of
the California 1 NAtuKal,bivetsity Database indicates that the, !hearest :occurrence .of the.. California red- legged frog (RLF is
,proximately 10 rrnles to thesouthwest Since the drainage .on= site;is ephenieial (seasonal);, there are no'habitats;onsite or on �.
adjacent arcelsthat could su pp ort the s p ec'ies.
Special Status Habitats The seasonal drainage does not ;possess significant aquatic or stream habitat values; however, it:
possesses rmmmal riparian habitat value due to they cottonwood trees and'Himalaya'berry scrub and it has more significant.
value further where it passes s
through oak woodland. As uch it is considered a special status habitat The California
Department of ish and Game :(DFG) 't as jurisdiction: over this habitat under Section _1603. of the Fish :and Game Code. The
wetland in the channel bottom , is,also subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers4nd' the Sari ;Francisco
Bay Regional, Water Quality Control,Board (SFBRWQCB).:Peinuts° °must be obtained from `these agencies m'order'to place the
drainage into a culvert.
Checklist Items:
'Than' Significant- According, to the Biological' Assessment (GoldenbearBiostudies, 2.003),.no. special status plants were
observed during field surveys including one survey that was condueted;:inearlyspring (April, 2003) when rare: or "endangered
plant species "that have the potential to occur -on the project site would. be both `evident" and "identifiable:" The site lacks
appropriate habitats for virtually all of',the ;special status plant species known - to be present in the area._ No special status
a tirrial species were observed durin field visits. Furthermore review .of "the California Natural; Diversi
g ty Database indicates
that the nearest 'occurrence of'.the California red legged frog °(RLF) 'is approximately l0: miles, to tfie southwest, in the Sears
Point Quadrangle Since the drainage on -site is ephemeral (seasonal), there are no%habitafs onsite�or on adjacenfparcels' that•
could,suppon the species.
b ' Less Than Si ni r
g fcan "f With;Mifigation Incorporated. A portion of the seasonal drainage that runs along the, southern portion
of the ite would g p g where "it.meet lthe en ro
near osed extensiongs for thep"roject
e would be the proposed open space area (Parcel B g g
e laced in,an. underground culvert
e retained within
p of Drive
indicate r osed e drama bove, the seasonal drainage does not , posses significant aquatic or stream habitat
P o . P Q airy . Lane. As noted a
values ; however ; it possesses "minimal riparian,habitat value due to the cottonwood trees and Himalayaberry scrub
more significant value further upslope where it passes through oak woodland. As such, ,:rt is considered a special status
habitat. The Cal iforrua Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has: jurisdiction.over this. habitat under Section, 1 of the Fish
and Game Code. .According' `to the' 11iological Assessment, it, would , ,not,be objectionable to DFG if` the . more higl lydisturbed
area of 'the creek were placed underground, provided that the impact were mitigated in accordance , with the, requirements of
Page 19:.
il I :.
Riverview Initial Study
Page 20
Pbiential
Less Than
Les's Than,
No'
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Into orated
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.and the =San Francisco "Bay Reg'Tonal, Water Quality' Control Board (SFBRWQCB), who
have jurisdiction over the .wetland, in.Ahe channel bottom. Mitigation measures, identified'. below would reduce impacts to
les s- than - significant.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The wetland in'the channel bottom of.the seasonal drainage is subject to
the jurisdiction of the ;U.S. Army. Corps of`'Engineers and the'* San Francisco Bay 'Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SFBRWQCB). .Permits must be obtained from these agencies ,in order to place the -drainage into a culvert. Mitigation
measures identified below would reduce impacts on wetlands to less- than - significant
d) Less Than Significant Irnpac"t. The project;is-,not expected to create a` major barrier to inovement or dispersal of wildlife. The
project is essentially an in -fill development; surrounded by existing residential uses on the.north west and south and the
Petaluma Quarry property to the east: The Petaluma River is located, north ,of the site,. but is separated ;from the site by
adjacent residential development:and industrial uses along the riverfront:
e) Less ThamSignificant. With. Metigat omincorporated. The project is,subjectAo, the Petaluma General Plan policies intended to
protect open space to conserve natural' resources. Specifically, the following policies apply to the proposed project:
Chapter 6; Policy 21: Watershed, lands shall be proiected, ;and any. development of -watershed areas shall retain as much
natural vegetati'onlas'is,�feasible.
Chapter 6, Policy 23¢' Streams and streamsides shall be used to provide: natural open space; recreation, or activity areas for
adjacent development.
Chapter'll, Policy 35 The City, �shall'ptewfve'adequate vegetative cover and prevent development that increases erosion
and sedimentation potential along streams or in unstable soil areas.
Chapter 11,Policy 36 The City shall seek to preserve public and private as permanent open space.
Chapter _ll, Policy 3T The City �shall seek controls' to protect potential groundwater recharge areas andstreamsides from
urban encroachment.
The applicant has 'taken into account, relevant plans, and policies adopted by the City and has attempted to incorporate
these concepts_ into the proposed project, The proposed developnentplans ,include provisions to retain a portion of the
seasonal described below, potential imp act's grelat d.to consistency with relevant plans' policies, i , and regul regulations be less than
ton measures
significant.
f) No Impact. The site is not located` &within an area: covered by an adopted •Habitat Conservation. Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approve d'local,'regional or, state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoriiig
1;. All trees to.be preserve&shall,beprotected during grading;and construction by providing temporary" fencing:
2. To mitigate the loss oftrees; on the site,, native rees shall'be planted -in suitable' areas' throughout the;open space areas and
undeveloped portions�of'the, abandoned orchard:
3. The applicantshall prepare and;iinplementa revegetation plan. that includes specifications for planting;, maintenance and.
monitorin g sub'lect;to•reviewbyihe City Petaluma Community'Development Department, DFG and'agencies issuing
wetland permits'. The applicant shall '-submit the revegetation _.plan, to - the Community Development Director fo_r` review
and approval prior to site grading. The.applicant shall also provide' evidence to the Community Development Director
that -the applicanthas complied'mith and obtained appropnate,perinits from the. California, Deparhmnt•of Fish'and Game
and other responsible agencies,
• 4. The applicant shall prepare and'impI" t a plan to mitigate the loss` of impacted wetlands. At a minimum, the plan
shall replace impacted wetlands 'at a ratio;of 1 (mitigation) 1 (impacted) Preferably, the .mitigation areas shall be located
onsite or on open space lands ...... adjace the project site. If offsife (greater °than 1 mile from the site] mitigation is
Develo m�ent Dire o should increaseto 2:1. The applicant shall submit the mitigation plan to:,. the Community
p, ctor for review' and approval prior to,site grading:, The applicant; shall also provide 'evidence to the
Page, 20
R.iVervieW,JhitialStudy . Page 21
Potential
Less Than
Less_ Than
No
Significant
Significant;
Significant
Impact
Impact
°w /Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated ,
Community Development Director that the, applicant has complied :with ;and obtained appropi ate; permits and with
Department of,Fash and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife tfie Regional Water t2iahty Control 'Board,, ° thee California
PP g y rP ,
Service.
7. Noise Wot ld the;project resulvin
a. Exposure.of,persons to of noise levels in
'excess, of standards established,in.the local general plan
or nois6ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure,of personsto or generation of excessive
groundborrie vibration of groundborne noise levels?
C. Aasubstantial 'periianent'increase in ambienYnose levels:
in'the protect'vicinity above 'levels existing:withouttfie
project?
d. A substantial temporary &periodip imcrease:in ambient
noise levels in,,the project vicinity above levels existing
withoutthe project ?',
e Tor a project located�witliin an airport land plan'or;
where such a -plan has not been adopted, within two;miles
of a,public airport orjpublic;use, would the project
expose peoplefresiditig or working in the project -area to
excessive noise level's?
f. For a project;witlnnahe vicinity of a;private airstrip
would the project expose people residing or working in,,
the project area.to excessive noise levels ?'
Discussion: j
.Assessment of the project's no'i'se: impact was based on noise standards; identified in the City of Petaluma Zoning,
Ordinance /Performance Standards and iChapter° 141 Community Health and Safety (I 1.9' Noise) Element of its General Plan.
The main considerations' relevant to increases in existing noise' levels are short-term construction noise and vehicular traffic
noise. The General Plan stipulates that interior noise levels for ^residential uses shall be mitigated to .Ld„ 45, and L 60 is
established• as the reasonable; noise level for exterior use• areas. Noise environments. with'. levels up to 76 Ld„ 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 ihatjconventional construction, assuming closed.
- windows and fresh�air,supply-sys'tems or air conditioning, will normally ineevthese requirements.
The City's Zoning Ordinance /Per_forinance Standards restrict _construction activity to be the hours of 7 a.m., and 6 p:m
:M'onday through Friday. Although City regulations allow :constiuction on weekends, the proposed.,project °would be prohibited
from construction on weekends and legal holidays due fo.the close proximity ofadjacerit, existing neighborhoods:
0
Checklist Items
a) Less. Than Significant, Impact. Construction of the project would add short -term noise ifiom, construction equipment and,
vehicles. Measures ;to minimize short-term noise mpacts' have been incorporated into the proposed project in, accordance
with applicable Perfomianee Standards "in the _ Petaluma - Zoning'Q rdinance- and'Mun c pal'.Code These measures would :be
specified in the construction contract. DeyeloiY nt of the project would result in some increased^ noise by adding vehicular'
traffic; on McNear Avenue and'Mission Drive:
Page 21,
Riverview Initial Study Page 22
•
Potential
Less. Than'
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
The project would generate ;504 additional daily trips (Whitlock and, Weinberger' Transportation, 2003): Based on
preliminary review, the proposed site would not be exposed to traffic noise exceeding acceptable levels given the relatively
low traffic volumes on .adjacent .roadways: Therefore the increase in traffic..and associated noise is not anticipated to
increase noise beyond acceptable levels for the area and the related impacts are ^considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phase, excessive groundbome vibration or
groundborne noise levels 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.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Traffic Impact Study by Whitlock and Weinberger (see Appendix C),
traffic volume would increase along roads and intersections near the•pioject'site. This.increased traffic would likely raise
noise levels to some degree but is not expected to result in significant impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact.. 'Temporary intermittent noise from short -term, construction activities associated with the
development of the project would occur. • The noise level would be elevated compared to existing ambient noise.
However, it would be a short -term impact and therefore. would not be considered significant.
e -f) No Impact. The proposed project site is.not within the-vicinity of,any known private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
All construction activities shall comply with applicable - Performance Standard's in the; Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code.
1. In order to minimize potential 'impacts related to constructionAnoise; construction activities shall be limited to between
7 a.m. and 7 p:m. Monday through Friday unless apermit isfiist secured from the City Manager (or his /her designee)
for additional hours. No construction, shall be permitted on Sundays or City of Petaluma recognized legal holidays.
There will be: no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 7:00 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 cleaning of machines nor
equipment past 6:00,p.m., Mondaythrough Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday.
2. • All construction equipment powered by internal combustion.: engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to
minirnize'noise. Equipment.shall`be turned off when not in use..
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.
4. The Applicant shall designate a- , Project Manager with authority'to implement the mitigation reasures who 'will be
responsible for'responding to 'any complaints from the neighborhood prior to issuance of a building /grading permit.
The Project Manager's telephone number shall be conspicuously posted at the.constructron site. The Project Manager
shall determine the cause, of noise complaints (e.g. starting foo early; faulty muffler) and shall °take prompt action to
correct the problem,
.8. Visual Qua lity °and.Aesthetics Would the project:
a. Have .a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic:resources including;:but not X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
Page 22
N
Riverview Initial Study
buildings within astate scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site; and'its surroundings?
d. Create.a new source of substantial, light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
lmpact
In co orated
X
94
Discussion: The project site is gently to moderately sloping, with elevations that range from 28, feet along the northern property
line, between the Radio Station access road and McNear Avenue, to 170 feet near the southeastern corner of 'the property.
Most of the site `is covered with grassland and oak woodland, which occurs mostly on the'hilly southern portion of the site. A
separate cluster of oaks occurs in the more central portion of the, site. A small seasonal (ephemeral) drainage traverses the site
from the southeast corner to the area adjacent to the church par_kng. lot, where it becomes channelized, and runs due northeast
until it enters a culvert and presumabl '' /4
y discharges into the, Petaluma River approximately , mile north of the site. The site is
comprised of several separate parcels and can be characterized as rural residential: On the 'lower elevations, there are five
existing homes and several accessory buildings (barns, carports, sheds; garages). ,St. John's Lutheran Church, which occupies
4.9 acres. southeast of the intersection of McNear Avenue and Mission Drive, is, developed with fa church building -and ancillary
development (playground, parking lot and classrooms). Although the project site is not specifically designated as a scenic
resource; relevant policies in the City's ,general plan include the following:
23
•
• 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 ridgelin_ es 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 build_ ings will be
studied (Community Character, Chapter.3, Policy32)'.
• Well= designed developments that will be harinotious with their setting and/or enhance `the city's 'image shall be
encouraged.
The proposed project site is rural residential in nature, with only the higher elevations of the site being visible from nearby
roadways and public open space. The upper portion.ofthe project.site, is visible from_Petaluma Boulevard Soutkand;US Highway
101. The applicant°submitted,a series of photographs that depict the project site from several off -site locations. These photos and
map showing the viewpoints are attached as Appendix D.'
Checklist Items
a) Less Than .Significant .With Mitigation,,Incorporated, Existing residences, on adjacent properties have prominent views of
the site. The site is also visible to drivers on roadways in the vicinity, particularly on Petaluma Boulevard South,
McNear Avenue and Mission .Drive: Scenic, views currently available to residents and drivers in ,the area would be
impacted to some degree by °the development. However, approximately 2.5 acres on °the southern portion of the
project site (Parcel B)would be preserved as open space,,and most of the site area to be- developed would be located..on
the flatter, less substantial portion of the portions of the site. Existing trees to be retained and new landscaping would screen a
development, although portions of it would still be visible from the aforementioned adjacent
areas. The design of the proposed single, family homes would, be subject to SPARC review to ensure high quality
design that is compatible with the character of the area. With implementation of these measures, the impacts would be
reduced to less than significant.
b &c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Although portions of the site are already-de
-veloped the project would •
change the existing- visual character'of the site.by changing,portions of the -natural landscape to one of residential development
including homes, streets, landscaping, and'lighting. This change is .acknowledged by the City's General Plan in designating
the property for residential use. With the development of as many as `65 new residential units, the ,proposed project would
Page 23
RiveNlew'lnifial Study Page:.24
•
Potential;
Less Than -
Less Than
No
,Significant.
Significant
Significant
Impact
'Impact
W/Mitigation
Impact
inco orated
'
change 'the character of the srte. from ;rural residential ito :developed ; suburban= Drivers on adjacent streets and adjacent
residents would have views of "theproposed development. Preservation open space on the southern,portion of the site and
implementation of the landscape;plan, would mitigate these impacts "6 fevelsthat.would be ess than significant.
d) Less Than Significant With - Incorporated The project would:create -a.new s.ource,of light and glare. This light and
;glare could.adversely affect °the surrounding residential uses. -The ; project would need to' incorporate measures to minimize the
impacts of additional-lighting and .' landscape the development area with vegetation to buffer the project site from other
existing development. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts ;are expected to be less than
significant.
Mitieation .Measures/M`onitorine "a
1. - Improvement Plans, including proposed architecture, lighting and' landscaping shall be.subject to and approval
by SPARC.
•
p g g pans or e
improvements proposed within the;.designated open.space - area.
Shade trees shall be,inco orated mto.buildin i
rp g and improvement plans'along public'streets and within parking areas in
c .w' onforrnaince th thehQity s Site Plan and Architectural Review G,uidelihes to reduce glare and provide shade.
Hazards >3. - Hcdrdous Mdferid(s `W ' u1d th t'
2. All exterior lighting shall be di'recied onto the` project; site and access ways and 'shield'ed. to prevent glare and intrusion
onto adjacent resideniiaPproperties Plans subrr itted for SPARC review °and, approval shall incorporate lighting plans,
h
whic reflect the location ,and design of all proposed street lights „and any other•exteriorlighting proposed.
3. Development „plans shall be; designed :to, avoid vehicular lighttng impacts - to bedroom :areas: and other light- sensitive
living.-areas of any nearby residential lot home or facility. rvPeyeloprhefit plans for lots proposed atstreet intersections
or in other potentially light'= sensitive, locations shall' incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen
interior living:space from „the headlight &re:.
p
4. In orderAo reduce otential impacis.from light and, glare, no illumination shall be-'installed within the designated open
space area except for low level lighting along designated: p'athways,,'adjaceni to public _streets 'or across 'pedestrian
b : i
ridges. The drawings�and;landscape plans prepared ,for.the reflectthe location and design
details of all exterior light fixtures proposed...These locations and details "shall bd eviewedlandapproved by the Site
'Plan and Architectural Review Com riittee ,and. the Parks and kecreition .Di` for ,prior io the approval of the final
map, improvement plans or advertising forbids.
5. The' 'Site Plan Architectural' Review •'Committee •shall review the 'land'sca �e and h hti
n 1 f th
6.-
9,
a. Create,a sign`ifcant azard.to,the public or the
environment tlirough the routine transport use; or
disposal of
b. Create a. significariv azard to the;public.or the
enviroiiinentthro' ffi i' asonably foreseeable: upset and';
accident conditions involurnggthe release of hazardous:.,.
materials -info the enviro`nrrient?
C. Emit hazardous , handle hazardousor acutely
hazardous materials, substances' ,or waste; within
quarter, mile ofan,existing or proposed school ?'
d. Be Iocated onsa site which is- included on .a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would ii a significant'hazard to the public or the
Page'24
;X
,.
X
X
X -
Page'24
N;
Riy.erview Initial Study r Page 25
environment ?'
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
•
,Significant nificant
Significant
Significant
Impact
1m act
)y/Mitigation
Impact
Inco orafe&
i
e. Fora °project located .within an airport land use plan or,
Where, such'a';plan has4iot•been adopted,; within two miles
ofa,public „airport or pubhcuse airport, would the project
result in.a safety 'hazard for, people residing working;in
the project:area I
f. For a =projmtwithini,the vicinity Ofd!private airstrip;
wouldYthe project re'sult;in a safety Hazard for people
residing. or- working .in the project area
I.
g Impair, implementation of or physically interfere with_ an
adopted,:emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people >or structures,to a significant r sk
injury or death.involving wildland fires; including where,
wildlands are adjacent to urbanize&a'reas or�where
residences are intermixed with °wildland`s?
JX,
'X'
X.
X.
•
Discussions
Harris & 'Lee Envu Sciences'• conducted an environmental' site survey of the subject property, which include&a site
reconnaissance an environmental radius' - report- (computer database search) and a brief evaluation of 'the dir onment'al_ radius
report The survey reported that no `Recognized :Environmental Condition "' was observed on the site, 'A "Recognized.
Environmental Condition?'? is,defined as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances' or petroleum products on a
property. under conditions that 'indicate an existing release, a.'past ,rel'ease, or �a material threat of a: re lease. 'of any :hazardous
substances of� petroleum ;products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or, surface water of the
pro
y fy two `Historical Recogiuz00tnvironmental Conditions that;have'been remediated.or rectified
„ p
o e "
rty. ' The surve did idenh
and rendered harmless. These, first is,sa 55.0 - gallon agricultural underground fuel_,,storage tank on the property located at :9
tt
Rovina Lane,, adjaceno the project The tank was nstalled.,in 1'965,, and was removed under permit with no complications
o. No, complications of petroleum corifamination were reported. The second_ is a "permanently abandoned” .thine at.APN 019 -
21_07W7 based on the' longitude ,and latitude The' survey concludes that the abandoned mine designation is; likely
ari.error,and. probably refers to the adjacent Dufra.Quarryproperty: The environmental site survey =is'include'd'as Appendix E:
Construction of the proposed project would involve •de-molition , and.removal of the existing structures •on'the site and use of
various types of ,constcuction'equipment'thatmay require supplies such as oil and batteries. Development
of he project would.
no tenals other than o
egular household ofsuehpotentially es dential development would, not involve the 'use of hazardous
. materials as motor oil,, fuel, ;paint -and solvents.
The: applicant would comply With Petaluma General. Plan Fire and Police Services'iegdi'rements as follows:
Policy 21': Fire hazards shall be; mitigated where appropriate with proper f srting ; use of fire- resistive`rriaterials •and landscaping,
and/or .insfallation of early warning systems, such as alarms and sprinklers.
Policy 231,A11 landscaping within.50 feefo`f buildings in firehazard : areas shall ?be fire- resistive:
Policy 23,'i D_ evelopers shall consider using a portion separator as in ftre- 'tiazard,areas
In addition the applicant would be required to comply with•.•measures recommended by the City of °Petaluma Fire Ma "rshal.
These measures are'included'as conditions of •
P-age25
Riverview Initial Study Page 26
•
Potential
"LessThan
Less Than
No
Significant .
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact,
w . /Mitigation'
Impact
Incorporated
Checklist Items Y
a)- Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development would construct' buildings for residential purposes. The
applicant would comply with all ,existing Federal and State _safety, regulations related to the transport, use handling,
storage, and/or disposal of'potentially hazardous :substances on the srte;;iand hazards to the public would be minimized
during construction. The' proposed re'sid'ential use would not include the manufacturing, storage, or utilization of
hazardous materials. , Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant, hazard to the °public or the environment.
b) Less Than Significant With Mit'igationtncorporated. The proposed development;would'consiruct up to 65 residential units
and would involve the demolition of existing ; residences and accessory structures on . It is possible that the existing
structures to be demolished contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM')`: -Recommended ; ,.mitigation measures to be
implemented when existing.residences -are demolished would reduce any potential 'impacts'to levels that,are less than
significant. The manufacture;or'storage, of'hazardous material would not occur on site. Therefore, the proposed project
would not pose a significant:hazards,to the:publicor the environment'.
c) No Impact. There are no schools.located, within one - quarter mile of the site. Therefore there would be no' impact.
d) No Impact. According to.'the Env ronmental Site. Survey conducted by Harris & Lee in :2003 (see Appendix E), the
proposed site is not on a list of.hazardous. materials sites. and would not create, a, significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
e) No Impact. 'The proposed.proj'ect si'te not located. within an adopted airport use plan nor is it within the vicinity of a
public or private airport'or a private airstrip.. "
f) No Impact. See.e) above.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project plan would, _include design features that would provide for adequate
emergency access to the site. These features include hammerhead turnarounds, emergency access easements and
accessible pedestrian/bicycle paths, Therefore, iinpacts-would be less than si gnificant (See also >Section 10.d.).
h), Less Than Signifzcdnt With Mctigdtion Ineorporated:: The applicant would have to; comply with -all policies in the General
Plan relevant to fire safety and any ;additional :f re safety measures required by the City, Fire Marshal'. These measures are
summarized in the mitigation measures below. Adherence: to, and' implementation of, fire and safety measures as
required in the,General Plan and as recommended by the City Fire; Marshal would: reduce related risks from wildland fires
- and other related.hazards.to a`less -than- significant impact.
Mitikation MeasuresIlVlonitoriny
l
Applicant shall fle a construction I dec a ation .form Fire office and 'shall obtain aardous hazard materials us materials site, the
us storage
permit,
2. I -f hazardous .materialsjare used�'or, stored on -site, the Applicant shall prepare,a; Risk Management °Phan (RMP) and
submit for review and approval, by ,the `Fire Marshall, prior toJssuance of ,a certificate of occupancy or grading or
building- permit for construction activities. The' RMP shall includerthe following- as appropriate:;
a maintain e emergency-equ pm and . suppliestaas .by the Firea h ous materials and shall
Marshall to ad
pP P proper g
dress any spills or leaks
from the facilities.
b. The applicant shall° identify ,, anypoten"tially hazardous substances or contaminatiori existing on -site and shall
provide for proper treatment, removal and disposal during construction.
3. If any vapors nor other signs- of'contamination are detected during project construction, all, local, 'state, and federal
requirements for reinediationand `disposal of contaminated materials shall be followed. 1 .
Page 2,6
Riverview. Study
Paae 27
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
•Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated
4. The, applicant shall .comply with all existing Federal and State. safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling,
storage and/or,, disposal of potentially hazardous substances on the site„
0
5. Prior to demolition of any existing structures on the site,. the structures shall be surveyed for 'asbestos - containing
materials.. If ACMs are determined to, be present, a qualified, asbestos abatement: spec ialist'shal perform the •asbestos
mitigation (i.e, removal .of the asbestos- containing linoleum_,in the residence).
6 Y
existing wells or septic systems on the property shall be abandoned in; accordance with local' and state
regulations
7. Hammerhead design for, emergency vehicles shall meet the requirements and specifications of the Petaluma Fire
`Department:
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 number of vehicle trips, the volume to_ capacity ratio
on,roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b: Exceed,'eiiher individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard +established, by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c, Result ina.,change in air; traffic patterns, In`cl'uding either
an;increase:irittraf is levels or a Ichange,tn location,that
results in substantial safety _risks?
d Substantially increase hazards,due to 4 desigii,feature
(e.g., or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (&T., farm equipment)T
e. Result` in .iriadequate'ernergencyaccess?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity,?
X
X
X
X'
X
X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting.alternative transportation, i:e., bus turnouts,,
bicycle racks)?
CVO
Discussion:
The project site is'Iocated south of Petaluma:Boulevard :and e"t_ ',of McNear Avenue. Access to, the site would be provided at ;two
points along McNear Avenue: 1) a proposed easterly extension of Mission Drive, and 2):a new 'street between Mission Drive and
Petaluma (Nadine
sit Lane). Lo as Peta ro
ma located
posed also p rovides fora ossible p s t reet connection to the development
t
proposed on the Dutra Quarr Y ( ) andeast of the Riverview property.
A Traffic Impact Study , for the Riverview`,project was prepared by Whitlock &. Weinberger Transportation, Inc. in April 2003
(See Appendix C). The study area analyzed in the report consists, of Petaluma Boulevard South, MCNear,Av,enue and Mission
Drive, and study intersections', included Boulevard South%McNear Avenue and McNear Avenue /Mission Drive-, Four
scenarios were evaluated,;in the 'traffic study: Existing Conditions, Existing plus 'Project Conditions,, Future Conditions and
..Future plus Projecf Conditions. In addition, the study provides an,assessnent of 'transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities within
the proposed project and vicinity. Supplemental traffic 'evaluations address, the cumulative impacts - of the Riverview project
Page 27
Riverview Initial Study Page 28
Potential`,
Less Than
Less Than
No
; Signifcant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
and the residetial development, impacts on US and the Peta u Boul d a
intersectionsuarry site (Lomas Petalura), as well as a potential :traffic
. Checklist Items
a) _:Less Than Signif cant Impact. 'B'ased' on -the .findings of the traffic ',valuation, the proposed project is anticipated to
generate an average of 594 additional new daily vehicle trips, including 47 trips during, the morning peak (7am -9am) and
64 trips during the'evening peak period (4pm -6pm). The project is expected to add 9 a.m. peak trips and 12 p.m.
peak period�'trips to the segment of US 101 morth of Petaluma Boulevard' South. The '.addition of 12 p.m. peak hour trips
would result °in' an increase of 0'.0002 percent increase in traffic for this segment based on a peak hour volume of 7,200
vehicles. Similarly;, the project isi expected° fo add 7 a.m. peak_period trips and 8 i p.m, peak period trips to the segment of
US 101 north of Pet'aluma,Boulevard South: The •addition of 8p.m peak;:pertod'trips would result in an increase of 0.001
percent based on a peak hour, volume of 000 vehicles on segments north` of Petaluma Boulevard South. This increase in
traffic would not, generate significant traffic impacts 'in the project area, such gas a significant traffic load increase or
significant congestion.
b) Less Than ,Significant. Impact. According to the °Traffic Impact Study, under both existing and future conditions, the two
intersections in the vicinity (Petaluma: Boulevard South/McNear 'Avenue and McNear Avenue /Mission Drive) would
continue, to operate acceptably (level. of service of C'or ° better)'.• Therefore; impactsgn'�adjacent roadways would be less
than significant. See Appendix F for'the complete traffic study'.
c) No Impact. Current air traffic patterns would be maintained "therefore development -,'the project would not result in
substaritial safety risks.
�) Less 'Than, Sign f eant•.Impact' The W Trans Traffic Impact =Study reviewed intersection sight distance for the two proposed
access points along McNear. Avenue;anct concluded that sight dtstaricepw,,ould be adequate provided that current restrictions
on landscaping within the public right -of way :are maintained along •McNear Avenues The, araffic study also confirmed
that; anticipated traffic volumes along McNear Avenue and. Mission Drive would remain well within the design values for
their respective streef classifications (McNear is; designated in. the Petaluma General 'Plan as a Collector Street; Mission
Drive is classified as a'Residential.•Sireei)_
e) No Impact. Street, driveway and hammerhead design has been`reviewed.bythe Petaluma Fire Marshal and, as conditioned
would meet the requirements of 4be Fire Marshal. Furthermore, a secondary 'emergency -only access is provided from
Rovtna Lane.
0 No Impact. The proposed project would pfoyide adequate parking for, the proposed land uses and would not result in
inadequateu "parking ca pacity: � Each 'new' residence is proposed• to have ,a minimum of two covered spaces .and one
additional uncovered space - 'a , y b - tandem on the driveway. In addition, parking,'would be nerrnitted on, the' newly
con"stucted, residential streets,• Therefore, development of the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
g) Less Than Signifcknt With, Mitigation Incorpordted. Street cross sections for .the proposed. project include sidewalks
along all public stfeets and at pedestrian and bicycle path is proposed "within the' open space area on the southeast portion
of the site. ' In addition, street cross = sections show ia six -foot on- street bike lane •along the east "side of McNear! Avenue,
which is also a requiremenf of "the proposed conditions of approval .Public transit in the project-area is provided by
Golden Gate Transit and Petaluma Transit. Golden Gate Transit operates Route 74 on Petaluma Boulevard with stops at
.McNear Avenue. Petaluma,'Transit's Route I(Chefry`Valley) travels, along McNear .Avenue and Mission Drive. The
proposed project would not 'be in, "conflict; with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no
significant impacts would result from the project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
1. The project shall comply °with the requirements_ of the City of Petaluma Bi cycle 'Plan. . Plans, for each phase of site
development shalfbe referred to the:P,:edestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) for review and comment.
Page 28'
Riverview Initial Study
Potential
Less Than.
Less ,Than
No
Significant
Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Inc. orated,
The project sponsor shall provide a Traffic Control. Plan for review and approval of the .City 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 plants submitted and Approved the City;Engineer. Heavy
construction traffic and haul trucks shall avoid school zones between school arrival andldepartures`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. -
29
0
3: The project sponsor shall be responsible for the payment of'the City's Traffic Mitigation Fees: Traffc Mitigation Fees
shall, be calculated, at, the time of issuance of a 'building permit `and shall be due, and payable - final inspection or .
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
11. Public Services
a.' Would the project result in substantial adverse;physical
impacts, the p "rovision of:new or
physically altered ; governmental fac`ilities,- need,for:new
or physically altered governmental facilities; the
construction °of which;could cause; significant
environmental impacts, in order to:maintain.acceptable
service.ratios, "response times or other performance
objectives forrany of'the public services:`
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
,Other public .facilities?
X
X .
X.
X
?C "
Discussion:
wh J hin hint he city p ity ofmfluence The est, of the Petaluma city lirriits, within the City's. Urban Growth. Boundary, and therefore
e applicant is requesting annexation iniwihe, City.
Checklist Items
a) Less, Than Significant Impact on fire ; protection. The City of Petaluma Fire Department would provide fire protection
services to the proposed project site. The Petaluma General' Plan: includes policies that address.p0
tential impacts to fire
protection services as a result of .'citywide employment and population growth..(see General Plan p. 120, sec.
Adherence to 'these policies would reduce this-iinpact to a, less- than - significant level.
Less Than Significant Impact on police protection: The City of Petaluma Police Department would provide rpolice services
to the proposed project site. `The City of Petaluma" Genera]' Plan includes policies that address impacts to police'protecton
services as a result of citywide employment and ;population growth (see General Plan, p. 120; sec. 1,1.,7). Adherence to
these ,policies would reduce any impacts to a less- than - significant level. _
Less
Significant Impact on schools with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would result'in.an increase. of
residents t t s to the project site and could therefore create an indirect demand for, additional school facilities. 'In order to
�.
rnitigate the costs of providing school facilities in accordance with Title 17, Chapter 1 7.14 of`the Municipal,`Code, the
City of Petaluma requires new. development to pay Coriimunity Facilities Fees prior to building 'permit, issuance and these
Page 29
J t _
Riverview Initial,Stu
Pape 30
-
Potential
Sigmficagt
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact.
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
fees •are used to, maintain.school pe_rforrmnce standards: The Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address impacts
to- school services as a'result.of population. growth (see General Plan, Section 7.4). Adherence to these policies.would
reduce the impacts to a, less- than;significarit level.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ,on parks. `The City -of Petaluma General: Plan .includes, policies that
address impacts to park, services as a result of population growth (see General. Plan;'S'ection 7.2)'. The project does not
propose to construct: a neighborhood park within the development. The project also proposes to dedicate approximately
2.5 acres of open space (Parcels::A. and .,B) including a pedestrian path.
Less Than Significant Impact on,.other public ',facilities. The scale of the proposed project and estimated number of
residents is.',not "so large that any other public ,facilities (e.g., public library or •general municipal facilities) would be
significantly affected.
Mitigation Measures7Monitoring
1. In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for 'payment of Community Facilities
Development fees to offset theJmpacts to public; facilities. °Fees shall ;be calculated:by'the City at the time of building
permit issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to final 'inspection 'or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
.2. In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park and Recreation Land
Improvements fees. These 'fees 'provide for acquisition, development and improvement of neighborhood and 1.
commuri ty park; and recreation facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at -the time of building permit issuance
and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to finalinspection or; issuance of • a certificate of occupancy.
3. In accordance. with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment'of School Facilities fees. Fees
shall be calculated by the City g at the time of building permit issuance and are dues and payable directly to the school
district, by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of The Applicant shall
provide a. receipt or, proof of payment of 'school facilities fees to the City Building'Divisionprior to final' inspection or
issuance of a certiftcate�of occupancy.
12. Recreation
a. Would the project increase, the useof'existing
neighborhoodand regional parks or other ,recreational
facilities, such that substantial - physical deterioration of
the facility would occur'or be accelerated?
b. Does. the project�includerrecreational facilities or require
he constiucfion'orexpansion`on recreational facilities
which might havean.advefse A sical effect on
environment?
' Discussion
The proposed .project includes the dedication of approximately2 5 acres of n'passive open space and pedestrian trail within
the, open space that continues west to the St. John Church:•proper No neigliI rhood parks !are proposed _ Tr
a b) ndire tly in ease demand for I rec eahon fac lit es in he areaU The SCity of P taluma has adopt d pol ties a s nd program wou ld
to
address the need for recreational facilities and parks, and. therefore adherence ,to, these policies :would reduce ,the related
impacts to a less- than - significant level. (See General Plan, Section 7.2)--
Page 30 • ' '
X
X
' Discussion
The proposed .project includes the dedication of approximately2 5 acres of n'passive open space and pedestrian trail within
the, open space that continues west to the St. John Church:•proper No neigliI rhood parks !are proposed _ Tr
a b) ndire tly in ease demand for I rec eahon fac lit es in he areaU The SCity of P taluma has adopt d pol ties a s nd program wou ld
to
address the need for recreational facilities and parks, and. therefore adherence ,to, these policies :would reduce ,the related
impacts to a less- than - significant level. (See General Plan, Section 7.2)--
Page 30 • ' '
iy erview Initial Study
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
Potential
Less;Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
=Impact
Impact
NV/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
M
31
9
1 To mitigate for the increased demand for recreational facilities generated by an 'increase in .residents m the area, the
app] licant shall be responsible for payment of Park, and Recreation. Land Improvements :fees. These fees provide for
acquisition,, deve.lopment:and, improvement ofneighborhood and community park and recreation,facilities, Fees shall
be calculated by the City at the time of building° permit:issuance :and are due and, payable by the Applicant prior to
final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.' '(See General Plan, p. 58, sec. 7.2) .;(See also Section Ll.d
above).
13. Utilities infrastructure Would the project'
a. Exceed waste water.treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or"result in the construction of ne.w"water or
wastewater treatment facilities or,expansion of existing
facilities, .the construction of which could,cause
significant environmental effects?.
X
c. Require or result in the construction'of newstorm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have: sufficient' water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements needed?
e. 'Result in;a determination the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve'the projecfthat it has
adequate capacityAci.serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's. existing commitments?
f Bejserved bya landfill sufficient - permitted capacity'
to the project's °solid waste disposaLneeds?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes.and
regulations;, related to solid waste?
X
X
X
P:/
KI
Discussion:
The project site is currently outside of the Petaluma city' limits applicant. is requesting,annexation into the. City. `If the City,
annexes the project site, the City would `be obliged to provide water and wastewater facilities and solid waste removal services,'fo
the site.
a) Less Than Significant;. Impact: Development of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
established by -the RWQCB. 'Therefore; the 'impacts, on water treatinent would be less than .,significant.
10
b)° Less Than Sign fcant Impact With- Mitigation Incorporated. Development `of the proposed project ,would not require'
construction of new water or` wastewater treatment facilities The project site would be served by existing utilities.provided
by the City;of Petaluma. Increasesin.water.usage resulting from "development of the general area would be.slight;in relation
to overall supply of the City of Petaluma's water allocations and treatment capacity , for the site be available:,
Therefore, development of the projectwould not result -Jn significantImpacts:
Page 31
4�
1
RI Initial Study Page 32
4 •
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
c Less Than Si ni icant. With Mingation .Incorpot-ated. Drainage facilities proposed on -site ,include two water quality ponds
g f
(Parcels A and B). Implemeniaiion`of mit`igation'meastiressbelow would _reduce potential impacts to a less- than - significant
level.
d) Less Than Significant Impact With` Miiigation•Incorpoi-ated. The applicant;proposes'that the City of Petaluma would provide
waterto'the site. The-City has capacity available to provide water to the, site. See also :section ,13.b. of this checklist.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The,'City of Petaluma would provide, wastewater treatment services for the proposed project.
Recent upgrades to�the City's wastewater treatment plant and sewer 'collection system have increased capacity to meet future
needs for the vicinity. 'Therefore, development,of the project would not resulrin a significant impact.
f): ` Less. Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporaied. Given the scale of the: proposed project site (up to 67 new single - family
homes, including'church parsonage 'and the Y,oungproperty) the City anticipates apple• capacity to accommodate solid waste,
.disposal from the site. The. rnitigaiion measure listed below would,minim ze, impacts, on landfill capacity from construction
debris and long -term household waste. With implementation of these measures, the:project would have a less- than - significant
impact on landfill capacity:
g) No Impact. The proposed p"roject would' be subject to compliance with all federal, state and local requirements• for solid
waste reduction and recycling. Therefore,;tle impacts would be less than significant:
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin�
1. 'To minimize impacts on landfill capaeify, the project shall follow the following'measures:, recycle construction and
demolition debris to the maximum•`extent feasible; and provide adequate space for the storage and collection of
recyclable materials at the proposed 'development. -Evidence of ihb intent to comply with this measure shall be
submitted with Improvement Plans. „
I4. Mineral' Resources Woirld the project:!
a. Resultin;the, loss, or known, mineral
resource that would be or value to the region and the
residents or the state ?'
b. Result in the lossof availability of a; locally- important
mineral,resource recovery size.,Mineated on a local
general- plan, specific plan or` °other land use plan? .
X
94
Discussion:
There is no information about this site': from, the General Plan.-Aich indicates that• •the site has been known: to be a mineral
resource. A computer d atabase,search conducted as part of the Enviror mentA.Site Survey of the subject property by Harris &
Lee Environmental 'Sciences; 'identified a "permanentl'y abandoned' mine "on the project site (APN 0,19 -210 -037). This
identification, which was based +on the. longitude, and latitude,.designation, and the Environmental Site Survey: concludes that the
abandoned mine ;designation 'is likely error' and`.probably refers to the adjacent Dutra Quarry property. The environmental
site survey is included Appendix E. ;Bused on the above, the proposed project would not ,create a, significant impact to known
mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Not °applicable:
.1'5. Cultural "Resources Would the project:
a. Cause asubstantial change in the significance of X.
a historical resource asrdefined in, §15064.5?
Page 32
A
Riverview Initial-Study
b, Cause alsubstanbal adverse change in the significance of
an. archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5:?
C. Directly or "indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource of site or unique •geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside, „ of formal cemeteries?
Paae 33
Potential
Less Than.
Less --- Tan
No
Significant
Significant
'Significant
impact
''Impact
w /Mitigation
"Impact
inco ” orated,
°.
X.
09
X
Discussion:
The parcels contain several buildings of relatively recent. constiuction.. A Cultural Resources Survey,of'the pro perty<conducted by
Tom Ori" er & - Associates completed in'
g p . January 2003 indicates that no important cultural resources were: found within the, study
area andno resource - specific recommendations are warranted,(see Appendix F).
Checklist items
a) Less Than Significant Impact. According to ,the Origer °report ; the existing homes would not be 'eligible for inclusion on
the, Cal Register because of their recent ;constiuet'ion (1950 common architecture and%or modifications made to
the structures.
L
b) Less Than Significant With .Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Origer report„ no prehistoric or historic- period
archaeological resources were found on the project ;site. However in the event of accidental discovery and .in order to
avoid potential, impacts, a monitoring program, carried out' by a qualified archaeologist, shall be implemented •during:
col cted a d preservedaat an appropriate facilrty.nI plelment t on of these miti measuges wouldtion; ,they would be
g .. _ reduce the. impacts
tdlevel less 'than significant.
S With Mitigation Incorporated. It is not known if significant subsurface paleontolo'9 c _resources
C) exist m the ar a. In order to avoid potential impacts, a monitoring program, carried out` by a qualified paleontologist or
archaeologist, would: be implemented during subsurface disturbance associated with ,project construction. If artifacts are
mitigation measures would educe this impact to:'leuels loss than significant: facility, ntaf on of these
d reserved at an appr facilit ` Im 'lem e
d) Less Than Significant Impact There are no known human remains on, the- site. If remains should be discovered during
construction, all construction activity in: the area would be halted and the County Coroner notified immediately: Measures
consistent with. CEQA Guidelines Section .15064.5(e), Public Resources Code 5097.98, and Health `and Safety Code
7050.5 would be implemented.
Implementationof'the following rhitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to lessthan significant.
Mitgation 1VIe 9uner s/Monitorirt
L. 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 (1'•50 feet)° oUthe, find, until rt �cari
be • evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The. City'
ity
of Petaluma Planning Division and a qualified
archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall `be imrriediat6ly
contacted; by the responsible individual present on- site. When contacted; Community Development' Department staff
and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to deteri ine 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 rare significant environmental
effects, lead !agencies may refer to the California Agricultural' Land Evaluation and Site! Assessment Model (19,97)
Page 33
M
R. iverview Initial Study 'Page 34
Potential
Less'Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w(Mrtigation
Impact`.
tnco orated
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'Pnme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland,
of Statewide Iinportance (Farmland) as shown on the
maps prepared' pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program ;of the .California Resources Agency,
to non- agric.altural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning 'for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract ?,
C. Involve�other changes in the:exi' ttng.environment which,
due to.their location or nature; could in conversion
of Farmland, to non,aa - icultural use?
•
X
M
Discussion:
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, :commonly referred to as the 'Williamson. Act, is a voluntary land conservation
program,adnziiiistered'by counties and cities., 'Land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract entitles the landowner to a lower tax rate
in exchange to restricting the use of theirdand "to agricultural',and open`space purposes., The- 'proposed site.is not considered prime
agricultural land and has not been used for farming crop`production in recent history The site is `not subject to a Williamson
Act contract.
Checklist Items
a Therefore, there are no related mpaets nafed as Prime Farmland, U '-' nrqu- .Farmland, or Farmland ofStatewide Importance.
p P J g_
b) No Impact. The project site is - -not currently under a Williamson Act contract and, the current County.zoning for the site is
Rural,kesidential,t which would allow for. low - density residential development. While one of the'approvals being sought
by the.Applicant is;ihe prezoning ofthe site °to Planned Unit Development; the °project`. "would be consistent with anticipated
residential land uses. ?
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction „ the; proposed project would not affect any agricultural areas currently in
crop production.
17. Mi3ndatory Findings `of SiOhJficance. Yes No
a. Does the project;havethe "potential to degrade the' of.`the environment
substantially reduce the habitat of'-fish or, wildlife species, cause a fish or�wildlife
population to drop`below;self- sustaining levels, threate'n.to elimate a'plant or animal
community ;;reduce;the numb in
er:or restrict'thesange of a,rare'or endangered plant or 11
animal 'or eliminate'importantexamples of the major periods of,Califoriva,history or
prehistoy?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (" Cumdaiively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the�effects of past projects, the
effects:of othee projects; and the effects ofprobable'future-projects)?
C. Does' the pr oject'have;environmental effects which will. cause'substantial adverse effects
on human'beings, either directly or indirectly?
Page 34
M
M
Riverview Initial Stu
Discussion:
Page 35
.Potential
Less Than
Less�Than
'No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact.
Impact
w /Mitigation
impact.
Inco orated ,
aj No Impact. Based' upon the: evaluation in, this Inifial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential 'to
signifi egrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the .habitat of;a fish or wildlife species; cause a.
fish orwildl wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,, threaten; ci eliminate a plant or animal,-commun_ ity reduce
the number or restrict the rairge of a rare or endangered "plant of animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory providing that all of'the, mitigation measures outlined in this document are
implemented.:
The seasonal - drainage located on the project site does -not possess significant aquatic or stream habitat values;_however, it
possesses minimal riparian, habitat value and it ..has more; significant value further upslope where it passes through oak
woodland. The wetland in the channel bottom is, subject to the jurisdiction' of the U:S-.1 Army Corps of Engineers and the
San Francisco Bay Regional. Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). Permits must; be obtained from these: agencies
in order�to place-the dra`i ' ge, into a culvert as proposed. The applicant would follow appropriaterproiocol. with.the Army
Corps of Engineers and. the Regional Water Quality Control Board and would comply with any required mitigation for
wetland impact. Therefore; the impacts would be reduced to' aAess= than= significant level.
Natural plant communities found on the site consist of non- native +grassland and oak woodland. No speeial'status plant or
animal species were observed or known to exist on the site. A review of the California Natural, Diversity Database .
indicates that the'nearest occurrence of the California red- legged frog (R1 F) is approximately 1,0 miles "to .the southwest in
the Sears Point Quadrangle; Since the drainage on = site is ephemeral there are no habitats onsite or on adjacent.
parcels that could support the. species.
•
b) No impact. The proposed,project would nothave the potenti al to achieve short-term environmental oals to , the long -term ones (a short-term impact on the is one that occurs in a relaf�
el brief, ,definitive
period.of time while . long- term,inipacts` would endure °well into 'the, future). Relatively minor impacts mayoccur'from
construction activities, but these effects would beof'short durationand not,cumul'atively considerable.
c) No Impact: The development of ,the proposed project would not have :environmental effects, that would cause ,substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either 'directly' or indirectly. Potential environmental impacts have already been
discus "sed as part of, the evaluation. Less than 's °i "gnificant, impacts would be primarily limited �to ,short =term construction -
related impacts.
IMPLE_1VIENTATION:.
P proof p ty "prior e issuance of grad in all required permits from responsible agencies and
I. The project "sponsor /project sponsor shall be required to obtain
provide roof of compliance, to the Ci ing permits or approvals of improvements plans.
2. 'The applicant/project sponsor, 'shall.; incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and
conditions °into the design and'improvements'plans and.specifications for -the project.
3. The applicant/project sponsor shall notify alt employees,•contractors, ,and agents involved in the project implementation
of mitigation. measures and conditions applicable to the project and s hall ensure compliance with such ,measures and
conditions. Applicant/proj*ect shall notify all assigns and`imnsfers of the same;
4. The a ,plicant/prcject'sponsor provide for the cost of monitoring.of`any condition or mitigationrneasure, tat involves_
on -going operations -at the site or long -range improvements, such as archaeological resources, etc_
MONITORING:
1 construcrion fans. for conformanc a rig Section and Fire Departments shall review th e improvement and
Building 1 g. g ineeri
p pproved proJect,descnption and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation
measures .and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement;;plans, grading, plans, or
building permits.
Page
�t
Riverview Initial Study Page 36
Potential
Less'Tfian
Less.Than
N.o
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact:
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
2. The Planning Divisio s'Wall ensure that;the project sponsor'hasrobtained applicable. permits from all responsible`
agencies and that the aid specifications conform to the permit requirements prior .to the issuance of grading or
building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements; or issuance of 'a Certificate of Occupancy,• all' improvements s}iail be subject to
inspection by City staff for compliance with. the project description;, . permit conditions, and approved development or
improvement plans.
4
CONSTRUCTION MEASURES:,
1. The applicant shall designate a project ;manager with authority to implemetit,:al]- rmtigation measures and conditions of
approval;and,provide name,, address, arid'phone numb ' s`to the City prioi fo; issuance -of any grading permits and signed
by the contractor responsible for-construction. .
2. Mitigation measures required during;' construction shall be listed as conditions• on the building "pr 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/prgject sponsor shall arrange a. pre - construction' conference with the
cons truction.contractor, Citystaff'dnd,responsible agencies torev_i'ew thetmitgation measures and conditions of approval
prior to the issuance grading and:buildi permits.
.I the project applicant/ project sponsor, have reviewed. this Initial
Study'and hereby agree to incorporate the "igation measures and monitoring programs, identified herein,into: the project.
Signature of Applican0fcject'Sponsor Date,
I •
Page.36
4
Riverview 1nitiol Study, Page 37
Potential
Less Than
''Les s!Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w %Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated,
REFERENCES
•
A. City'of Petaluma General Plan 1987 -2005, City of Petal tnia'
R. City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, City of Petaluma
C. South Petaluma Boulevard, Specific PlanrPhase.I Report: Preliminat nalysis.Findings City of Petaluma, December
1991
D. Application Packet submitted by Cobblestone Homes,. including revised plans and additional inaterials submitted
.
November °6, 2003
E. Site Inspections . conducted May and September2003.
.F. Environmental Site Sta Riverview, Cobblestone. Homes, Harris &`Lee, March 24 2603
G. Geotechnrcallnvestigation ,:RiverviewSubdivision, RGH Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, March 2003
H: Cultural'Resources Survey'for the Riverview Pfoject Tom .Origer & Associates, January 2003
I. Biotic_ Assessment, Golden 'Bear'Biostudies, July 25, 2003'
I Arborist's Report for Riverview Subdivision, BeckyDuckles, ISA. Certified Consulting Arborist, November 3, 2003
K. Comprehensive Air port.. Land Use Plan for Sonoma County —Final Report, Sonoma County, January 2001
�.
L. Noise Coritouf Map at Buildout on Major °Streets, Earthmetrics (Petaluma General Plan Appendix);
M. Memoranilum from Lonnie Armstrong „Plans Examiner,, Petaluma Fire'Department, Septeth be).• 20, 2005
N. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),Flood lnsurance Rate. Map (FIRM), Community Panel.No.
Q. Association..of Bay Area Governrrients,Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Maps, 1995
P. Traffic Impact,Study, W- Trans; Inc:, April 1'S, 2003
Q. Traffic Impact Study Adden. da, W- Trans, _, September 11, 2003 and March 25, 2004
R. Map of Sonoma County 'Important Farmland, California, Resources Agency, 5998
S. Written report from City Engineer to Petaluma Planning Commission, Riverview Subdivision, `March'24, 2004
Page 37
Riverview Initial Sfudy Page 38
Potential
Less`Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /(Vtriigation
Impact
Incorporated
APPENDICES
Appendix A Geotechnical Investigation, Riverview Subdivision; RGH :Ge'otechnical and Environmental
Consultants, March 2l, 2003
Appendix B Biotic Assessment, Golden Bear Biostudies, July 25 2003
Appendix C TrafficImpact,�Study ;, W Inc., April '15, 2003 'and addenda; dated September 11, 2003 and
March 25, 2004 .
Appendix D Visual. Assessment of Site (Photographs)
Appendix E Environmental Site Survey, Riverview, Cobblestone Homes, Harris. & Lee, March 24, 2003
Appendix F Cultural Resouices for the Project, Tom Or ° ger &.Associates, January 2003.
Page.,38
�.LU C f California
Ci � o Petaluma, Cal
Community Development Department
Planning Division
�85a 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: RIVE RVIEW S111®_IV.,ISI'ON '
File Nuitrober:
Ac9dress /Location:. MCNEAR AVE6 M .ISSI0 * 14 STREET
Reporting /Monitoring Record Mitigation Measures
This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code 'Section 21.`681:6 to
ensure: proper and 'adequate ,monitoring or .reporting in conjunction with projects) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, - or an Environmental Impact Report.
/7 RF,\ IF \\ k RtQ 61 "U; \TE
��i � DEPT 'G ' ORUIIF y FINISIIID
Land Use arid' Planning Mitigation Measures
1. The Applicant shall contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant °to the
Housing Element of the; Petaluma General .Plan. The Applicant shall participate
through: (a)- payment. of an in-'lieu housing fee for each residential. lot payable at the
close of escrow for each. lot or resid'ent'ial unit,, (b) dedication 'of land to the City for
development of affordable';, housing or, (c) provision of between 10 to 15 percent of�
units' at below- market rents-or prices as described in the General Plan.
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures
1. All earthwork, grading; trenching backfilling, ;and compaction: ,operations shall be
conducted,in accordance with °the City of Petaluma 's Subdivi'sion'Ordinance ( #1046; Title
20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and. Erosion .Control
Ordinance' #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma lVluru'cipal Code).
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. contarmna1 -1 into tle drainage system. The Erosion. and -Sediment.
Control Plan shall include the followin �.measures'as applicable.
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance: of groundcover shall ,be: minimized
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 rmnimize the amount of land area
p
disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed' areas shall be used fo " such'ur - . '
Department
PD Planning` Division
FM Fire Marshal.
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
FM Eina'l. vlap .
BP :Building Permit
CO Certificate of Occupancy
:SPARC :Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee:
LTM Long -Term Monitorin
4
RIVEItVIEW SUBDIVISION
City of Petaluma, California
Rec
RLQ[ Bl
D \ I L Y_ DI PT
dDEPT r, iORDULu FI \ISIIk.D 6 " ' ST \FF�i��'�
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 surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be
protected with.hay mulch and/or erosion as appropriate.
c,. IvlateridFand equipment for. implementation of erosion control measures shall be on -site
by October Ist. All grading activity shall be completed by October 15th, prior to the on-
set of the rainy season,, with all disturbed areas stabilized and re- vegetated'by October
31 st. 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;'controlmeasures.
3. All construction activities, shall meet the U niform Building Code regulations for seismic
,safety (i':e.,, reinforcing perimeter And/or'load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.)
4 All public and private improvements ,shall be subject to inspection by City staff for
compliance with the approved Improvement. Plans, prior to City acceptance.
5. Foundation 'and . structural design for buildings shall conform to,
the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, as well. as state and local laws /ordinances. Construction plans
shall he.subjecvto reviewland approval bythe Building Division prior to the issuance of
a building "perrriit. All work: hall 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-
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 properly implemented through
construction of the project.
T. The design,of all earthwork, cuts and fills,. drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations
and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained
in the geotechnical report, as app "roved by the City Engineer. The geotechrucal engineer
shall sign the improvement plans and certify' the. design as conforming to the
specifications. The geotecl nrca I engineer shall also inspect the construction work and
shalt: 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 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 w `building permits an 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.
;tment - Requested 13yor Due Date Page 2
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
RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION
R "eporting /Monitori'ng Record - Miti.gation,Measures.for- Approval
EINIS11H) STM*'t
1; 1vITIAM,
Air Mitigation,Measures
• • i
City of Petaluma, California
D
1.The Applicant. shall incorporate Best. Management Practices to limit fugitive ,dust and' exhaust
emissions into the construction .and improvement plans and clearly" indicate these
provisions in °the specifications. Specific practices; would be included ias conditions of
approval,
Z The Construction ;Contractor shall adhere to the requirements addressing emission control
measures for, as paving emissions in the BAAQMD Rulebook.
Hydrology, and Water Quality Mitigation „Measures
1. All cons truction' shall be' performed in'.. a'• manner that minimizes the >sediment
and/or pollutants entering directly or "indirectly into the storm d "rain ;system or, ground
water. The - Applicant 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 permits.
a. The apO cant-shall. designate construction staging ,areas and "areas for storage of any
hazardous materials (i'e., motor oil, fuels paints,) used 'during construction on the
improvement plans and the �SWPPP. A "ll'.construction staging areas shall be located,_
away from any stream, and adjacent drainage areas to prevent runoff f
construction areas from entering . into the drainage system. Areas designated
storage "of hazardous materials shall include' proper containment features to prevent
contaminants from entering drainage,areas in the event of a spill or`leak.
b. No debris, soil," silt; sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or °other construction
related materials or wastes, oil 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 Applicant shall designate,i appropriate disposal methods
and/or facilities on. the consti<uction plans or in.the specifications.
C; 'No heavy .equipment shall be operated in any creek channel. All in- stream channel
work shall be limited "to the dry " season (typically defined as May] st through October
15th) and performed in accordance with •specified' by the Dept. of Fish and
Game *in a Streambed Alteration Agreement and the Army Corps Section 404 Permit.
The applicant shall pro "vide a copy of the approved Streambed:Alteration Agreement
and proof of compliance with ,the; permit conditions prior to approval of improvement
plans. or:issuance ,of grading permits for work" within any channel
2.
The applicant shall prepare.an operation and maintenance. manual for the detention basin,
to, include dredging and ,ongoing . maintenance, to be submitted as part of the
improvement plans.
3. Material' and equipment for ,implementation:,of erosion control" measures shall'be on -site
by October lst. All grading,activity,sliall'be completed by October 15th, prior to the on
set- of the rainy season, with all disturbed, areas stabilized 'and revegetated by `Qctobe.r
31st. Upon :approval' by the Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short =term grading
maybe allowed. Special erosion,control ' measures may be required by the City Engineer
in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading.
Department
PD 'Planning Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG - Engineering
BD Building Division
Requested_ By or Due_Date page
FM Final Map
BP Building Permit
CO Certificate of ',Occupancy
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
RIVERVIE SUBDIVESI N.
oftingjMonitoring ..
Y. DhPf J ?� ° OR DU6 � FINISIIt_D � -. STAFF ��N`
PD Planning Division
= FM " ` Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
City of Petaluma, California
4. The project sponsor shall "submit :a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and
approval by.,the Engineering Section Tand . the 'Planning Division prior to approval of any
improvement plans or the issuance of a grading permit. Project grading and all site
d"" rainage' improvements shall; be designed and constructed in conformance with the City
ofTetalurna Engineering Department's y" Siandards'Specifrcatioris;" and with the Sonoma
County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design,C iteria," 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. The; project ,sponsor shall. pay all applicable Storm Drainage Impact Fees prior to final
inspection or issuance of Certificate of.Qccupancy.
6. The project sponsor shalLsubmif Sonoma County Water Agency letter of approval.
„ Bioloaicdl. Resources Mitigation Measures
1. } Alltreesito be preserved:shall be protected during grading and construction' by providing
g.
temporary`fenc 11
2. To: rriitigate "the loss of :trees, on the site, native trees shall be planted in•suitable areas
athroughout the open spacerareas and undeveloped portions of the abandoned orchard..
3. The> applicant shall prepare and implements- revegetat ion plan thatincludes specifications
for,,planting maintenance and monitoring subject to review by the City of Petaluma
Comirrunity bevelopment Department, DFG -.and agencies issuing wetland permits. The
applcanf,shall, submit the revegetation plan 'to the Community Development Director for
review and approval prior' to site grading The applicant shall also provide evidence to
the Community Development Director that the applicant has complied with and obtained
appropriate ,permits from the California - - Department of Fish and Game and other
responsible agencies.
A. The. applicant shall prepare and implement a plan_ to mitigate the loss of impacted
wetlands.. At a minimum, the plan shall replace- 'impacted wetlands at a ratio of 1
(mitigati'on): I (impacted), Preferably, ;the mitigation areas shall be located onsite or on
open space lands adjacent to the' project site. If •offs ite (greater than I mile from the
site), mitigation is necessary, the ratio should increase to Z 1., The applicant :shall submit
the mitigation plan to the Community' Development Director for review and approval
prior. "to ,site grading. The applicant. shall also provide evidence to the Community
Development Director that the applicant has complied with, and obtained appropriate
permits and with applicable regulations of the? U.S. - Army Corps of Engineers the
Regional Water, Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the�U:S. Fish and Wildlife- Service.
Requested
or Due Date .
FM,
Finl Map
BP
Building Permit=
CO
Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review'Committee
LTM
Long Terra Momtoring
Page 4
RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION,
N t
City, of Petaluma,. California
Reporting /Mon- itoring: Record` - Mitigation Measures"for Approval
ARE�IF'11'.
J
2.
3
•
In order to minimize potential' impacts related to construction noise, construction activities
shall be'liniited:to ;between 7 a.rn. and 7 p.m. Monday "through Friday, unless a permit is
first secured from: the City'. Manager : (or his /her designee) for additional ; hours.. No
construction shall; be permitted, : on" Sundays or City of Petaluma recognized legal
holidays. There`will be: 'rip;" start up of machines nor" equipment 'prior to 7`."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 cleaning, :of' machines "nor equipment past
6:00, p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equip "menu past 6:45 p.m„ Monday
.through Friday,.
All construction equipment .powered by .internal-
'combustion engines shall be :properly
muffled and maintained #o; minimize indise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in
use.
Construction maintenance storage, and staging areast for construction equipment shall.
avoid proximity to residential_ areas. to the maximum 'extent practicable: Stationary
construction: equipment such as. compressor s ;mixers etc., shall, be placed away from
residential areas and or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction
equipmenta"hall'be used when possible.
4. The Applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority 'to implement
mitigation measures who, will'be responsible for responding-tozny, complaints from
neighborhood prior to 'issuance of a building /grading" permit. .The' Project Manager's
telephone number °shall be: cons picuously 'posted at the construction: site.
5. The `Project-Manaier shall determine the cause of noise comp! aints (e.g. starting too early„
faulty muffler) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem.
Visual Quality and Aesthetics ;Mitigatidi
1. Improvement Plans, . including propOsedi architecture, lighting, "and 'landscaping shall be
subject to review °and approval 'by SPARC
2. All exterior lighting; shall be directed onto the project;sitIe and 'access ways and shielded
.to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties'. Plans submitted for
SPARC review and approval" shall incorporate lighting plans which.re fleet the- location
and',design ofall' proposed street lights, and any other exterior lighting proposed. .
Department
PD 'Planning Division.
FM Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
, Noise Mitigation Measures
FM 'FinaLMap
BP 'Building Permit
CO Certificate ofOccupancy,
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION
City of Petaluma, California
eportinglMonitoring Record - . Miiigaiion.M;easures fbe'Approval
3 Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom
-areasl 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
,inf" rior living space from the headlight,glare.
4. In order to reduce'potential impacts from light,and glare, no illumination shall be installed
within the designated open space area except for low level lighting along designated
pathways, adjacent to public streets du across p "edestr an bridges. The improvement
drawings• and.landscape plans prepared for'tfie project shall reflect the location and design
.details of all exterior light fixtures proposed. These locations and details `shall be
reviewed and •approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and the
Parks and Recreation Director prior to- the approval .of the final map, 'improvement plans
or advertising forbids.
5. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall,review the landscape and lighting
plans 'improvements proposed within the'designated open space area.
6. Shadettrees shall be incorporated.. into building.and improvement plans along public streets
and 'within parking. areas in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural
Review Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade.
r
Hazardsl, Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures
' . 1. For uses, including construction ;activities,• ;involving storage of chemicals or hazardous
material`s on -site, the Applicant shall file: a declaration form with Fire Marshal's office
and shall obtain:a hazardous materials storage permit.
2. If hazardous materials are used or stored on -site, the Applicant shall prepare a Risk
Management Plan (RMP) and submit:for'review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior
to issuance ,of a certificate of-Occupancy or grading or building permit for construction
activities. The RMP shall include the following as`appropriate.
a. The Applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous
materials and,shal'1 maintain emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire.
Marshall, to address any spills'or leaks from the facilities.
b' The applicant shall identify- any potentially hazardous :substances or contamination
,existing on -site Arid shall provide for proper treatment, removal and disposal during
construction.
3. If any vapors or other signs of contamination are detected during project construction, all
fo m
cal, state, and federal requirements for reediation and disposal of contaminated
materials shall be followed.
4. The applicant shall comply. with all existing.Federal and.State safety regulations related
to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous
substances on the site.
artment Reaues"ted'Bv or Due Date Page 6
D Planning Division Final Map
EM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering Co Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building. Division SPARC Site Plan:and Architectural'.Revew Committee
LTM•; Long- TermMonitoring =
RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION
City of Petaluina, California
Reporting/Monitoring Record'- Mitigation Measures for Approval.
"i DEPr'�; OR DUE tINISIIE6 ST \FF
a
4` r
•
5. Prior to demolition of.`any existing, structures on ahe 7site, the structures shall be surveyed
for asbestos- containing materials. If AGMs are determined to be present; a qualified
asbestos abatement specialist shall perform the asbestos mitigation ,(i.e. removal ofthe
asbestos - containing linoleum in the residence):.
6. Any existing wells or septic systems, , on the property shall be abandoned in accordance
with local, And state regulations.
7. Hammerhead,design for emergency vehicles shall meet,the requirements and specifications
of the Petaluma Fire Department.
Trans
portation %Traffic Mitigation Measures
1.
'The project shall comply with the requirements of the City vof Petaluma Bicycle Plan.
Building P
Plans for each phase f site- ) evelopment� shall be .referred to the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Certificate of Occupancy
'
Advisor Committee PBAC for review and , comment.
2.
The projectsponsor.shall ° provide,a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval'of the
Long- Term;Monitoring
City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit... At least :one lane of
traffic in: each direction shall be'mainta ned at all times. through the construction period,
unless .a temporary detour plan is submitted and' approved the City 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 ;hazard
shall be provided with. ,signage flashers, and barricades approved by the Stree-0
Superintendent to war oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential
safety hazards.
3.
The. project sponsor'shall be responsible for the payment of the' City's Traffic Mitigation
Fees. Traffic Mitigation, Fees shall be icalculated at the time of issuance of a building
permit arid. shall be due and ,payable before final inspection ors 'i-"ssuance of a ,certificate
of occupancy.
Public Services ,'Mitigation Measures
1.
In accordance with .City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of
Community Facilities Development Ifees to offset the impacts to public ,facilities. Fees
shall:be calculated by,'the, City at the time of building permit issuance , and are due and
payable by, the, Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate. of
occupancy:
2.
In accordance with City, regulations the Applicant shall be' responsible ;for payment of
Park and .Recreation Land Improvements. fees. These .fees: provide for acquisition;,
development and improvement of .neighborhood 'and community park and recreation
facilities. Fees shall be , cal'culated by the City at the time of building permit :issuance
and are :due and payable by the Applicant prior to "final inspection or 'issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
Department
PD Planning' Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
Requested By or Due Date
FM
Final Maps
BP
Building P
C.Q
Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
ITM
Long- Term;Monitoring
Page'
RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION,
City of Petaluma, California
.. . e . . . OWIT e . . ..
e � �r , ;,.. ��: � ,
��WRE�IEN. RFQ 13YS� i e y D �7E � ��DLPT
(�'�a}DtPT��� '�ORI)UE�I EI'VItiI1FIN ��'�S7A�P�p����l
4LF.
3. In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of
School` Facilities fees. Fees shall` be calculated'by the City at the time of building permit
' issuance and are due and payable; directly to the ,school district by the Applicant prior to
finale inspection or issuance: of a 'certificate, of occupancy. The Applicant shall provide a
receipt or proof of payment;of school facilities fees to the City Building Division prior to
final inspection or issuance,of a certificate of occupancy.
Recreation Mitigation Measures
1. To mitigate for the _increased deniandafor recreational facilities generated by an increase
in ;residents in the area, the applicant shall: be responsible for payment of Park and
Recreation Land Improvements fees. These fees provide for acquisition, development
and improvement of neighborhood :and community park and recreation facilities. Fees
shall 'be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and are due and
payable by the Applicant prior' to final, inspection or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. (See General'.P.lan, p. 5.8, sec: 7.2) (See also Section l Ld above).
Wilities Infrastructure ati" Measures
1. To minimize impacts.on landfill capacity, the project shall follow the following measures:
recycle and demolition" debris to the - maximum extent feasible; and provide
:adequate oli
e space for the storage :and collection of recyclable materials at the proposed
development: Evidence of :the 'intent.,to comply with this measure shall be submitted
with Improvement Plans.
Cultural ,Resources. Mitigation Measures
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.
Archaeologists) 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 extent of the resources and to develop
proper mitigation measures '.required for the discovery.
invent R epuested By or Due,Date Page 8
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM : Fire Marshal BP, Building Permit
E G' Engineering Co. Certificate of Occupancy'
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Reviewtommittee
LTM Long- TeftnMonitoriing
RIVERVI'EW S BDIVI -S-10N
i
City _of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
Rl�IF \V RF:QiBY�:
;"�n DhP7 �i ,OR�UUF�
a 4
` -alM1l 1 IALS';
Mandatory Findings of Significance
IMPLEMENTATION:
r
1. The project sponsor /project sponsor shall be required to obtain all. required permits from
responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of
grading, permits' or. approvals, of improvements plans:
2. The , applicant/project sponsor shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and :required
mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and
specifications for.the project
3. The applicant/project sponsor shall, notify all employees, Contractors and,agents involved'in
the project implementation of mitigation measures and conditions -applicable to. the project
and shall ensure compliance. °with such measures and_, conditions. Applicangproject
sponsor shall notify all assigns;and transfers of the same.
4. The applicant/projecf sponsor shall provide for the cost of moniforing,. of. any condition or
mitigation measure ; tat involves on -going operations at the site or long -range
improvements, such asyarchaeological resources, etc:
MONITORING:
The Building 'Division, Planning; Division, Engineering Section and Eire Departments shall
review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with:the approved project
description and. all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures 'and permit
requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans grading plans,
or building permits.
The Planning Division;shall einsurethat the project sponsor has obtained applicable required
permits 'from all responsible agencies and that the. and specifications conform to the
pernvtrequirements prior to' the , issuance of grading or,building permits.
Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certif cate of Occupancy, all
improvements, shall be subjectto inspection. by Cit 'sta for compliance with the,project
description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement ;plans.
CONSTRUCTION; MEASURES:
1. The applicant :shall designate a project rnanager with authority to implement all mitigation
measures and conditions- ofapproval;and,proyide name, address numbers to the
City prior to 'issuance of any grading permits and signed by-the contractor';responsible for
construction.
2. Mitigation .measures required :during construction shall be listed as conditions on. Elie
building or grading permits.and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
Department
PD Planning' Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering,.
`BD Building Division.
FM Final,Map
BP Building Permit:
CO Certificate of.Qccuparicy
'SPARC Site Plan; and Architectural Review Committee,
LTM Long -Term 1Vlonitoring
P
o
RIV RVIEW SUBDIVISION
City of Petaluma, California
orti'ng /M'onitoring Record - ; Mitigation Measures forApproval
I 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
agencies to -review the mitigation measures, and. conditions of approval prior to the
issuance of grading and.building permits.
S: \monitoring \Riverview subdivision.doc
•
tment
P Planning Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG° Engineering
DD Building Division
Requested By or Due Date Page 10
FM Final Map
BP' Building Permit
CO Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC Site Plan '.and Architectural ReNjew Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring