HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 15.A-Attch12 02/03/2003Pe
City
�.�/
ATTACHMENT 12
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11 J Engl''sh Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
)7/778 =43 01
-Initial Study
of Environrnentxi Significa
In$roducti®ra This Initial Study leas been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 et sec)) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional' information incorporated by reference herein
includes: the project application, environmentai;inforination questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, EIR and Techniical Appendices, and other applicable "planning documents (i. e., Petahuna River
Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of
Petaluma Planning Division.
Project Name: Magnolia Place Subdivision File No: ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011,
PUD00006
Site Address: 1120 Magnolia Avenue 1111Gossage Avenue APN: 048 -141 -012; 048 -132 -027
Posting Date: February 22, 2002 Comments Due: March 25, 2002
Lead Agency Contact: Betsi Lewitter, Project'Planner Phone: (707) 778 -4301
App_ licant: Mission Valley Properties Phone.: (925) 467 -9900
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Property Owner: Lucretia McNear Thomas,Revocable Trust, Robert S. Thomas, Trustee (Magnolia Parcel)
Allen &Marcia Shainsky -Baunri Family Trust, Walter M.�La , Trust (Gossage Parcel)
Project Description: The project applicant proposes to construct 47 single - family detached residential units on two
separate contiguous parcels totaling 24.42 acres adjacent to the western City limits. The properties are currently within County
of Sonoma jurisdiction and are zoned Rural Residential. Both parcels are within the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban
Growth Boundary. The site contains a drainage swale and .a roadside drainage channel along.Magnolia Avenue that are subject
to Anny Corps of Engineering regulation.. Total jurisdictional area on _the site equals 0.55 acres, consisting of 0.45 acres of
wetlands and 0.10 acres of other waters of the United. States. Thirty of "the lots, ranging in size from 5,876 to 11,545 square
feet, would be located on a 17.05 -acre parcel ( "Magnolia Avenue site ") located north of Magnolia .Avenue and west of the
Cypress Hill Cemetery. The construction of,houses and streets would,occur on 6.55 acres of this site with the upper 8.28 acres
to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma a public park and the remaining 2.21 acres along`Magnolia Avenue to be retained as
private open space. Approximately 61, percent of the Magnolia Avenue site will be preserved as public and private open
sp ace. An ad ditional 17 custom home lots, ran ' pp ' g y 48 square feet are to be located on
the adjacent. 7 acre arce chicke ranc site') located d east of Gossage Avenue at-the e'
> q
p (�� rid of Samuel Drive The two sites
will be graded and improve un
d at the same time. However, construction of the Magnolia Avenue site homes is to occur in phases
of 5 to 10 homes while the custom home lots are to be sold on an individual basis. A rock -clad bridge, with pedestrian
walkways on both sides of the structure; will span the drainage swale to provide access to 30 of the houses and the public park
from Magnolia Avenue. The main access to the custom homes on the chicken ranch site would be from Samuel Drive; lots 39
and 40 are to be accessed' directly -from Gossage Avenue and lots 37, 38, 41 and 42 would-be accessed from a private driveway.
The project would also include the construction of three detention basins to detain storm water at peak rain flows. The
Magnolia Avenue site is currently. developed with a single - family residence, outbuilding, and concrete water tank. The chicken
ranch site presently contains four chicken, houses, two mobile homes, and an accessory structure. The 17:05 -acre Magnolia
Avenue site is designated as a public park, and the 7.37 -acre chicken ranch site is designated as. Suburban Residential -on the
City's General Plan map. The project 'includes a General Plan amendment to redesignate the approximately 6.55 -acre
development area and the 2.21 acres of private,open space on the Magnolia Avenue site, and the entire 7.37 -acre chicken ranch
site to Urban Standard, which allows) a. density of 2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed densities are 3 .42 units per
Project Name: Magnolia Place He No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 2
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Geology & Soils
_ 9.
Measures
15. , Cultural Resources
acre for the Magnolia Avenue site and .2.31 units per acre for the clucken,ranch site, with a combined;density of 2;91 units per
acre. The project will require approval of a Planned Unit District ..prezoning, approval of a vesting tentative' subdivision map
and approval of annexation by the Local Agency Formation Coirunission.
Environmental Setting: The project area consists of two separate; rectangular shaped parcels totaling' 24.42 acres. The
g of 17.05 acres -is, located north side.of- Magnolia „Avenue
parcel, consistin of the,Kazen Resrdeiitial
Subdivision Unit Three and west.of the Cypress Hill Cemetery. Rural residential uses occur to themorth. This parcel consists of
a grass - covered hillside with areas of trees and dense brush. Hillside. slopesrange.from 6°to `25 percent, with the steepest slopes
on the:hillside, bordering the western edge.. In 1998 most of the eucalyptus trees on the site were harvested. Some of the
eucalyptus stumps haye.sprouted. The majority of the other trees on the!siie are coast live are :also a small niuiiber
of non- native trees. An, east to west trending ridge bisects the property "and; forces runoff to flow either to the north .or to the
south of the site: Flows to the south occur in a gently sloping swage leading to a small drainage ditch flowing parallel to
Magnolia Avenue. Itnprovements on the site include dirt roads, a concrete water tank and a residence'.
The second parcel is approximately 7.37 acres: and is located north of the Kazen Residential :Subdivision Unit Three and east;of
Gossage Road Rural residential uses occur along Gossage _Road. The proposed project site is currently developed with four
rectangular chicken coops of 12,000 to 20,000 square feet each, a trailer, a. domestic well, an abovegroturd tank and a;partially
buried concrete vault. Slopes on this property are less than '5 percent. The ground is mainly grass- covered with areas of bare
earth. Drainage swal'es and culverts carry runoff to a roadside ditch along Gossage Avenue.
Responsible /Trustee Agencies: (Discuss other permits, financing or participation required):
The project requires annexation approval by the Local. Agency Formation Commission and.approvaLof a Section-1404 Permit
from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers; and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
d
Game.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below involve at least one impact that requires mitigation, as identified by "Less than
Significant with Mitigation Measures” on the following checklist
1.
Land Use & Planning
X 7.
Noise
131. Utilities Infrastructure
2.
Population,. Employment & Housing
X 8.
visual Quality & Aesthetics —
14. Mineral Resources
X 3.
Geology & Soils
_ 9.
Hazards &Hazardous' Materials X
15. , Cultural Resources
X 4. Air
X 5. Hydrology & Water Quality
10. TransportationlTraffic
11. Public Services
16. Agricultural Resources
17. Mandatory Findiizgs of Significance
X 6. Biological Resources 12. Recreation
Project Narne: Place File No'. ANXOQ001, TSM00002, PRE0.001 1 Page 3
Determination
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION should be prepared.
sig that. although the proposed project could have a significant effect' on the environment, there will not be a
nificant effect in flu's 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
IINIP 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 hi 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 IMIPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects thavreniam to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect, on the environment because all potentially
significant effects a) havebeen aiialyzed�adequately in,an earlier EIR or EGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards,, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION including revisions or ittitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing
further is required.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distribute&and posted ;:for the public comment period
of February 22 through March 25, 2002.
Prepared by: Betsi Lewitter
Name
CITY OF PETALUMIA
Title
Date
Signature
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. AN3X00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 4
Evaluation of Environmental` Impacts .
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are : adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A ".No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that. the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g., the projecttdlls outside :a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer shouldbe explained where it
is based` in project - specific factors as' "well•`as general- standards, ive. ,, the�pToject will.:n6 expose sensitive receptors to_.._
pollutants based on a project - specific screening analysis.
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off -site as well as on -site: cumulative, project-
level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
3) Once the lead, agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, 'then the checldist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"P.otentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial.evidence that an effect °maybe significat. If there
are one or more "Potentially Signnificant Impact" entries when the determination is-made,. an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Tlzan'Signifi cant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the, incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact "'to a "Less Than.Significant.Inipact.
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures: and briefly explain how they reduce the eff ect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses maybe cross= referenced):
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant.to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA`process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis; Used. Identify and where they are-available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist °were the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document :pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such.
effectsvere_ addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures `Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the'earlier document and the
extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies, are ,encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document. should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should' be attached, and other sources used. or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;, and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if airy, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Project N ame: Magnolia Place File No: ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE0001.1 Page 5
® Environmental Analysis
1. land Use antl "Planning Would'the project:
Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use;,plan policy or
regulation of an.agency with juns&ction.over the project
(including, but not limited to the general:plan, specific
plan, local coastal °program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding•ormit gating an
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potential
Less''Than
Less Than
No.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
"
X
X
Discussion: a -c: Although the project, does not conflict with plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect, a General Plan amendmentis required to redesignate th e ranch site from SuburbanResidential to
Urban Standard, .to accommodate the proposed density, and the development portion of the Magnolia Avenue site from Park to
Urban Standard. Approximately 8.28 acres of 1'and will remain under the "Park" GenerahPlan desaation and will be dedicated to
the City as a public park. This will allow the City to expand its park acreage and bring it more in compliance with adopted
minimum. standards. The parkland and the larger lots on the chicken ranch site result ina lessening of development iutensityat the
edge of the Urban Growth Boundary per General Plan 4, Policy 7. .
The pp q Ci s affordable hous ain.pursuant to the Policy 10 and Program 11 of
the Housing Element of the Petaluma G eneral Plain. The � � ro he: applicant will part #ate through one of the following ways: (a) payment
�
of an in -lieu housing fee for each lot or residential unit; (b) dedication of land to the,Cityfor development of affordable housing;
or (c) provision of between 10 to 1 -5 percent of the units at below - market prices.
The following General Plan objectives, :goals and policies relate to the Magnolia. Place subdivision:
Chapter 3
Policy 6: Well- designed developments that will be harmonious with their setting and/or enhance the city's image shall
be encouraged.
Objective (d): Enhance the function, safety and appearance of Petaluma's streets and, highways.
Objective (f): Improve the appearance of new and existingmajor streets.
Policy 10: The City shall encourage public and private landscaping along o V in, all major,streets.
Policy 14.1: Street improvements shall. incorporate, where applicable, safe ,peestrian and bicycle `access and related
facilities.
Policy 14.2 New development, shall include pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and through the site to connect
e%isting and/or planned City -wide pedestrian and/or bicycle networks. .
Program 9: Require planter strips and street ;trees in all new developments.
Objective (h): Create distinct, identifiable neighborhoods.
Chapter 4
Policy 3: It is the policy of the City to build within an agreed -upon urban limit line.
Policy 6: Growth shall be.contained within the boundaries of the urban limit. line: The necessary infrastructure for growth
will be provided within.the urban limit line.
Policy 28: The City shall suipport residential development only in those areas where adequate City facilities are available or
will be provided with the development.
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRF-00011 Page 6
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
ChaUteI 7
Goal 1:
Objective' (a):
Objective (b):
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Policy 4:
Policy 5'
Objective (i):
Objective (j):
Policy, 12:
Objective (n):
Provide for all citizens a variety of enjoyable leisure, recreation, and cultural opportunities that are
the amount of Petalumay ar kland-di to com w ty' p
accessible, affordable safe,. physically attractive and uncrowded.
- Bring p p with. the Ci s..ado ted minimum. standards
(community park land at 0 acres per 1,000 population, and neighborhood park land at 2 acres per 1
population).
Provide a balance of recreation opportunities, including facilities, to serve the varied interests of the
population.
The City hall require all new residential development to dedicate nand or pay a,park fee,for public parks.
The City shall acquire new public parks at a rate consistent with new residential development.
The City should provide park facilities,within•one -1 alf mile or less'for residents living within the residential
areas of.Petalu n without intrusion of major physical barriers.
The City should provide park sites to respond. to the needs of a diverse population. These needs include
creekside systems, trailways for pedestrians, joggers, acid bicyclists, and non- traditional types of recreation
such as habitat restoration projects, community gardens and skateboarding:,
Design park and recreation facilities to serve the recreation and social deeds of Petalumans of all ages,.
ecoiioniic situations, .and physical ,abilities.
Design parks to enhance neighborh6od`identity and character as well as to serve recreation functions:
Residential developments adjacent:to parks or open spaces should be encouraged to provide direct access to,
anddommon open space contiguous to, such areas.
Maximize the City's recreation opportunities.
Chapter 9;
Objective (a) Provide a range of housing types.
Policy I- The City shall encourage a mix of Housing types; including lower - density housing:
Policy 2: Highepwalue l ousing.shall be encouraged.
Objective (d): Provide housing opportunities for °persons of all econonuc levels..
Objective (e): Insure a choice of housing types and, locations to all persons regardless of sex, cultural origin, age,, marital.
status, or physical handicaps.
Policy 10: The City shall require developers .of residential developments of 5 or more units to (a) provide between. 10
percent- and 15 percent of their units at below- market rents or prices, (b) contribute Ito the in=lieu housing
fund or, (c) propose alternative measures so that the equivalent.of 10 percentto 15 percent of their -units will
be availabie'to and: by households of very low, low and moderate income.
Policy 18: The City shall endeavor through the development approval process to insure that Petaluma''s cominunity
character, housing quality and aesthetics are fostered.
Chapter 10
Goal 2: hiaprove safety on all streets.
Policy 5: New single - family residences shall not front on arterials.
Policv 9: Land use decisions shall take into eonsideration;potentud traffic impacts.
Policy 10: New development shall be- required.to pay a pro -rata share of needed traffic improvements.
Policy 11:, The, City shall see that sufficient funds are :accumulated to pay for all anticipated traffic improvements.
Objective (f): Insure safe travel for pedestrians, and especially for school children going to and from;schools.
Chanter II
Objective (e): Continue. to preclude new developments from compounding or impacting the potential for flooding in
developed areas.
Policy 10: The City shall continue to require fees, standards and other measures to mitigate downstream impacts
associated with new development.
Policy 39: Require a hydrologic analysis: of runoff and drainage from new=development.
N ititation Measures/Monitorin : N/A
0
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 7
2. Population Empioyrnent and Housing Would the project:
a_ ._.,,.__ .hlduce,substantiaa- pooulation' growth in an area,.either-
directly; (for example, by proposing new homes.and
businesses) or indirectly (for, example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial nun bers.of people necessitating th
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
X
1
X
X
e
X
X
Discussion: a -c: The project proposes:4Tnewhomes and an extension of roads and public utilities into the proposed subdivision.
Although the property is not currently within the `City limits; it is located4ithin the Urban Growth Boundary. Roadways and
access shall be designed per City standards to serve the,development and prevent extension into areas outside the Urban Growth
Boundary. The addition of an estimated .11 8 people (2.5 people per home) is not considered substantial population growth. One
existing house is to be removed. .
Mitigation ?V leasures/Monitoring N/A
3. Geology and Soils Wouldahe project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects; includ ng.the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known: earthquake fault, as
delineated:on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologistfor the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic- related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
b. Result in substantial .soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
C. Be. located on a.geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable asa result in on -.or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence; liquefaction or
collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994); creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 8 •
Potential
Less Than
Less - Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Miiigation
Impact
Incorporated.
substructures?
f. Disruptions; displacements, compaction or overcoverin€
of the soil?
g, Change in topography or ground surface relief features`
h. The destruction covering or modification- of' any uuique
geologic or physical features?
i. Any increase in wind or water erosion of'soils, either or
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 thf
ocean or any bay, inlet or lalce?
Exposure of people or property to geologic fiazards sucl
as; earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,, ground failure o:
similar hazards?
Discussion: a =k: A.Preliminary Environmental and`Geotechnical Evaluation for the Magnolia Place project; datedJune, 2000;
was compleied,by Geomatrix Consultants, Oakland,, California. The information regarding geology °and soils contained in this
Initial. Study was gathered from fl report. Additional discussion and mitigations regarding erosion control and water quality are
addressed under Hydrology and Water Quality.
The closest mapped fault to the site is the Tolay fault, wluich is approximately 1 Holes northeast of the site. The Tolay fault is
generally considered parvof the San Andreas fault system, but is a relatively minor fault compared to the major 'fault.zones of the
system. The Tolay -fault is not currently zoned as a potentially active fault by the State of CalifoM1 1 The potentially active
Rodgers Creels segment of the Hayward - Rodgers, Creek.fault zone is located about 5.5 miles northeastof the site The active North
Coast section of the San. Andrem fault zone is about 14.5 miles southwest of the site. The site vicinity has been-relatively quiet
with respect to historical seismicity compared to other areas of the San Francisco Bay region. No magnitude 3 or greater
earthquakes are known for the period ,since 1808. Because no active or°potentially active :faults traverse the properties, the
potential for surface -fault rupture is very low. However the properties would be subjected to very strong ground shalang from.a
large nearby earthquake.on xhe Rodgers Creek or San Andreas fault, or from a large earthquake on any other major active fault in
the region. Relative Slope Stability-Category ".C" (areas of relatively unstable rock and soil units, on,slopes greater than 15 %,
containing abundant landslides) of the" "Landslides and Relative Slope Stability Map of Southeni,Sonoma County", appears to
include portions of the properties: However,,based on the ^aerial photograph interpretation and field reconnaissance mapping, no
landslides are, in fact, present on the sites. Almost all of the property to be developed has .slopes of 0 = -15 %. The level to
moderately sloping properlyhas;a low potential for landslides. The prope_rties not underlain by saturated, clean, fine - grained,
granular materials susceptible to seismic - induced liquefaction. Therefore, the liquefaction potential is low.
Soil at the chicken ranch property is mapped as Cotati fine sandy:loam, which are generally moderately, well,drained fine sandy
loams with clay subsoil Soil at the Magnolia Avenue property is mapped as Arbuckle;gravelly loam which is a general ywell-
drained gravelly loam with gravelly clay loam subsoil'. Although the soils ;on the properties were classified as Having low to
moderately low penneability accordin to agricul4tre classifications, the results of the geotechuical _investigationindicate that the
original soils on the chicken ranch site have been modified by grading :and the surficial soils on both properties are mostly silty-
clayey sand to sand, which, are generally moderately to highly permeable from a geotechiiical point of view.
The Gossage property was previously graded.to accommodate the- chicken ranch operation. The.prelinunary grading =;calculations
for the entire project site are estimated at;28 cubic.yards:of cut and 26,40ftubicyards of.fill. Approximately 22 percent of the
grading will be for roadways, approxi ately 72 percentwill'be for buildingpads'and °approximately 5'percentwillbe for detention
Project Name: Magnolia Place. File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 9
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w7Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
ponds. The proponents anticipate that as the project becomes more refined,, all excess material will be used on site. No off - hauling
or on- hauling of materi al is anticipated:
The-grading required to permit the project the�potential•to cause:water if construction is carried out
during the rainy season (October 1.5 through April 15). The :grading also has the potential to cause wind erosion if the soil
conditions are dry.
William McCormick, Certified Engineering Geologist, of Kleinfelder, Inc. conducted a peer review of the Geotechnical
Evaluation on July 6 2001. Mr. NlcCorn ick stated that the geologic /geotechnical conditions are adequately characterized in the
report. However, as stated by Geomatrix, the evaluation is preliminary, and a final geotechnical study, to include additional
exploratory borings and testing needs to be completed for the design of the individual• residential units.
The following mitigation measures will reduce any potentially significant impacts to a. less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : ,
All earthwork, grading; trenching, backfilling and compaction operations "shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance ( #1046, Title 20, chapter 20 -04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and
Erosion Control Ordinance. #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
G -2. The applicant 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 slialIrbe,subiect to review and approval of the City
Engineering and Community Developmeht,Departnient prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include
temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of• cut ,and- fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and
other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system. The
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following measures as applicable.
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcovei shall be niinimized':and the existingvegetation shall
be retained to the extentpossible toxeduce soil erosion. All;construction grading activities, including short term
needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall .minimize the amount of land area
disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
b.. All drainage ways, wetland areas and,creek channels shall be protected from silt and sediment instonnnmoffthrough
the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface;afeas shall,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 impl'enientation of erosion control measures shall be on -site by October 1", All.grading
activity shall be completed by October 16` prior to the on- set'of the rainy season, with all disturbed areas stabilized
andrevegetated by October 31 ". Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer, exrtensioiis'for'slnort- term'grad iig may
be allowed. Special erosion control measures may be required by the City Engineer in conjunction vrith any specially
permitted rainy season grading.
d. If required ta,prevprit scour,and.erosion of channel banks, biotechrucal.erosion coutrol.andbank measures
shall be incorporated'into the' grading and landscape plans as described °:in the "Restoration Design and Management
Guidelines for the `Petaluma River Watershed, Vol. 11". Channel modifications shall be limited to specific problem
areas.
G -3. All construction aetivid6s'shali meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seistnic.safety (i.e.'reinforcing perimeter
and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
G -4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the Applicant shall
provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered civil engineer for review and
approval of the City Engineer and`Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and
Erosion `Control Ordinance and as reconunended by Geomatrix and as confirmed by Kleinfelder. The soils report shall
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002,.PRE00011 Page 1,0
Potential Less Than Less.Than No,
significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact w/Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
address site- specific.soil conditions (i.e. highly, eYpansive�_soils) and include reconnmendatons;for;, site preparation an
grading; foundation and soil engineering design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures.
G -5. The design of all,earthwork cuts and fills, drainage pavements utilities, foundations and structural components:
shall-
conforni with. the specifications and criteria contained i the geotechnical report, as approved by the Cnty'Engineer. The
geowchnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as .coirforiining- to.'tlie specifications. The
geotecluiical engineer shall also inspect the constructiomwork,and, shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the
improvements ,or issuance of a.certificate of occupancy,, that the' improvements have been,constructed iii rdancitli
accoe =w
ical specifications. Construction and improvement- p conformance with the
the. geotechn rovement- Tans shall be reviewed for
geotechn ical ,specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or'building
permits and/or acivertisinig for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils info. miatipu,may be.required,bythe
Cliief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code.
G -6. 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 be. subject to.review and approval by the BuildingDivision prior.
to the issuance of:a.building permit. All work shall be subject,to inispection by the Building Division and must ,conform to
all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
G -7. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. the applicant shall submit a detailed schedie for field inspection of work
in progress`to ensure that all applicable codes, .conditions and iiv tigation measures are being;properly. implemented through
construction of the "project.
Air Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management;or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would `the roject:`
a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air qualityplan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected,air quality
violation?
C, Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing ennissions which .
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e. Create'objectionable odors affecting a substantial nunnber X
of people?
i
gn ace project, dated July, 2000, was completed by Carmen Borg,
. Discussion: a —e: An Air Quality Analysis for the Magnolia Place
Environmental.Planner, LSA Associates, Pt. Richmond, California. The information regarding air quality contained in .th s Initial
Study was gathered from this report.
The project isaocated within the Petaluma Valley whereair,pollution;is generally low because of wind ,patterns_influencedby the
Petaluma Gap, with winds flowing predominantly from the west, and because;ofits low population density. Currently, within the
Sonoma County portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Basin (SFAB); ozoneis listed as serious non- attainment for federal and
state level;: and is: currently being evaluatedand reclassified as severe _non - attainiuient. However carbon monoxide sulfur dioxide
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 11
Potential
Less Than
Less Tlian
No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
w/Mitijafon .
Impact
Incorporated
and nitrogen dioxide are in attaimnent with both the federaL.and state standards, andPM10 is listed as unclassified for the federal.
standard and non - attainment for the state. standard. Air'pollutant emissions associated with the project would occur over. the short
tern fiom construction, such as.fugitiye dust from grading, site: preparation an&equipment exhaust. Long -term emissions would
"'' ":resulf fr'oiri `the occu pafiori and`u "se of the proposed land uses. In addition,, long =tern stationary or -area sourcernissions"wovild
occur due to energyconsumption, such as natural gas and electricity usage by the °proposed land uses.
Ms. Borg used the `BAAQMD's CEQA, Guidelines; Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans ", April 1996, to
determine the significance of the proposed,project on air quality: This docu ment'provides guidelines for determining whether a
project will have a significant impact on air quality. The level of significance is determined by comparing the project's emissions
to the threshold levels for project operation, odors, toxic air contaminants, and "project construction. If the threshold levels are
exceeded, the project is considered.to have a significant air duality impact. The;BAAQMD' CEQA Guidelines indicated that a
single - family housing development with greater than 375 units would typically generate a sufficient number of trips to triggerthe
District's threshold The BAAQMD's significance thresholds recognize that sources of stationary air pollutant emissions
complying with all applicable District generallywill not be,considered`to. have a. significant air quality impact. With
regard to project operation impacts, the proposed project is smaller than the threshold suggested by the BAAQMD for screening
purposes. Table A of the Air Quality Analysis.estimates the total emissions and demonstrates that emissions associated with.the
proposed project are below the BAAQD threshold. Therefore, the proposed project 'is not expected to violate any air quality
standards or exacerbate existing air pollutant exceedance.
The impact on local CO levels was assessed using the "Transportation Project- Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol ", Caltrans,1997.
The protocol provides guidance, screening niethodology, and modeling data requirements''for estimation of CO concentrations
along roadway corridors or near intersections. High CO concentrations are associated with.roadways or intersections operating at
unacceptable levels of service or with 'extremely high traffic volumes. CO concentrations from a congested roadway or
intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospital patients; etc.). The
highest CO concentrations typically occur during peak traffic hours. Modeling of the CO "hot spot" analysis was based on the
traffic volumes generated by W- Trans, February 2000. The CO hot spot analysis was conducted using the afternoon peak hour
period because the project and ambient'trafficvolumes are slightly Higher than.the morning peak,hour period and would provide
for a "worst case" analysis. CO concentraiioizs'were calculated for the one -hour averaging period and compared to the state one-
hour CO standard of 20 ppm. CO eight hour average were calculated from the one hour CO calculations, using techniques outlined
in the "Caltrans Carbon Monoxide Protocol" and compared to the state eight hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm. The analysis
demonstrated that there wouldbe no exceedance of either the state or the federal CO standards for the one -hour or the eight -hour
durations. In addition, since CO hot spots were not identified through air quality modeling;, it was concluded that sensitive
receptors would not be adversely affected.'Thtrefore, the implementation of the proposed project wound not have an adverse
impact on local air quality.
Coustruction.activities such as grading, excavation andtravel "on unpaved surfaces can.generate substantial amounts of dust, and
can lead to elevated, concentrations of pollutants. Fugitive dust control measures are required.of all-construction projects within
BAAQMD's jurisdiction.
The proposed project is not expected to generate any objectionable odors; therefore, no significant adverse impact is expected.
The proposed project is not.expected to generate any Hazardous air pollutants; therefore; no significant adverse impact is expected
from the proposed project.
The following BAAQMD Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions; enhanced mitigation measures and optional
control measures;as well as standard City of Petaluma mitigation measures will ensure that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on air quality.
Nfiti2ation Measures Nonitorin :
AQ -l. The applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and
clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the
required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction.
7
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 I Page 1:2
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
W Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
a. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice daily. TheIrequency of watering
shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 -mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this
purpose Responsibili t `for 'watering shall include weekends and holidays when work.ts not in progress:
_ -.... ..— .._.. ...,..wr1r _.�. ... :a,......,. -..z.. s.. u.e......... - . -_ ._. _ - _...._. ........,.._._... mac::. -a.;. ... -....
b. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to
reduce dust emissions.
c. Grading and construction equipment operated during ; onstructiomactivities shall be properly mufflered and maintained
to minimiz emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
I Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited- to 15 mph.
e. Construction sitesdnvolvittg earthwork shall provide for a graveLpad area.consisting of an impermeable` liner and drain
rock at the construction entrance. to clean mud and debris :from construction vehicles prior to entering the public
roadways. Street,surfaces;in the vicinity of.tfi.eproject shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto
the street -by construction vehicles.
f. Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10
days or more).
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
h.. Post - construction revegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be .completed in a timely manner
according to'the approved Erosion and 'Sedinient Control Plan and verified by, City inspectors prior to acceptance of
improvements or issuance of certificates of occupancy.
i. The Developer shall designate a person with, authority to require increased watering to monitor and erosion
control program and provide name and phone naniber to the City of Petalumaprior to issuance of grading pen
AQ -2. All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance 1881 N.C.S. for clean burning fuels.
AQ -3. Architectural coatings and asphalt paving conducted on the project site shall adhere to rules and regulations °stated in.the
BAAQMD Rulebook
HydeoloaY and Water Quality Would the project:
a. Violate any water ,. quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ordliterfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would'be auet deficit in;aquifer volume or lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the p roduction
rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site
brarea, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or, river in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion.or siltation on- or off -site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
X
X
X
X
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE0001 1 Page 13
or area, including,through the of the course Hof a
stream::or river, or increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in amannerwhichwould`result
in flooding on- or.off- site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood. hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures;to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death.involving flooding including;flooding as
a result of the failure of a`levee or dam?
j, Inundation by,seiche, tsiman d or nnidflow?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
X
Discussion: a j: A Preliminary Drainage-Study was prepared byCSW /Stuber= Stroeli Engineering Group to assess the impacts of
the proposed development. Subsequently, Karen Whiteside, Senior Staff Engineer, and Paul Baginski P.E.; of Kleinfelder,
conducted a third party review of the methodologies, calculations and drainage system design.on August 2 2001. The peer review
found that the volume of runoff expected as a result of the development of the property was adequately characterized. However,
Kleinfelder noted some deficiencies in the drainage design that required additional consideration. These discrepancies were
outlined in a matrix and presented to`the#rojec -'engineers. Ms. Whiteside and Mr..Baginski stated that once the;mitigation and/or
conunents have been implemented, the revised drainage,design should be suffi'cientto handle the capacities ofthenuiofffromthe
post development 10 year and 100 year storm events and satisfy the Sonoma Comity Water Agency's design criteria. In a letter
dated December 27 2001, Kristine Pillsbury`R'C.E. of CSW /Stuber- Stroeli respondedto the Kleinfelder comments. In addition,
the drainage study was updated to reflect project revisions. The information contained in:tl Initial Study was gathered fromthese
reports.
Hillside slopes on the Magnolia. Avenue site:range from 6 to 25 percent. An east, to west trending ridge bisects the property and
forces runoff to flow either to 'the north or to the south of the site.. Flows to the south are transported'through a small drainage
Swale flowing parallel to Magnolia Avenue and are intercepted by a 2" x 42" reinforced concrete.box:culvert at the southeastern
corner of the site. Flows to the north are ,part of the Jessie Lane Creek Drainage System and are discharged through a brush -
covered swale at the - northern boundary of the site: The project will require a Streambed Alteration, Agreement from the
California Department of Fish , and Game.
The chicken ranch site is flatter than the Magnolia Avenue site with ground slopes of.less than 5 percent: Drainage swales and
culverts convey runoff fromahe westerly oft he to a roadside ditch along Gossage;Avenue. The easterly portion of the
property drains into the northern half of the Magnolia Avenue site through a similar collection of ditches and culverts.
The site is not located within a floodway or flood plain.
Construction of the proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Since impervious areas preclude
the percolation of rainwater into theground, the amount of surface water runoff will increase over the existing, unbuilt condition.
Four stonri drain systems, five detainment systems (three detention basins and two underground detention'systerns) andwidening
X
X
X
X
X
X
Discussion: a j: A Preliminary Drainage-Study was prepared byCSW /Stuber= Stroeli Engineering Group to assess the impacts of
the proposed development. Subsequently, Karen Whiteside, Senior Staff Engineer, and Paul Baginski P.E.; of Kleinfelder,
conducted a third party review of the methodologies, calculations and drainage system design.on August 2 2001. The peer review
found that the volume of runoff expected as a result of the development of the property was adequately characterized. However,
Kleinfelder noted some deficiencies in the drainage design that required additional consideration. These discrepancies were
outlined in a matrix and presented to`the#rojec -'engineers. Ms. Whiteside and Mr..Baginski stated that once the;mitigation and/or
conunents have been implemented, the revised drainage,design should be suffi'cientto handle the capacities ofthenuiofffromthe
post development 10 year and 100 year storm events and satisfy the Sonoma Comity Water Agency's design criteria. In a letter
dated December 27 2001, Kristine Pillsbury`R'C.E. of CSW /Stuber- Stroeli respondedto the Kleinfelder comments. In addition,
the drainage study was updated to reflect project revisions. The information contained in:tl Initial Study was gathered fromthese
reports.
Hillside slopes on the Magnolia. Avenue site:range from 6 to 25 percent. An east, to west trending ridge bisects the property and
forces runoff to flow either to 'the north or to the south of the site.. Flows to the south are transported'through a small drainage
Swale flowing parallel to Magnolia Avenue and are intercepted by a 2" x 42" reinforced concrete.box:culvert at the southeastern
corner of the site. Flows to the north are ,part of the Jessie Lane Creek Drainage System and are discharged through a brush -
covered swale at the - northern boundary of the site: The project will require a Streambed Alteration, Agreement from the
California Department of Fish , and Game.
The chicken ranch site is flatter than the Magnolia Avenue site with ground slopes of.less than 5 percent: Drainage swales and
culverts convey runoff fromahe westerly oft he to a roadside ditch along Gossage;Avenue. The easterly portion of the
property drains into the northern half of the Magnolia Avenue site through a similar collection of ditches and culverts.
The site is not located within a floodway or flood plain.
Construction of the proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Since impervious areas preclude
the percolation of rainwater into theground, the amount of surface water runoff will increase over the existing, unbuilt condition.
Four stonri drain systems, five detainment systems (three detention basins and two underground detention'systerns) andwidening
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 14
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No .
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation.
Impact
Incorporated-
of the drainage area -along the Magnolia Avenue;fronta,ge of the property are included in the project to effectively drain the site and
mitigate increases in runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. The stonn drain systems are shown on the Preliminary
Drainage Study Map '(Sheet C6): Any increase inpeak flows :due to the increase of impervious surfaces will be mitigated with the
proposed `detehtiori`systems - and widening of the _streaubed to Nlagiiolia Avenue resulting•`in net - increase ir
the drainage systems downstream.,from the site. The applicant shall also be subject to the payment ofthe City's Storm Drainage
Impact Fee.
Project grading - has the potential to cause sediment and/or pollutants to directly, or indirectly enter the storm drain. system or
ground water.
The followin g measures will reduce any potentially significant unpacts to water quality to,a less than significant level..
Mitigation Measures/MonitorinQ
-WQI.. All construction activities shall be performed in manner that minimizes the sediment `_ and /orpollutaiits eute-ring,directly or
indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water, The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into:the
constriction. plans and: specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to 'issuance of
grading or building permits.
The applicant shall designate construction staging area and areas for stora.ge;of any hazardous material&(i.e. motoroil;
fuels, paints,, etc.), used during construction: on the-improvement plans. All construction staging;areas,sha l 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 enteringdrainage areas in the vent of a spill or leak.
b. No debris soil,.,silt,.sand, cement, concrete orwashings:thereof,,or other construction.relatedmaterials orwastes, oil or
petroleum products or'other organic.or earthen material shall be allowed to:enteran y drain4gesystem. All discarded
material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at,an approved,disposal site,
The applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on 'the 'construction plans or in the
specifications.
No heavy equipment shall be operated inanylive creek channel. All in- stream,channel work shall belimitedto the dry
season (typically defined as May 1"` through October. 15 h and perfomned in accordance with - conditions specified by
the Department of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Department of Fish and_ Game may
require amore limited construction stream channels that support anadromoustfisheries,. Applicant. shall
provide copy of the approved Streambed. Alteration Agree.menvand proof of compliance>with the permit conditions,
prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading permits for work within any channel.
WQ2. The applicant shall submit the required Notice of Intentfor compliance with, the conditions fora general permit imder the
National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate; System (NPDES) store water permit for construction activities adnninisteredby the
State of California. Regional Water Quality Control Board. The .conditions ^,require developrnent and implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution'Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which, may also meet the City's requirement for an Erosion and
SedimenvControl Plan, noted above.
WQ3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit or approval of any improvement plans for , earthwork within any creek
corridor or identified'wetland site,proof of.authorizationfrom all applicable responsible agencies including, but not limited
to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control'Board, and the California; Department
of Fish.and Game, shall bemibmitted by the to the Community Development Department.
WQ4. The applicant shallsubmit a detailed gradingand drainage plan -for: review a_ nd approval by the;Community Development.
Department prior to approval of a final map, improvementplan ,grading or building permit. The project grading and all site
drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma Community
Development Department's "Standard Specifications" and the Sonoma County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design
Criteria ". Channel modifications and bank stabilization.improveinents within a natural stream channel shall be designed in
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001 TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 15
Potetitial
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sign$ cant'
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
conformance with the City' `Restoration Desi gn and Management .Guidelines ". The drainage plans shall include
.
supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods. No lot -to -lot drainage shall
be pe� 1 h droace.roffshaicbe,addessedt rreach ndividual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain
P
system. hydrologic, o ra.isystem - design; shall,-be.subject:to review.and.approval ofthe. Sonoma,
:.__
County Water Agency (SCWAj and the City Engineer.
W S. Building envelopes adjacent the.Nlagriol
Q g is Avenue drainage ditch shall comply, with the Sonoma County Water Agency
creek setback (measured from the toe of the, stre'ambank, �outward,a :distance of 2, times the height of the streanlbank plti�s
30 feet or 30 feet outward from the top of°the streambank, whichever is greater).
Biological Resources Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or
through habitat modifications, , on anyspecies identified-
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status.species in local
or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U. $..Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse''effect:on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,. regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including,'btit . limited to; marsh, venial pool,,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, Hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere.substantially with I the, movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or'wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local,policies or ordinances; protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Flan, Natural Community Conservation
; Plan or other'appioved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
0
X
0
M
Discussion: a -f: A Biological Resources report was prepared by AIVIEC Earth and Environmental on January 2001.
Supplemental information °yeas supphed;in a letter dated June 11, 2001. Peter Dellavalle of Kleinfelder conducted a peer review of
the AMEC report on July l'7, 20.0.1. A ffiC "provided a response to the peer review connnents on September 7, 2001. Iii addition,
an Amphibian Site Assessment was prepared by LSA Associates on October 31, 2001, The September 7 ANIEC' letter and the
Amphibian Site Assessment were then.reviewed by Peter Dellavalle of Kleinfelder. In addition, Ralph Osterling Consultants
conducted a Tree .Assessment Report, dated December 21, 2001. The information contained in this initial study was obtained from
the above - referenced reports and letters.
Project Name; Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM0.0002, PRE00011 Page 1.6
Potential.
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
wiMitigation
Impact
Incorporated
The Biological Resources Report surveyed and analyzed:biologicalxesources on the site. All wildlife; dotnivant plants'mid other
site conditions were recorded. The biological resources include native and naturalized plants,and'aninzals and habitat features
Such as wetlands and nest sites: Three basic vegetation types werefound to occur on.the project site: 1)'non- native grassland, 2)
°`lion- native;woodland; and 3) riparian woodland/scrub: Non- native,grasses=iriclude =rye grass; barieyl"and- wild.oats: Other'conunon
plants in the habitat include non' - natives bull thistle, :horehound; cudweed and'geranium. Non- native woodlands include the
renmants of eucalyptus trees, apple, elfin and Scotch broom. The;.property owners harvested most of the eucalyptus trees in 1998;
many of the trees are now re- growing from stuinps: Riparian woodland/scrub includes coast live oak, black oak and arroyo
willow. Several invasive wetland species are also present such.as weeping willow, Pampas grass and Himalayan blackberry.
The Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and General Plan encourage the preservation of trees over sit inches in diameter ,and: major
groves. Project:grading, utilities,; and drainage improvements will remove a�total of 70 trees on the site: AaadditionaP 83 treeswill
be unpacted,bytheseactnvities. The Tree A sessment Report consideredany tree within 10 feetof grading or trenching activities
as an impacted tree. Eucalyptus trees on the edges of the prof ect will be removed or impacted due to installation of utilities and
drainage facilities. Impacts to oaks, are expected to be caused by chariges' in grade from,cuts and fills. Of the 70; trees to be
removed, 6.are considered heritage sized (24" &b. h.); only 1 of the 6.is a coast live oak which is the site. Of,the 83 trees
to be impacted, 40 areblue gum Eucalyptus (1 of which is heritage. sized) an&32 are coast;live!oaks (Z are considered heritage
trees). Eighty four-percent of all the trees on the site are to be preserved, including 87 percent.<ofthemaiive coast.live oak trees.
The arbon expects impacted-trees to survive with the incorporation of mitigation measures:.
Dense vegetatioitis presentin the north central, northeastern portions and southern linits of thelsite ui a drainage channel located
adjacent to Magnolia Avenue. Tliis dense vegetation provides habitat to foraging and roosting, wildlife. Because' land use
patterns that resulted in. *the removal of natural cover, other areas of thesite offer limited wildlife habitat.. Site visits revealed the
presence of a few marnmals,. several bird species, and a_single amphibian (although the probability of.other amphibians and reptiles
occur on the site is high due to the presence of drainages that are wet at least seasonally, the cover providedby plants and the
presence of prey such as- insects and small mammals). Three raptors — red-shouldered hawk, red - tailed hawk and sharp- shinned
hawk -were observed during the site surveys.
Direct impacts of the'project.to natural resources.on the site, include permanent loss of approximately 14 acres of lion- native
grassland and non - native woodlands and associated biological-resources, permanent loss of a, small , amount,of native riparian
vegetation due to the construction of an access:bridge from Magnolia.. Avenue, permanent•and,temporary impacts to drainages,
associated wetlands and.sensitive biological. resources, and,permanent impacts to potential, raptor and.migratory bird nesting or
roosting areas due to the removal`of vegetation. IndirecOmpacts from :construction activities;ai d subsequent occupation anduse of
the site could include the introduction of invasive ornamental plants; which could affect'the quality of native vegetation. In
addition the, development of a. portion of the site could affect wildlife movement through the property.. However, the project was
designed to minimize irapacts to the properties' natural resources and will result in limited direct and mdirect;impacts to wildlife
and wildlife habitat. The impacts are expected to be ininor because of avoidance; measures, incorporated into the planning design,
the maintenance of open space on the property, and the replanting of.open space areas with.native trees. The:developinentpIan
also proposes to mitigate any wetland habitat loss by revegetafingthe; three detention basins with native riparian plants and
grasses.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) exerts Jurisdiction over "Waters of the'United States'',; which includes
vegetated wetlands 4and unvegetated drainages. The USACE has verified that approximately 0.55 acre of the Magnolia Place
project site is subject to Clean Water Act regulation. A wetland swale originates�at a outfall near the westemn boundary of
the site. The outfall was constructed tostipport runoff from;adjacent7esidential development. The Swale splits'into, two drainage
segments that are each four°.feet wide. The two drainage channels are defined as wetland due to the dondna.nce of hydropkyt c
vegetation This wetland swale is 750. ; linear feet and consists of 0.43 acre of wetlands. Another drainage channel has been
constructed along the southern boundary of the,project site at Maziolia Avenue. The channel averages six feet wide witli incised
batiks. It originates at an outfall,near the southwest corner of the project site and runs west before crossing under 'Magnolia
Avenue in a culvert. The drainage cliannel is 710 linear feet and consists of 0.10 acre of other waters of the' United States. The.
construction of detention basins may result:in impacts to these habitats. The U.SACE policies of "no net loss" of wetland habitat
q p fi g. by typ
require, that impacts to wetlands be nett ated' in-kind ..creation of wetland habitaf of a ratio ically, greater than. l' 1. The
construction of an access bridge•on Magnolia Avenue is expected to have only a minor impact to the ripari an vegetation due to the
Project Name: Magnolia Place File'No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011. . Page 17
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Inec#orated
fact that the bridge footprint is largely .outside of the drainage. A Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit will be required from
the USACE, which will include recommendations and stipulations to be followed.
- ._._�- Due•tathe- possibility of the -.presence-of =the.-Califonua- -red- legged frog and/or the California tiger'salamander and-the yell ow -
legged frog, an Amphibian Site Assessment was :prepared by Steve Foreman, a- Wildlife Biologist with LSA Associates. None of
these amphibians were observed.duringsite surveys. Based on the available information and analysis.of the habitat conditions on
and in the vicinity of the site, it was detentlined,that it was extremely unlikely that the site provides suitable habitat for these
species. All wetland habitats on the' site :are too ephemeral to support,any of the three considered species or their larvae. This
determination was based on the marginal nature =d %or lack of:suitable aquatic habitats on the site,.the,lack of suitable breeding
habitat on or immediately adjacent to the- site, the substantial distance (approximately 1 mile or greater) and intervening
barriers /incompatible land uses (i.e. roads, residential development) to movement between the -site and the closest breeding habitat.
This information was submitted to both lGeimfelder and the Department of Fish and Game who subsequently agreed that no
further assessment is warranted
The following mitigation measures will reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
BRl. The drip line of all trees and riparian vegetation and the footprint of wetland areas shall be surveyed and accurately
depicted on the grading and construction plans as sensitive areasto be avoidedandprotected during constriction. Before
the start:of construction in an area where existing trees are to be retained and protected, exclusion fencing shall be installed
Fencing, shall be installed as shown on the Tree Location Map or, at a minimum,, around the perimeter of the trees' drip line
or at the limit of grading when grading•encroaches into the drip line. Drip line is defined as the point where the distance
from the edge of the tree canopy the trunk is the.,greatest. This,radius shall be.used in establishing the perimeter of the
exclusion fencing. Fencing materials shall' ,be highly visible and sturdy such, as la portable cyclone fence or comparable
fencing material. Signs shall be posted on fencing prohibiting parking of vehicles or storage of materials within the trees'
drip line.
BR2. Grade changes that affect surface and subsurface drainage around the tree shall be avoided. Adequate drainage shall be
maintained to prevent any ponding;of water around the base of trees.
BRA. Trenching within the drip. line of the;trees shall be minimized. Trenches shall mot be excavated closer than half the distance
from the trunk to the edge of the tree canopy. An alternative to trenching is to place utilities in a conduit that is bored
through the soil. This minimizes root damage. If trenching within the drip line is unavoidable, a joint trench shall be used
for all utilities to minimize the damage caused by multiple trenching. If possible, roots three, inches in diameter and larger
should not be cut.
BR4. Trees with greater than 30 percent root loss shall be,provided with supplemental seasonal. ,irrigatio . The irrigation shall be
deep and infrequent,- monthly during the season. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided for one to three years,
depending.on the degree of root damage or loss. Care shall be taken to keep the zone around the root crown (6 -10 foot
radius around the trunk) dry:
BR!5 All dirf areas shall be graded to drain away from valley oaks and creek comdors to avoid long -term impacts of irrigation
and chemical use of pesticide andherbicides. A minimum 6 -f6ot radius around the base of the tree should be dry and well
drained. The grading and drainage plans shall maintain the °root -zone areas of the large valley oaks and riparian areas in a
natural state, such that turf areas, irrigation and drainage shalI.be avoided in these areas. The landscape'and drainage plans
shall be submitted for S.PARC approval and reviewed for, conformance with thus requirement by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
BR6. Soil compaction around the trees shall be avoided. When possible, a thick layer of crushed rock underlain by a geotextile
as an alternative to soil.compactionfor road based preparation within or near the drip zone of trees shall be used. A thick
layer of organic mulch such as wood chips is to be placed within areas subject to light traffic. Vehicle and equipment
parking and materials storage�shall not occur within the drip line of trees at any time.
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 18
Potential
Less Than
Less Than .
'No
Significant
Significant
Significant
.Impact
Impact
w7Mitigation :
Impact
Incorporated
BRV. All trees shown on the Tree. Location Map as "impacted shall have their trunks protected;byattaching straw bales to the
tnmlc..Bales shall .be tied to the trunk on the side facing grading operations to prevent bark damage from construction
equipment
BRA': Crown thinning to •compensate for root loss shall be avoided.
BR�. Tree removal associated with constriction shall.be mitigafed at a 3.2:1 (replacement: removal) ratio with 15- ,gallon size
trees for a total- 6f`22,4 replacement trees. All replacement trees shall be native species,
BRO. Certain areas of the site are identified as jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" as defined by the.,Army Corps of
Engineers; ; the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps.for a Section 404 of the Clean Water Actpermit. The applicant shall
avoid impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable: If avoidance is not practical, then a Wetland Mitigation Plan.
and Monitoring Program ishall be prepared and submitted to the Corps of Engineers and, Community Development
Department for :review and approval, prior to SPARCreview or approval of improvement plans orfinal map.
BRI J, Revegetation of areas damaged or destroyed. by grading, construction of access bridge or detention basins shall be
implemented to restore full habitat value... A vegetation restoration plan shall be:submitted to -the CoimtiunityDevelopment
Department attle time of SPARC application.
BR12 All construction activities in and immediately adjacent to potential nesting area for raptors and other birds should" be
conducted outside the nonnal breeding season (generall)7 January 15 to July 15). If,the,project occurs witl n this.season,
however, a. biologist shall, survey the site prior to: constriction and mark all raptor - nesting trees with flagging. A
construction: setback of 50 feet turn such trees will apply.
progra shall im to ensure that all. constriction
BRl�j p
personnel contractor
re fully informed of the b ological sensitivities. briefin
with the projec and about how to best avoid impacts
to these sensitivities.
7. . Noise Would the project result o:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess, of stapda in the local, general plan
or noise ordnance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne' noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase`in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels the project vicinity above levels existing
without,the project?
X
X
X
e. For a project located within an airport land 'use plan or,
where such anlan1asmot been adopted, within two
of a public airport:or public use airport; would the project
expose. people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip
would the ,project expose people residing or working in
X
X
a
Project Name: Magnolia Place. File. No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE0001.1 Page 19
Potential
Less Tlian
Less Than
No
Significant
,Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Ivlitigation
Impact
Incorporated
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion: a -f: A Noise Analysis s for the Magnolia Place: prolect,y revised,August 2001, was .completed by Carmen Borg,
Enviromnental Planner, LSA Associates, Pt. Richmond, California. The infonuation regarding noise contained in this Initial Study
was gathered from this report.
The Comnumity Health and Safety (Noise) Element of the :City ofPetaluma General Plan includes the State's recommended Land
Use Noise Compatibility matrix; which defines acceptability;of noise levels, provides noise guidelines for land use planning and
generally applies to new or proposed uses. For, single-family uses, noise levels of up to 60 dBA are considered "normally
acceptable," while noise levels between :55 and 70 °dBA are "conditionally acceptable" and noise levels above 75 dBA are "clearly
unacceptable ". Policy 25 tiro the City's Coninumity Health and.Safety (Noise) Element cites 60 .dBA Ldn as the reasonable noise
level for exterior use areas interior noise levels are to be mitigatedao 45 dBA Ldn.
The report identified two types of short-term noise impacts that could occur during; construction of the project. The first type
would result from the increased traffic associated with the transport of workers and equipment; the second type would result from
the actual construction activity.
The transport of workers and constriction equipment and' materials to the proj ect site would incrementally increase noise levels on
access roads leading to the project site.. High, single event noise exposures with construction- related vehicles would cause a
possible short-term intermittent nuisance, but the effect on long -term ambient noise levels would be small and less than
significant. Each step of the constructioil,process uses its own niix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics.
Therefore, the noise levels change as construction progresses. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading
of the site, generates the highest noise' levels. because 'eartlimoving equipment is among, the noisiest types of constniction
equipment. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use ofearthmovers such as bulldozers and scrapers,
loaders and graders, water trucks and pickup trucks: Typical operating cycles for these types.of construction equipment may
involve one or two minutes of fall,.power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. The maximum noise
level generated by each earth mover on the proposed project, site is estimated to be 88 dBA at 50 feet from an operating
earthinover. The maximum noise level' generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA at 50 feet from these
vehicles. Each doubling of the sound,sources °with equal strength would increase ahe noise'level by 3 dBA. Assuming each piece
of construction equipment operated at some, distance apart from the other equipment, the worst, case combined noise level during
this phase of construction would ; be.91:dBA at a distance of 50 feetfroni an active construction area. The nearest existing homes
are about 40 feet from the project site. Therefore, these hoines experience an increase of 2 dBA in noise in comparison to the
noise level at 50 feet. Standard northern California residential buildings would provide more than 25 dBA in noisereduction from
exterior to interior with windows closed, or more than ;15 dBA in noise reduction when windows are open. Therefore, with the
noise attenuation provided by building,fagade, construction noise is not expected to exceed 68 dBA Lmax inside the existing
residential homes 40 feet from the project site, whenthe windows are closed. This is within the conditionally acceptable noise
levels.
Traffic on Magnolia Avenue, Samuel Drive and Gossage Avenue is the mail source of ambient noise in the project area. The
amount of traffic noise varies -with the volume of traffic, inix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed and distance
from the observer. The traffic noise levels for the existing and the existing plus project scenarios�alongMagnolia Avenue, Samuel
Drive, and Gossage Avenue w ere,ca.lculated using the "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ". All roadway segments
analyzed in the project vicinity currently have moderate traffic noise. Although ambient raffic noise will increase due to
additional traffic associated`with the proposed project, the increase would range from 0.3 dBA.to 1.9 dBA. This range of change
over the existing levels mould not be perceptible to.the human ear and, therefore, theprojeet's contribution.to traffic noise would
be considered less than significant.
Dwelling units proposed as part of the project along Magnolia Avenue wouldbe potentially exposed to traffic noise exceeding 60
dBA Ldn if they are withui'116 feet.from the Magnolia roadway centerline.
With the inclusion of the following mitigation measures, the temporary noise from construction and the noise from long-term
project operations will`be less than significant.
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00(t01 TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 20
Potential
Less Than
Less Thad
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact.
Incorporated
Mitigation Measures /Monitoring
The following measures shall be specified in thei construction contract:
N- L All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance; Standards, in thePeWutna Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code. u_.,..
N-2. All construction activities shall be limited to 7 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p;m. Monday through Friday and 9:00; a.m. to 5 :00 p,m. on
Saturdays. Construction shall beprohibited on Sundays.and all,holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There will be
no startup _of machines nor equipmentprior.to 8:00 a: m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials -nor equipment
prior to 7:30 a.m. , nor past 5:00 p,m., Mondaythrough.Friday; no cleaning of 'machines nor equipment past 6 :00 am.,
Monday through- Friday; and no =servicing of equipment 6:45,.Mornday through Friday. The developer's phone number
shall be made available for noise complaints..
N -3.. Pile driving activities shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays only
N -4. All construitdon,egtupment powered by internal coinbustion.engines shall be properly muffled `and maintained to minimize
noise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
N -5. Construction-maintenance, storage and staging areas- for constnictionu equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas to
the:maximum extent,practicable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, niixers,etc. shall `beplaced away
from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding: Quiet construction equipment'slmll be used when .possible.
N -6. The developer shall designate a Project Manager with authority, to implement the' -initi gation measures wlio will be
responsible, for' responding:w'any complains fforrrn the neighborhood, .prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. The
Project Manager's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The Project Manager shall
determine the.cause of noise complaints (e.g:. starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt'action,to correct
the problem.
N -7. All single- family residences located adjacent to an arterial street or within a projected 65 dBA noise contour shall be
constructed using .appropriate: construction ,techniques and materials to achieve compliance with the noise, standard for
interiorliving area (45 dBA maximum noise level) and the "General`Plan standard for exterior yards (60, dBA).'Phacement of
buildings to shieldybadway:noise from exterior yards and/or installation of a 6 foot freestanding sound wall or earthen
bean along the property line,. sliall be required to meet General Plan Noise Standards. The developer shall, provide an
acoustical,repbr prepared,by a qualified acoustical erngineer, which demonstrates that,the proposed building; construction
will ,meet both interior, and exterior noise .standards. Said report shall be submitted by the developer for review and approval
of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits.
N4 All land uses shall conform to the Performance Standards' listed in Section 22 -300 of the Petaluma Zoning Code.
8. Visual Quality .clnd Aesthetics Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on.a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic _resources including, :but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of-the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new�source of substantial light ori.glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
X
X
X
Project Name: Magnolia Place 'File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 21
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Discussion: a -d: The Petaluma General Plan states, "....the eucalyptus grove west of Cypress Hills Cemetery should be preserved
in open space. It is one of the few .pronunent groves of trees in and around the city, and is a scenic resource. The City should
acquire a scenic easement or purchase it, .for park." •However, the, property is not within the City's jurisdiction, and the owner
legally - logged the site in;1998'. `Numerous eucalyptus °stumps have since - sprouted, and` here is-a great deal of tree debris left on the
property. A thick row of eucalyptus tree and nafivevegetation occumai the ridgetop at the rear of the site. The Sonoma Mountains
are visible over the tops of-the trees from Blossom Court located on the southern.side of Magnolia Avenue. The applicant has
submitted photos of the existing denuded.,cohditiohs;and a photomontage showing the.;proposed homes on.the site from various
vantage points. With proper placement of the homes - and landscaping; the view Of the ridgetop trees and mountains will not be
obscured. The proposal includes the dedication?of 8.28 acres of the,upper and eastern portion of.the Magnolia site to the Cityfor a
public park. This area is to be reforested.;a tree replacement plan will'be developed in:conjunetion with the City's Tree Advisory
Comuuittee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Additional nativelrees'willbe'planted to mitigate the loss of trees within
the development portion;ofthe site (see mitigation measures BR8 under Biological Resources): The trees planted as mitigation for
removed trees will be planted- within the- development as well as within the park area.
Although lighting for the project will be consistent with. the residential' subdivision to the west, it could adverselyaf nighttime
views in the area: Therefore, all lighting, as well asthe site plan, architecture and landscaping plan will be subject to the review
and approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).
The following mitigation measures will° reduce any potential significant impact to a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures /Monitoring
VQ -1. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto theproject site and access ways and shielded to .prevent glare and intrusion onto
adjacent residential properties and natural/undeveloped areas. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall
incorporate lighting plans, wluch reflect the locaiion•and'design of all proposed streetlights, and any other exterior lighting
proposed.
VQ -2. Development plans shall be designed ta,avoid vehicular' lighting- impacts to bedroom areas and other light- sensitive living
areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility: Development plans for .lots proposed at street intersections or in other
potentially light- sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen interior living
space from the headlight glare.
VQ -3. No illumination shall be installed within'the;designated open space /park area. except- for.low level lighting along designated
pathways adjacent to public streets oracross pedestrian bridges: The�improvement drawings and landscape plans prepared
for the project shall_ reflectahe location aid! design details of ak light fixtures Said locations and details shall be
reviewed and approved by thpaSite'Plan and Architectural Review Comnuttee and the Parks and Recreation Director prior
to the approval of the final map, improvements plans or advertising for bids.
VQ -4. Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement,plans along,public streets andwitlun;parkirng areas in
conformance with the City's, Site and Architectural Review Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade.
VQ -5. All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be placed. underground
VQ -9 Arclzitectural•details, 'landscape:plaiis,and specifications, and detailed site.plaiis shall be subject to review and approval by
the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building °permits.
Hazards & Hazdrdous Materials Would the project:
Create a,signficant,hazard to the public or the
environment througli the .routine transport use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
M
M
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM0000.2,,PRE00011 Page 22
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials „into the environment?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than.
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigatioii
Impact
Incorporated
X
c. . Ernitliazardous emissions or handle hazardous or.acutely=
hazardous materials; substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school ?'
d.' Be located on a site which is included on a list=of
hazardous materials "sites cornpiled pursuant�to
Govenument Code Section 6-962 -.5 and, as a: result
wouldit create asignificant hazard to thepublib or the
environment?
e. For a project, located within an airport land use plan or,
wherersuch a,plan has not been adopted, within two miles
ofa.public airport or public use airport, would the project
rest-4n a safety hazard for people; residing or working in
the project area?
f: For a project within the vicinity of a,private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety Hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of:or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation.plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
ifjjuryor death,involving wildland fires, including where
wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or wliere
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion: a.-h: The property not listed on a hazardous waste site list. The residential subdivision is not expectedto involve
any hazardous material storage or transport, other than'those small' amounts conunonly used by homeowners such as;pesticides
an&gasoline. The.'proj'
ect area is not located within 2 miles =of a public or private airport. New'roadsawill serve the new dwellings;
thereby creating4ddit onal avenues for :emergency evacuations, The.Magnolia Avenue site is mostly undeveloped grass- covered
Hillside with. areas of trees an "d dense brush. This property currently is :a fire Hazard because. of'the�remnants from eucalyptus
logging done in 1998. The development of the property with homes and a park will decrease the wildlandfire danger.
An environmental. evaluation was conducted., to assess potential - impacts to soil and groundwater on and immediately adjacent
to the two properties based.on current and historical site operations. Geomatrix Consultants; Oakland, California; completed
the evaluation on June 2000 with ,additional information submitted in letters dated January 5 and June 15,, 2001. The
information contained. in. this Initial Study was gathered from this report.
The Gossage property is currently developed with a chicken ranch. Potential environmentalaconcens included an aboveground
storage tank, former chicken waste disposal in the central,area of the site, a concrete vault where chickenwaste is currently stored
chicken waste disposal observed downslope chicken ranch towards the Magnolia property, and a culvertfor discharge of
surface water runoff from portions.of`the chickeiu.ranch. The property ' also contains a former well, current well and leach;f
Investigation revealed,the contentsrof the aboveground storage tanks tote water: Soil samples were collectedin.all known areas of
chicken waste disposal. Samples were also taken at the: culvert which .discharges run-off from the property to determine the
potential for contamination downslope from the. chicken ranch due to surface water run -off.. Contamm is were not observed in
any of the soil samples at concentrations that would represent asignificant threat to'human�health. However, regional - studies of
groundwater (including groundwater at,the Gossage property) indicate that nitrates are present in sluallowtgrouiidwater•at levels
above drinking water standards. Geomatrix also contacted the Sonoma County Departinent of Public Health, Perndt and Resource
:X
X
X
X
X
X
Discussion: a.-h: The property not listed on a hazardous waste site list. The residential subdivision is not expectedto involve
any hazardous material storage or transport, other than'those small' amounts conunonly used by homeowners such as;pesticides
an&gasoline. The.'proj'
ect area is not located within 2 miles =of a public or private airport. New'roadsawill serve the new dwellings;
thereby creating4ddit onal avenues for :emergency evacuations, The.Magnolia Avenue site is mostly undeveloped grass- covered
Hillside with. areas of trees an "d dense brush. This property currently is :a fire Hazard because. of'the�remnants from eucalyptus
logging done in 1998. The development of the property with homes and a park will decrease the wildlandfire danger.
An environmental. evaluation was conducted., to assess potential - impacts to soil and groundwater on and immediately adjacent
to the two properties based.on current and historical site operations. Geomatrix Consultants; Oakland, California; completed
the evaluation on June 2000 with ,additional information submitted in letters dated January 5 and June 15,, 2001. The
information contained. in. this Initial Study was gathered from this report.
The Gossage property is currently developed with a chicken ranch. Potential environmentalaconcens included an aboveground
storage tank, former chicken waste disposal in the central,area of the site, a concrete vault where chickenwaste is currently stored
chicken waste disposal observed downslope chicken ranch towards the Magnolia property, and a culvertfor discharge of
surface water runoff from portions.of`the chickeiu.ranch. The property ' also contains a former well, current well and leach;f
Investigation revealed,the contentsrof the aboveground storage tanks tote water: Soil samples were collectedin.all known areas of
chicken waste disposal. Samples were also taken at the: culvert which .discharges run-off from the property to determine the
potential for contamination downslope from the. chicken ranch due to surface water run -off.. Contamm is were not observed in
any of the soil samples at concentrations that would represent asignificant threat to'human�health. However, regional - studies of
groundwater (including groundwater at,the Gossage property) indicate that nitrates are present in sluallowtgrouiidwater•at levels
above drinking water standards. Geomatrix also contacted the Sonoma County Departinent of Public Health, Perndt and Resource
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRF-00011 Page 23
Potential
Less
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact.
w/Nlitgation
Impact
X
Incorporated
;X
Management Division, whose files had no information about well closures -in the vicinity of the properties due to elevated
concentrations of nitrates. The report. concluded that'the;residual nitrates in the soil „do•not.represent a significant risk to human
health because houses will be hooked.up to the City's water, system and� subsurface water will not be used as a source of drinking
waferlu addition; the gfoundwaterwas not observed iii any of the geoteclmical bohngs,(13 to 26 feet-in, depth) which. suggests,,.-....
that people would not come in contact with groundwater.
The Magnolia property contains a concrete and brick.cistem or irrigation structure in1he central portion of the property and»
gallon drums around the.existing house: A tenant on the property indicat:edthaf the drums had;.originally contained molasses, and
later were used for barrel racing practice. At the time of the consultant's visit, the drum contained rainwater.
A peer review of the Geoimatrix report was conducted by Bradley Erskine, Ph.D., RG, CHG; CEG of Kleinfelder on June 29,
2001. Dr. Erskine concurred that each identified environmental concern has,eitlier a low potential for impact to the site or have
been shown to be a low risk to �future;residents. If any signs of contamination are detected during project constriction, all local,
state, and federal requirements for remediation and disposal of contaminated materials shall be followed.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
10. Transportation /Traffic Would,theproject:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existingtralfc 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, either individually oncuinulatively, a.level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
C. Result in.a change in air traffic patterns including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increast azards dice to a'design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous•interseciions) or
incompatible,uses (e farm equipment)?
C. Result in inadequate ermergency access?
f. Result in'inadequate' parking capacity?
g: Conflict with adopted�policies plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, .
bicycle racks)?
Discussion: •a -g: A traffic study was prepared by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc. to assess the iinpacts of the
proposed development. The information regarding traffic contained iii'this Initial Study was gathered from this report. Subsequent
to the preparation of the traffic�study, the number of proposed lots was reduced from 48 to 47; therefore, daily trips are anticipated
to be slightly less than 'stated 'in the report.
Under the existing conditions, the intersections. of Magnolia Avenue/Elm Drive and Magnolia Avenue /Samuel Drive are operating
at Level of Service (LOS) A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The existing traffic volumes and accident records were reviewed
for both Magnolia and Gossage'Avenues, and no specific safety or operational concerns were identified. The proposed project is
eepected to generate an average of 459 new trips daily, including 36 during the a.m. peak hour and 48 during the p.ni. peals hour.
X
X
X
;X
X
X
X
Discussion: •a -g: A traffic study was prepared by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc. to assess the iinpacts of the
proposed development. The information regarding traffic contained iii'this Initial Study was gathered from this report. Subsequent
to the preparation of the traffic�study, the number of proposed lots was reduced from 48 to 47; therefore, daily trips are anticipated
to be slightly less than 'stated 'in the report.
Under the existing conditions, the intersections. of Magnolia Avenue/Elm Drive and Magnolia Avenue /Samuel Drive are operating
at Level of Service (LOS) A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The existing traffic volumes and accident records were reviewed
for both Magnolia and Gossage'Avenues, and no specific safety or operational concerns were identified. The proposed project is
eepected to generate an average of 459 new trips daily, including 36 during the a.m. peak hour and 48 during the p.ni. peals hour.
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 24
Potential
Less Than
Less Thai
No
Significant
Significant,
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
The average volume on Magnolia Avenue would be expected to increase by 3._5 vehicles during the:pealk;hour as a result of the
project. Magnolia Avenueds classified as an arterial "and Gossageds- classified as a collector street in the Petaluma General Plan.
The posted speed,on Magnolia is 35 mph the posted speed on Gossages is 25 mph. With the addition.of.trips associated with the
project, all of the study intersections are expected to continue operatung.'acceptably at an overall LOS Adoring the a:m. and psni
peak periods. Th&minor approaches to these intersections, on Ehn and Sannlel drives, are expected to continue operating at LOS
B or better, with an increase in average delay of less than half a second.
The report concluded that the anticipated increaseiirvehicular trips is less than would be associatedwth•typical daily fluctuations,
and presents a less than impact. Even,if all the project's tripswere added to a singlexoadway; the increase would be
much less than what would be necessary to raise the volume. on Gos sage, Avenue or Magnolia Avenue beyond the' A/B" LOS
threshold of 6 vehicles. Therufbre, the increase hi traffic volumes due to the.proposed project is also lessth a' n significant
based:on the applicable standard for these roadways. The future conditions were evaluated using a,30 percent growth factor even
though actual. growth is expected to be less than this., Under the assumed future conditions, all of the study intersections are
expected to continue operating acceptably at an overall LOS,A duuring the.a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Them nor approaches at
these intersections: are expected.to continue operating at LOS B or better, with minimal changes from- existing.operatioii. Because
the project includes three separate;;access points, and thdJargest,group of houses has access via a new street that does. not connect
through any existing, neighborhood, the impacts to- curent residents will be minimized.
Site distance was , evaluated from the proposed new street access connecting as the north leg of the intersection at Magnolia
Avemie/Elm Driver and at the proposed driveway access onto Gossage: Currently, sight distance Along. Magnolia Avenue is
slightly hinited due to; the unirnproved along�theproject frontage; including overgrown trees andbuslles. With frontage
improvements, including the removal of excessive brush along the roadway, adequate sight distance can be obtained in both
directions. The applicant 'will also be required to install frontage improvements, consisting.ofsidewalk, curb °and goiter, ; he
north side of Magnolia Aventietrom Samuel Drive to the eastern border of the project site. On GossageAvenue, it was fouundthat
the - available sight distance is adequate.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a roundabout,at,the.Magnolia Avenue/Elm Drive intersection, as nieans:of reducing
travel speeds and limiting the potential project impacts on local traffic operation. The desigu& of modeni roundabouts force drivers
to navigate through them at a reduced :speed, and they eliminate the' fuel usage associated with .the :rapid acceleration and
deceleration characteristics of stop - controlled intersections since most drivers only have to slow down, ba.do not have to stop.
Rottndaboutsalso provide amore aesthetic approach to controlling velucttlar right -of -way at interseckioi�sand`provids benefits for
pedestrian crossings byeffectively.narrowiug the pedestrian's exposure: to traffic. The traffic analysis stated that the proposed
roundabout appears to be an ideal traffic control measure to address speeding concerns on Magnolia Avenue. With the
roundabout, the intersection would be expected to operate acceptably trader' current and project future volumes. Conditions of
approval will require the design of the roundabout:to be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate maneuvering room for
fire apparatus.
Walter Laabs of TJKM Transportation. Consultants undertook a peer review of the Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation traffic
study. Mr: Laabs: agreed with the conclusions of the traffic impact study thatthe project will have minimum impacts due to traffic
and that a roundabout would be appropriate as a traffic >calraing measure if properly designed. Itwas noted that Eddie Way is
proposed to be used assan emergency vehicle access only and.that Samuel Drive isproposed to send in.a cul- de- sac with a.private
driveway to Gossage Avenue. Mr. L-aabs °ppined.that circulation needs would be better served`if Eddie Way were a full-
access street connecting the project with Samuel.Drive and if Saunuel.Drive continuedto Gossage Avenue as a public street. The
decision makers could consider these alternatives during the per iitting;process.
Conditions of approval will require that the applicant provide a Traffic Control Plan that addresses vehicular safety during,
constriction. Theapplicant will also be required to install frontage improvements and streetlights to provide for safe access to and
from the site..hi addition, the applicant will be required to pay City Traffic Mitigation fees.
Mitigation MeasureslMbnitorin : N/A
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No, ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Pag 25
Potential, Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact w/Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
11. Public Services
a. Would the project result.in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or .
physically altered, governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
constriction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion: a: The project entails the development of 47 new single- familyhomes.Because the land is currently outside the City
limits, fire and police protection are provided by1he :Comity; However, the City often participates under a mutual aid agreement.
Once annexed, the property will fall under,the jurisdiction of the City's fire and'police departments. The Fire Marshal has advised
that elimination of some of the wild grasslands and removal of brush, the construction of houses with fire sprinkler systems, and
the installation of streets and fire,hydmnts will lessen the fire danger.;potential. Tlie developer shall be required to construct the
water main system to deliver the necessary fire flow per the Fire Marshal's office.
The property is located within the Cinnabar School District. The superintendent has confirmed that adequate facilities are available
to serve the school age children anticipated to reside in the new development.
Approximately 8.28 acres of public park is to be dedicated to the City in conjunction with this project, thereby contributing to the
City's parkland In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for payment of Corrununity Facilities Development fees, Parl.
and Recreation Land Improvement fees and School Facilities fees to offset any impacts to public facilities.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
12. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood' and regional parks..ovother recreational
facilities such that substantial physical, deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the�project iriciude recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion on recreational facilities
which night have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a
Discussion: a — b: The approximately 17 acre Magnolia Avenue property is shown as "proposed public park' on the City's
General Plan map. Although it.is currently under private ownership, hikers use it informally. The developers intend to clean up
and reforest the site with native trees, then dedicate the 8.28 acres to the City for use as a public park. Refined plans for the park
site are to be prepared by the entitlements are obtained and the site is annexed into' the City. It is expected that the park.
will continue to be used for hiking; bild,ng and similar activities. No playing fields are proposed. Use of the park area could
Project Name: Magnolia Place He No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 26
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
yv/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
increase once the area:'is dedicated to the City and officially:designated as a public park. The proposed development was designed
to provide numerous access points to the Proposed park- Additional public access will also be provide through'2.21 acres of
private open space along Magnolia Avenue and a,;20 acre view corridor Tot (private open space), of the southeast confer of the
chicken-�ranch' site: There public cparks the northwest quadrant dedication and °dstablishment'of"'
the proposed park will help the City in meeting its General Plan neighborhood park land staiidard,of 2 acres per 1,000 population.
Mitigation. Measures /Monitoring N/A
13.. Utilities. Infrastructure Wouldthe project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require, or result intthe construction.of anew water or
wastewater treatment facilities• or expansion of existing
facilities. the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects ?.
C.- Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage;facil'ities or expansion of_,:existi.ng 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 by the- wastewater treatment
provider which serves ornlay serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing com mitttfents?
f Be served by'a.landfill, with sufficient peiznitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with:federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid. waste?
X
X
MR
X'
VM
X
M
Discussion: a -g: Petahuna's Director of Water.Resources and Conservation has advised that the current budget.for'the City of
Petaluma includes upgrades to the wastewater. treatment plant to add capacity, and the maximum water allowance'has not`been
reached. Therefore, the City' is prepared to give water and sewer service to the project. The developer will be required to
upgrade the existing sarutarysewer lilies per City Stanidards'to accommodate. additional sewer flows generated by this project.
The City collects, sewer and water connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities from new development. The existing septic
systems .setbacks and- reserve areas must be protected and maintained during cleaning; ,grading and construction. After
connection to the City's sewer system, the applicant will abandon °the existing septic system.
The Pacific Gas andElectric Company has advised °that gas and electric service °will be provided to the development.
The,prcject's solid waste disposal needs will be served by Empire Waste Management who promotes recycling through the
issuance of'containers for curbside pickup.
Mitigation Measures /Monitoring N/A
y
Project Name: Magnolia Place Fife No. ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011 Page 27
14. Mineral Resources Would the project:
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
a. Result in the loss or availability of a ld,iown mineral
resource that would be�or- value�to�the�region-and-tlie -
residents or the state?
Result in the loss of availability ofa locally important
mineral resource recovery;size.delineated on ; a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
0
Discussion: a -b: There are. no known mineral resources on the project site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin2 :.N /A.
15. Cultural Resources Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial- adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §- 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy annique paleontological
resource or site or unique. geologic feature? .
d. Disturb any human remains, including those inte rred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion: a -d: A Cultural Resources.Study`to identify and evaluate cultural resources in the project area was conducted in June
of 2000 by LSA Associates. An Historic Architectural Review was also conducted by.JRP Historical Consulting Services on
December 29, 2001. Information contained in this Initial 'Study regarding cultural resources and historical significance was
obtained from those studies.
The site was not previously studied for cultural resources..A circa 1875 -1880s residence well, house and attached shed and a water
storage tank exist on the Magnolia parcel. The residence was evaluated according to the criteria of the California Register of
Historical Resources and found to possess neither: historical significance nor :historic architectural integrity. According to the
reports, the residence and outbuildings.domot appear to be_associafed with persons or important local, state or national standing
nor do they possess sufficient historic integrity to convey association with important historical trends or patterns. Due to
alternations of its exterior that affect its; historic; character, the building does not have adequate historic architectural integrity to
make it a good example of Folk Victorian vernacular building style. No archaeological component has been identified in
association with the'builduig, nor is there any indication that the'building contains technological data.
A resident of the Magnolia parcel advised that he had seen gravemarkers in the northeasteni portion. of the parcel. Research
indicated that the Cypress Hill Cemetery included most of the Magnolia parcel by 1989 and there may be a possibility of burials
within that portion of theavlagriolia parcel and areas adjacent to the current boundary of the Cypress Hill Cemetery. No graves
were found during the field survey.. Development is not proposed within the area where =the graves associated with the Cemetery
have been previously reported. Therefore there should be no effect to these possible grave sites. However, since most of the
Magnolia parcel was part of the Cypress Hill Cemetery in 1898, there is the possibility of graves v, ithin the Magnolia parcel
portion of the proposed project.
The following mitigation measures will reduce any potentially significant unpact to less than significant.
X
X
X
X
Discussion: a -d: A Cultural Resources.Study`to identify and evaluate cultural resources in the project area was conducted in June
of 2000 by LSA Associates. An Historic Architectural Review was also conducted by.JRP Historical Consulting Services on
December 29, 2001. Information contained in this Initial 'Study regarding cultural resources and historical significance was
obtained from those studies.
The site was not previously studied for cultural resources..A circa 1875 -1880s residence well, house and attached shed and a water
storage tank exist on the Magnolia parcel. The residence was evaluated according to the criteria of the California Register of
Historical Resources and found to possess neither: historical significance nor :historic architectural integrity. According to the
reports, the residence and outbuildings.domot appear to be_associafed with persons or important local, state or national standing
nor do they possess sufficient historic integrity to convey association with important historical trends or patterns. Due to
alternations of its exterior that affect its; historic; character, the building does not have adequate historic architectural integrity to
make it a good example of Folk Victorian vernacular building style. No archaeological component has been identified in
association with the'builduig, nor is there any indication that the'building contains technological data.
A resident of the Magnolia parcel advised that he had seen gravemarkers in the northeasteni portion. of the parcel. Research
indicated that the Cypress Hill Cemetery included most of the Magnolia parcel by 1989 and there may be a possibility of burials
within that portion of theavlagriolia parcel and areas adjacent to the current boundary of the Cypress Hill Cemetery. No graves
were found during the field survey.. Development is not proposed within the area where =the graves associated with the Cemetery
have been previously reported. Therefore there should be no effect to these possible grave sites. However, since most of the
Magnolia parcel was part of the Cypress Hill Cemetery in 1898, there is the possibility of graves v, ithin the Magnolia parcel
portion of the proposed project.
The following mitigation measures will reduce any potentially significant unpact to less than significant.
Project Name :Magnolia Place File No. ANX00001, TSM00002,PRE00011 Page 28
s
Miti(. Measures /Monitoring
CR -l. Trenching for utilities and irrigation
subsurface resources.
'Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
line shall be kept to, as shallow a depth as practical to avoid disturbing potential
CR -2. An archaeologist, shall monitor ground - disturbing activities,in the Magnolia parcel. Initial checks should occur on a daily
basis, with the interval reduced to three per week at the nlonitorin&archaeologist's discretion. The City shall retain and
administer the, contract for the monitoring archaeologist. The applicant shall be mspon "sible for the costs of mitigation
monitoring, `including contract administration costs to the City:. The contract with a qualified archaeologist shall be
executed and funds deposited with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Monitoring is.needed duringground level
construction work: only and shall be concluded witha written report submitted to the City prior =to;issuance of certificates of
occupancy.
CR -3. Per Section 7050.5 of the California health and' Safety Code, in the event of discovery or recognition ofanyhuman remains
in any location other than a dedicated cemetery„'there, shall be no further excavation or,disturbance ofthe site;or an ynearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are
discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If human remains are
encountered, work within 50 feet of the find shalThalt and the: County Coroner notified immediately: At the same tine, an
archaeologist ,shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the graves cannot; be avoided by' project activity, an
archaeological ex avation shall bedinplemented to remove the burials and associated grave. goods, analyze the
remains and prepare a report of findings. Ifrpossible a most likely descerndent should be identified aiid consulted for the
proper treatrmnt,and disposition of the•remains. If acceptable to the most likely descendent; or if amosVlilcely .descendent
is not identified,, reburial of the remains; shall be' as close as possible'.to their origin4t,locatio i. The Cypress Hill Cemetery
would be an appropriate location. If the hnunan remains are ofNative Anerican origin, the Coroner shall notify the.Native
American Heritage Commissionwithin.24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission, will
identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper
treatment.of the remains and associated grave goods.
CR -4. If any artifacts, cultural remains or potential resources are encountered during construcdonacbyitie,s; workwiti in 50 feet
the find shall cease'and,the "construction contractor shall no
tify'the Conununity Development Director. - Prehistoric materials
can include flaked -stone tools (e. g. projectivepoints , knifes, shoppers) or obsidian, chest or quartzite tool -nia dhi -, :debris;
cu darkeneldsoil.(i soil often containing heatafffected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish;remainis ; and cultural
materials); ; and stonemilli:ng equipment (e.g,. mortars, pestles, hand" stones). Historical nnaterials�nuight include wood stone,
concrete or adobe.footings, walls and -other structural remains; :debn s, filled wellsor privies:, an deposits of wood metal,
glass, ceramics aiid other refuse. An archaeologist shall,evaluate the finds and make a°reconuneindation Theapplicant shall.
comply with all mitigation recommendations of the archaeologist- prior to commencing. work in the vicinity of the
archaeological finds. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the consulting cultural resource
specialist.
16. Ac inculturcil•Resources In determiiiing';whether- impacts to agricultural resources. are significant enviromnental
effects, lead, agencies may refer. to the , California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared -by the California Department of Conservation as;an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agri ctiltuue
and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert PrimeFarmland, Unique Farmland, orF.armland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on..the
maps prepared pursuant to the :FannlandMapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources,Agency,
to non- agricultural use?
b. Conflict with:existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
VN
X
Involve other changes in the existing environ mentwhich x
Project Name: Magnolia Place File No. ANXOOOOI, TSM00002, PREOOOII Page 29
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant '
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
]Discussion: a -c: An operating chicken ranch is,currently located on -the 7.37 acre Gossage.site. This ranch will be replacedby 17
custom residential lots and an 11;665 square foot private open space parcel. The open space parcel will be improved with some
hardscape elements and landscaping and will include a: public access easement to provide community access to the public park
located on the adjacent Magnolia Avenue site. The property is located within the City's'Urban Growth Boundary; thus, the City
anticipated development of the site for urban uses. Therefore, the conversion of existing farnnlandto residential use is considered
to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin2 N/A
17. Mandatory Hndinas of`Significanee.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviromnent,
substantially reduce the.habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a: ish or wildlife
population to drop below,selfaustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califoniia history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (" Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the.effects;of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) ?.
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Yes No
R
X
W
Discussion: a. -d: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, identified in this Initial Study as part of the project, the
.project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring As,listed above.
I, t the.projectapplicant, have revewedthis Initial Study andhereby
agree to mcotporate the nutigat 'fin easures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project.
r
rr�
Signature o_? Date
City of Petaluma, California
Community Development Department
Planning Division
X8 se, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: Magnolia Place Subdivision
File Number: ANX00001, TSM00002, PRE00011„ PUD00006
Address /Location: 1120 Magnolia Avenue, 1111,Gossage Avenue
Reporting/iVionitodrig Record Mitigation Measures
This document has been developed - pursuant to Ahe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to
ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Geology &. Soils: Mitigation Measures
G-1. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted
in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance ( #1046, Title 20, chapter
20 -04 of the 'Petaluma - Municipal. Code) and' Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576,
Title 17, Chapter' 17.31 of the Petaluma. Municipal Code.
G -2. The applicant 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 City Engineering and Community
Development Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include
temporary erosion control, measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes,
excavation for foundations and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of
sediment and contaminants 'into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan shall include the following measures as .applicable.
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimiz
and the existing. vegetation shall be retained,to the extent possible to'-reduce soil erosion.
All construction and grading activities,, including short term needs (equipment staging
areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall minimiz the amount of land area
disturbed. Whenever possible, existing, disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
b. All drainage ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from silt and
sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check
dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill
slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate.
Department Request ed,Bv or Due Date Page 1
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 Monitorin
Magnolia Place Subdivision City of Petdluma; Califo
Reporting /M'onitoring Record Mitigation Measures for Approval
c. Material; and equipment for of erosion control measures shall be on -site
by October 1�`. All grading activity shall be completed by October-, 15` prior, to the .on-
set of the i.'ainy season, with all disturbed areas stabilized - and revege_"tated by�October -
31". Upon approval by the Petaluma City.Engmeer, extensions for short-term grading
maybe allowed. Speciaherosion control measures may be required by the, City Engineer
in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading:
d. If°required to - prevent scour'and erosion of channel banks, biotechnical erosion control
and bank. stabilization measures shall be incorporated into the grading and landscape
plans as described ,in the "Restoration Design and Management Guidelines for the
Petaluma River Watershed, Vol. 11 ". Channel`modifications shall be* limited to specific
problem areas.
G -3. All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic
safety (i.e. reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, 'etc:).
G-4. Prior to issuance of a grading ,permit, building permit °or approval of an improvement plan or
Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a Soils Investigation and. Geotechnical Report
prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City
Engineer and Chief .Building Official in accordance with - the Subdivision Ordinance and
Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and as recommended by Geomatrix , and as
confirmed by Kleinfelder... The soils report shall address -site- specific 'soil conditions (i.e.
highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for: site preparation and grading;
foundation and soil engineering design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and
structures,
G -5. 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 approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign
the improvement - plans and. certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The
geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City,
prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the
improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
geotechnical specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building. Official prior 'to
issuance of grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement
projects: Additional soils information, "may be required by the Chief Building Inspector
during the: check of building plans in accordance with Title. 17 . and 20 of the Petaluma
Municipal Code. -
Department Requested By or 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
Magnolia Place Subdivision Ci of Petaluma, California
ReportinglMonitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
��
�t RCVIL V� R �Q�*Trrr �nr"r
rssn 15tq .h.
r� R oiuu , ,
L llsi ���i- Naari� s�.yfiti"
G -6. 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
be subjectto review and'approval by the, Building Division prior to the issuance of a building
permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to
all, applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
6-7. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant 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 protect.
Air. Mitigation Measures
AQ -1. The applicant shall - incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the
construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
specifications. The construction contractor. shall incorporate these measures into the
required Erosion and Sediment-ControlTlan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions
during contraction.
a. `Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minim of twice
,daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Only
purchased' city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. Responsibility
for watering shall include weekends and holidays when work is not in progress.
b: During excavation activities' haul trucks .used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other
similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions.
c. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be
properly mufflered and maintained to minimi a emissions. Equipment shall be tamed
off when not in use.
I Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
Department Request
PD Planning Division FM
FM Fire Marshal BP
ENG Engineering CO
BD Building Division SPARE
L'TM;
ed By or Due Date Page 3
Final Map
Building Permit
Certificate of Occupancy
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
Long -Term Monitoring
Magnolia Place, Subdivision City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record -: Mitigation Measures for Approval
e. Construction sites. involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area consisting of
_. -._. _..,___.... impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance, to clean mad and,
debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the .public roadways. S, eet surfaces
in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust
carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
f, Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil- stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive'for 10 days or more).
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non - toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.). _
h. Post- construction revegetation, repaving. or soil stabilization of ,exposed soils . shall be
completed in a timely manner according. to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of
certificates of occupancy.
i. The Developer shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to
monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and' - phone number to
the City of.Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits
AQ -2. All residential units designed. with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance
. 1881 N.C.S. for clean - burning fuels.
AQ -3. Architectural coatings and asphalt paving conducted on the project site shall adhere to
rules and regulations stated in the BAAQMD Rulebook.
Hvdroloey and Water Quality_ Mitigation Measures
W 1. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimiz the sediment
and /or pollutants entering; directly or indirectly into the storm drain systern 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 ofgrading or building permits.
a. The applicant shall designate construction staging urea and areas for storage of any
hazardous materials (i.e. motor oil, fuels, paints, etc) used during construction on the
improvement plans. 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
entering drainage areas in the vent of a spill or leak..
Department Request
PD Planning. Division FM
FM Fire Marshal BP
ENG Engineering CO
BD Building Division, SPARC
LTM
ed By or Due Date Page 4
Final Map
Building Permit
Certificate. of Occupancy
Site ,Plan and Architectural Review Committee
Long -Term Monitoring
1VIagnolia Place Subdivision City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
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 drainage All discarded including washings
and, any accidental spills 'shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site.
The applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the
construction plans or in the specifications.
c. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any live creek channel. All in -stream channel
work shall be limited to the dry season (typically defined as May 1" through October 15`
and performed in accordance with conditions 2specified by the Department of Fish and
Game in a Strearribed Alteration Agreement. The Department of Fish and Game may
require a more limited construction period in stream channels that support anadromous
fisheries. Applicant shall provide 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.
WQ2. The applicant .shall .submit the required Notice of Intent for compliance with the
conditions for a general permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate
System (NPDES) stormwater permit for construction activities administered by the
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The conditions require
development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which may also meet the City's requirement for an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan, noted above.
WQ3' Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit or approval of any improvement
plans for earthwork within any creek corridor or identified wetland site, proof of
authorization from all applicable responsible agencies including, but not limited to,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and the California,Department of Fish and Game, shall be submitted by the
applicant to the Community Development Department.
Department Reouested By or Du&Date Page 5
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM . Fire Marshal BR Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Magnolia Place'Subdivision City, of Petaluma, Califo
Reporting /Monitoring Record w Mitigation Measures for Approval
, � pp J ' J '.REVIEIV >9 REQ ;BY�, `�g�UATC 't�
WQ4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan -for review and approval_
by, the Community Development Department prior to approval of a final "map,
improvement plan; grading or building permit. - The project: grading and aT * site
drainage improvements shall be designed and'.constructed in conformance with the
City of Petaluma Community Development Department's "Standard Specifications"
and the Sonoma, County Water` Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria ". Channel
modifications. and bank stabilization improvements within a natural stream channel
shall be designed in conformance with the City's "Restoration Design and
Management Guidelines ".'The drainage plans shall include supporting calculations of
storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering methods. No lot-to-lot
drainage shall be permitted-. Surface runoff shall be addressed within, each individual
lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system-. All hydrologic, hydraulic
and storm drain system design. shall be subject to review and approval of the Sonoma
County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City Engineer.
WQ5. Building envelopes adjacent to the Magnolia Avenue drainage ditch shall comply with
the Sonoma County Water Agency creek setback (measured from the toe of the
streambank, outward a distance of 2 1 /2 times the height of the streambank plus 30 feet
or 30 feet outward from the top of the streambank, whichevevis greater).
Biological Res ources.._ Measures
BRl . The drip' line of ail trees and ripanan vegetation and the footprint of wetland areas shall be
surveyed and accurately depicted on the grading and construction plans -as sensitive areas to
be avoided and protected during construction. Before the !start of construction in an area
where existing trees are to be retained and protected, exclusion' fencing shall be installed.
Fencing shall be installed as shown on the Tree Location?Map or, ara minim around the
perimeter of the trees' drip line or at the limit of grading1when ;grading encroaches into the
drip line.. Drip line is defined as the point where the d stancekfromFthe edge of the; tree canopy,
to the trunk is the greatest. This . radius' shall_ be used in establishing :the perimeter .of the
exclusion fencing. Fencing materials shall be highly visible and sturdy such as a portable
cyclone fence or comparable fencing material. Signs shall be posted. on fencing' prohibiting
parlang of vehicles or storage'ofmaterials within the trees' drip line.
BR2. Grade changes that affect surface and subsurface drainage around the tree shall be avoided.
Adequate drainage shall be maintained to prevent any ponditig of water around the base of
trees.
Department Requested By or Due Date Page 6
PD Planning Division FM FinaLMap .
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
BRI Trenching within the drip line of the trees shall be minimis Trenches shall not be
excavated closer flim lialf. the distance from the trunk to the edge of the tree canopy. An
_..._alternative'to trenching is to in:a conduit_ that throughahe,sorl.,This,,.
minimis root damage. If trenching within the drip.line is unavoidable, a joint trench shall
be used for all utilities to minimiz the damage caused by multiple trenching. If possible,
roots three inches in diameter and larger should not be cut. _
BR4.. 'Trees with, greater than 30 percent root loss shall be provided with supplemental seasonal
irrigation. The irrigation shall be deep and infrequent - monthly during the growing season.
Supplemental irrigation shall be provided 'for one to three years, depending on the degree of
root damage or loss. Care shall be taken to keep the zone around the root crown (6 -10 foot
radius around the trunk) dry.
BRS..All turf areas shall be, graded to drain away from valley oaks and creek corridors to avoid
long -term impacts of irrigation and' chemical use of pesticide and herbicides. A minim 6-
-foot radius around the base of the tree should be dry and well drained. The grading and
drainage plans shall maintain the root -zone areas of the large valley oaks and riparian areas
in a natural state, such that turf areas, ;irrigation and drainage shall be avoided in these areas.
The landscape and drainage plans :shall be submitted for SPARC approval and reviewed for
conformance with this requirement by the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of grading or building permits.
BR6. Soil compaction around the trees shall be avoided. When possible, a thick layer of crushed
rock underlain by a geotextile as an alternative to soil compaction for road based preparation'
within or near the drip -zone of trees shall be used. A thick layer of organic mulch such as
wood chips is to be placed within ; areas subject to light traffic. Vehicle and equipment
.parking and materials storage shall not,occur'within the drip line of trees at any time.
BR7. All trees shown on the Tree Location'1VIap as "impacted" shall have their trunks protected by
attaching straw bales to the trunk Bales shall be tied to the trunk on the side facing grading
operations to prevent bark damage from construction equipment.
BR8. Crown,thinning to compensate for root loss shall be avoided.
BR9. Tree removal associated with construction shall be mitigated at a 3.2:1 (replacement:
removal) ratio with 15 -gallon size trees for a total of 224 replacement trees. All replacement
trees shall be'native species.
BR10: Certain areas of the site are - identified as jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" as
defined by the Army Corps of Engineers; the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps for a
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit. The applicant shall avoid impacts to wetlands to
the maximum extent practicable. If avoidance is not practical, then a Wetland Mitigation
Plan and Monitoring Program shall be prepared and submitted to the Corps of Engineers and
Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to SPARC review or
approval of improvement plans.
Department
Requested By or Due Date Page 7
PD Planning Division
FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal
BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering
CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division.
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Magnolia Place Subdivision City of Petaluma; Califo
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
't 1 L \'1 �V 't RCQ 67�'� e saU1TC�%j E
CP pOttl)UCnFNNI511EC
k "IM
BR11.Revegetation of areas damaged or destroyed by' grading, 'constmcton•.of access bridge
or detention, basins shall be implemented 1to restore. full habitat value. A. vegetation
restoratiomplan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department at the
tune of SPARC application.
BR12. All construction activities in and immediately adjacerifto: potential nesting area for raptors
and other birds should be conducted rm
outside the noal breeding season (generally January
15 to July 15). If the project occurs within this season, however, a:biologist�shall survey the
site prior 'to construction and mark all raptor- nesting trees with flagging. A construction
setback of 50 feeffrom such trees will apply.
BR13. A contractor- education program that includes an on -site briefing shall be implemented to
ensure that all construction personnel are fully informed of the biological sensitivities
associated withthe project "and about how to best avoid impacts to these sensitivities.
Noise. Mitigation Measures
The following measures shall be: specified :in the construction' contract:
N -1. All constriction activities ,shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the
Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
N -2. All construction: activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m to 6:00 p m. Monday. through Friday
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on iSaturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all
holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There will be no start up of machines nor
equipment prior to 5:00 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; and -. no servicing; of"
equipment past 6:45; Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be made
available for noise complaints.
N -3. Pile driving activities shall bedin ited to 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. weekdays only.
N-4: All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly
muffled:and:maintained to minimiz noise. Equipment shall be urned off when not in use.
N -5. Constriction 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
andlbr;provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment. shall be used when
possible.
Department Requested By or Due Date Page 8
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM' Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG " Engineering CO, Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan andArchitectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Magnolia Place Subdivision City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
The developer: shall designate.a Project Manager with authority to. implement the mitigation
measures who will' be responsible for responding to any complaints form the neighborhood,
prior -to issuance 'of:abuilding /gradingpermit The Project- Manager's -phone number shall be_ - -
conspicuouslyposted.at the construction site. The Project Manager shall determine the cause
of noise,,complaint . (e.g, starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action
to correct the problem.
N -7. All! single- family residences" located adjacent to an arterial street or within a projected 65
dBA noise contour shall be 'constructed using appropriate construction techniques and
materials to achieve compliance: with the. noise standard for interior living area (45 dBA
maximum noise level) and the General Plan standard for exterior yards (60 dBA). Placement
of buildings to. shield roadway noise from exterior .yards and/or installation of a 6 foot
freestanding sound wall or earthen berm_ along the property line shall be required to meet
General Plan Noise Standards. The developer shall provide an acoustical report prepared by
a qualified acoustical' engineer, which demonstrates' that the proposed building construction
will meet both interior and exterior noise standards. Said report shall be submitted by the
developer for review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
N -8. All land uses shall conform to the Performance 'Standards listed in Section 22 -300 of the
Petaluma Zoning Code.
Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Mitigation Measures
VQ -1.All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded
to. prevent glare and intrusion: onto adjacent residential properties and
natural /undeveloped areas. ,Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall
incorporate lighting plans, which reflect the location and design of all proposed
streetlights, and any other exterior lighting proposed.
VQ- 2.Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom
areas and other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or factli.ty.
Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light-
sensitive. locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen
interior living space from the headlight glare.
VQ =3. No illumination shall be installed within the designated. open space /park area except
for low level lighting along designated pathways adjacent to public streets or across
pedestrian bridges. The improvement drawings and landscape plans prepared for the
project shall reflect the location and design details of all light fixtures proposed. Said
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, improvements plans or advertising forbids.
Department Requested By or Due Date Page 9
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
Mabnolia Place Subdivision City of Petaluma, California
y
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures. for Approval
VQ -4. Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement plans along public
streets sand within parking . areas in conformance with the City's Site Plan and
Architectural Review'Guidelines to reduce glace and provide shade'.
VQ -5. All new and existing overhead .utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall
be placed underground.
VQ -8. Architectural details, landscape plans and specifications, and detailed site plans shall be
— subject to review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
prior to issuance of building permits.
Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measures
CR -1. Trenching for utilities and irrigation line shall be kept to as shallow a depth as practical to
avoid disturbing potential subsurface resources.
CR -2. An archaeologist shall. monitor ground - disturbing activities in the Magnolia parcel. Initial
checks should occur on a daily basis, with the interval reduced to ;three per week at the
monitoring archaeologist's discretion. The City shall retain and administer the contract for
the monitoring archaeologist. The applicant shall be responsible :for .the costs of mitigation
monitoring, including contract administration costs to the City..'The contract with a- qualified
archaeologist shall, be ekecuted 'and funds deposited with the City prior to issuance of a
grading, °permit. Monitoring is needed during ground level construction work only and shall
be concluded with a written report submitted to the City pror to issuance -of certificates of
occupancy:
Department
PD Planning Division
FM Fire MiL shal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
FM Final Map
BP Building Permit
CO Certificate; of, Occ ipancy
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Page '10
Magnolia Place Subdivision
City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
CR 3. Per Section; 7050.5 of the California health and Safety Code, in the event of discovery or
recognition of any human remains ;in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there
--, shall be'no- further ••excavation- or-disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human
remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the
coroner's authority. If humanremams are encountered, work within 50 feet of the find shall
halt and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall
be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the graves cannot be avoided by project activity, an
archaeological excavation program shall be - implemented to remove the burials and
associated grave goods, analyze the remains and prepare a report of findings. If possible a
most likely descendent should be ; identified and consulted for the proper - treatment and
disposition of the remains. If acceptable to the most likely descendent, or if a most likely
descendent is not identified, reburial of the remains shall be as close as possible to their
original location. The Cypress Hill Cemetery would be an appropriate location. If the human
remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage
Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and
provide. recommendations for the proper, treatment of the remains and associated grave
goods.
CR-4. If any artifacts, cultural remains or potential resources are encountered during construction
activities, work within 50 feet of the find ,shall cease and the construction contractor shall .
notify the Community Development - Director, Prehistoric materials can include flaked -stone
tools (e.g. projective points, knifes 'shoppers) or obsidian, chert or quartzite tool - malting
debris cultural darkened soil (i.e. midden soil often containing heat affected rock, ash and
charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural :materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g.
mortars; pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood, stone, concrete or
adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris filled wells or privies; and deposits
of wood, 'metal, glass, ceramics. and other refuse. An archaeologist shall evaluate the finds
and make a recommendation. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation
recommendations of the archaeologist prior to commencing work in the vicinity of the
archaeological finds. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
consulting: cultural resource specialist.
Mandatory Findings of Significance. Mitigation Measures
As listed above.
S:\jnonitoring\magnoliaplacemitmonitoiing.doc
Department
PD Planning Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
or Due Date Page 11
FM Final Map
BP Building Permit
CO', Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM. Long -Term Monitorine