HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch06 03/03/2003.. It `' eta G ma
•
rt�
S
u
Revised
Initial Study
of Environmental Significance
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11 English Street
p..etaluma, CA 94952
7071778 -4301
ATTACHMENT 6
M Introduction This Initial Study has, been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference. herein
includes: the project ,application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i.e., Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of
Petaluma Planning Division. .
Project Name: Rockridge Pointe
Site Address: Windsor Drive at Western
Posting Date: APO 2Q0= September`; 2002
File No: ANX 00002, PRZ 00001,
P.0 D 00004, TSM 00003
APN: 020 - 030 -037, 039, 13 815
Comments Due: April 23, 2002 September 24, 2002
O ad Agency Contact: City of Petaluma,, George White, Planning Manager Phone: 707`778 -4387
Laura:Lafler, Contract Planner Phone: 510- 236 -6810
pplicant: Mardel LLC
Property Owner: Stephen and FrancesVgrnhagen
Project Description , The applicant proposes;to subdivide the property into 62 lots for a residential use. The proposed project
includes an application for prezoning fq PUD. classification, annexation into the City of Petaluma, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Parcel Map, and approval of the Planned Unit;Development.Plan. (See Figures 'l through 3 for Regional and Vicinity Maps and a
Revised Site Plan of the project).
The project site is not currently within the incorporated limits of the City of Petaluma, but is within the City's Urban Growth
Boundary. The Petaluma General Plan (amended 1995.) land use designation for tliis site is Rural Residential with a permitted
density of .50 units per acre, or 1 unit per two acres. The property is designated.'Urban Separator which requires a 300 foot
setback from the south and west property !lines. The proposed project includes applications for prezonmg to Planned Unit
Planned Unit Develo menf Plan. The ro osed. rbj6ct would rezon tithe roe to PUD and then•aniiex the approval to the
Development
UD ,annexation into the Ci of Petaluma a Vestin ?Tentative Subdivision Parcel Map, a
P p p P P, p p p rtY he property into the
City of Petaluma.. Two adjacent_parcels of 4.55 and 6,acres, respectively; are also proposed for. annexafion into the City as part of
this project. Neither parcel is proposed for development'.atthis time. The City:,;of Petaluma would serve as the lead agency for the
proposed project and would also be responsible for approval of the environmental documentation, of the project.
The proposed project would. subdivide the 123 -acre property into 62 lots and would construct 62 homes and related
improvements, such as streets, parking; sand sidewalks in a single phase. Lot sizes would range from approximately 11
9,850 square feet,to out T-- 24,523 square feet with an average lot size of 4-7,40 13,840 square feet. The houses would
be 2 stories iii height, would each have garages for 2 to 3 vehicles, and would range in size from 3,200 to 5 4,000
square feet. The maximum building height would be 35 feet. See Appendix A for a full.set of the proposed Design Guidelines.
lie development would 'cluster the homes on ` 27 acres in the northern portion 'of the site. The site design locates the
O ilding ; pads in `a saddle between two knolls in order to use the flatter, less- visible portion of the site. The project would
cclude a 2 -acre public "park within the interior of the residential subdivision. Parcel A ( 10.24 11 acres) that includes the
detention/retention facility would be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The remaining acreage of
approximately 83 4 acres (Parcels B, D and I) would be dedicated for open space purposes.
11*/07/01
Project Name: Rockridge Pointe File No. Page..2
Potentially Less than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact w /Mitigation Impact
Measures 4
The proposed grading and drainage plan (see Figure 4 and Appendix C) with a drainage system that 'would include a
- detention/sedimentation basin designed to ensure a result of no net increase in peak runoff and protection of water quality for
Windsor and Marin Creeks. The amount of.grading and earthwork would equal approximately 250,000 80;000 cubic yards.
Cut and fill quantities would balance so that no materials would be hauled off -site (Personal communication,, Milani and
Associates, October, 2001).
The project entrance would - incorporate a traffic roundaboutJo serve as a traffic - calming device:on Windsor Drive ,and to
provide safe access to the development. The proposed project would include access for emergency service vehicles and a
pedestrian and bicycle path through the development that would connect to the open space areas adjacent to the site.
The analysis for this project is based on review of General Plan,policies, Zoning regulations, a Draft Environmental.Impact
Report prepared for a previously proposed project on the same site (DCE 1997), and updated technical reports that are attached
as appendices to this Initial Study.
Environmental. Setting: The subject property is located :southwest of the Petaluma city but°within the City's Urban
Growth Boundary. A. single - family residence and related outbuildings is located on the northern part of the property. The
remainder of the site is characterized by gently rolling hills comprised of non- native grasslands with a few native trees. The
site has been heavily grazed for many years. A prominent rock outcropping exists on the northwest portion of the site.
Five separate drainage areas originate • on the crest of the ridge on the property. According to a preliminary drainage study
(Church Water Consultants 2000) three of these flow north to the Petaluma River and two flow northeast-and. east, into the City.
The adjacent properties consist of residential uses, including the Victoria Subdivision, and County lands. The project site is
bordered by Helen Putnam Regional Park on the south, existing medium- density residential' communities on the east and west
and a ]ow- density residential community on the north. Windsor Drive, an existing arterial street, bisects the property connecting
Western Avenue through the Victoria subdivision to D Street.
Responsible/Trustee Agencies: (Discuss+other'permits, frnancing,,or participation required):
City of Petaluma Site Plan and. Architectural Review Committee (SPARC), Planning Commission/,City Council Approval of
the Prezoning, Planned Unit, Development Plan.and Vesting Tentative Map.
Other agency approvals: Sonoma County LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA), Regional Water..Quality Control Board, California Department of 'Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page,2
m i \
Project. Name; Roek(dge Pointe File No Page 3
C
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
potentially _
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Measures
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated "by the checklist onthe following pages.
1. Land Use & Planning 7. Noise 13. Utilities Infrastructure
2. Population, Employment& Housing 8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics _ 14. Mineral Resources
3. Geology & Soils 9.. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 15. Cultural Resources
4. Air _ 10. Transportation/Traffic _ 16. Agricultural Resources
5. Hydrology & Water Quality
6. Biological Resources
Determination
Prepared by:
C J
11. Public Services
12. Recreation
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect. on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION should be prepared.
I find that,although the proposed project could have, a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this 'case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. will be..prepared.
I find the proposed' project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
mitt ated' t ihm p act on P 'the r enviroiunenthbut at effect ficaha impact" or "potentially significant unless
g p ) been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable, legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described' on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects;that remain to be addressed.
L.find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect,on the environment because all potentially
significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately iii. -an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to; applicable standards, and b). have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing
further is:.required..
Laura J. Lafler, Project Planner
Name
CITY OF PETALUIv1A
Title
Signature
A pr i l 2002
An �vv�
September 4, 2002 Date
Page 3
Project Name: File No. Page 4
M Evaluation of Environmental; Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No ,Impact answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does.not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer should be explained where it
is based in project- specific factors as well as general -standards, i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on aproject- 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 checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or Tess than significant.
"Potentially - Significant' Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be�significant. IfIbere
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, -an Elk is required':
4) "Negative Declaration'. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated." applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect'.from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly, explain how they.reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross- referenced).
5) Earlier analyses maybe 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). Inthis.case,,a brie
�
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are. available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were witlin'the scopeof and
adequately; analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and state whether such
effects were 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, use&to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
r
Page 4
Project Name: File No. Page 5
•
Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Planning Would the, project;
a. Physically divide an established community?
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant '
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/lvlitigation
Impact
Incorporated
x
b. Conflict -with any applicable' land use plan, policy or
regulation of.an agency, with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited`io the ;general'plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, �or'zoning.ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding mitigating an
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat,conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Discussion:
x
The subject property is located southwest of the Petaluma city limits, within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The Petaluma
0 neral Plan (amended 1995) land use designation for this site is Rural Residential with a permitted density of 0.5 units per acre,
111 unit per two acres. Rural Residential allows -very low intensity residential development that maynot need all urban services.
A segment of the property (a band of land approximately 300 -feet wide at the western- and southern-most portions of the
property) is also designated as Urban Separator - According to the Petaluma General :Plan (Land Use Element, Policy 13) the
Urban Separator designation functions as, an overlay and allows transfer of a similar density to the adjoining part of the parcel.
The applicant is proposing a transfer of °development rights from the Urban. Separator to the area of the: property proposed for
development. When considerin g 'the complete 123 -acre site, the combined General Plan designations would allow approximately
61.5 units. The site is not within the Petaluma'City:limits at this time, and therefore has no Petaluma zoning classification. The
applicant is requesting annexation into the City. Consistent with the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO)
requirements for annexations, the proposed project includes a request to prezone the property and then annex into the City of
Petaluma. Prezoning is the process by which a city prezones an unincorporated territory that it expects to annex. The proposed
zoning must be consistent with the City's General Plan. Upon annexation into the City, the zoning would regulate the property.
The proposed project would prezone the property to Planned Unit Development (PUD) The PUD District allows a mix of uses
and densities,. and building intensity or design characteristics that would not normally be permitted in a single use district.
Development, in this zone would. be allowable after the City Council approves a complete Planned Unit Development Plan
showing the;iniernal design of "the District and the relation to surrounding areas and LAFCO .approval of the annexation. The City
Council may approve the °PUD with,a recommendation; from the Planning�Commission based on , a series of findings (Article 19A,
Section 19 3 ty, of ning Ordinance),. These findings include adequate mitigation for generation of additional
traffic;
pp ro p riate gn and an g em ent of buildings, facilities, and landscaping to ensure compatibility with nearby properties;
protection of natural and Scenic qualities of'the site; and development of the property in a way that wouldbe consistent with the
general intent of the Petaluma General Plan, the'Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable plans adopted by the City.
The proposed project would be subject to policies and programs specified in the Petaluma General Plan. The following Land Use
(LU) Policies would apply:
Policy l: Every effort shall be made to keep the visual separation that now exists between communities, outside the urban
mt line.
LU Policy 2: The:City shall continue to maintain the concept of a permanent open space frame around the city.
11/07/01
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 6
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No .
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Inco
LU Policy 3: It is the policy of the City to build within an agreed -upon urban limit line.
•.
LU 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.
LU Policy 7: For properties adjoining the urban limit line, it is the intent of the City that projects ,developed in the City or
requesting City services shall be of limited density (0:5 units per acre, or i unit per two acre for this site) and shall be designed to
preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the' property` proximate
to the rural areas outside of the designated urban limit line.
LU Policy 13: On residentially designated properties, the urban separator shall function as an overlay the intent of which is to
provide property owners with the opportunity to transfer the development potential of land designated as urban separator to
another portion of the same site. (According to the General Plan "In carrying out this policy the City intends that the density
resulting from the transfer will not exceed the mapped density permitted `bythe residential land use designation on the portion of
the property adjoining the urban separator. Also, the transferable density for°any given site may be less than the maximum if the
City determines that the is.ft capable 1. of accommodating the maxintum density because of;slope, geologic hazard, or other
environmental factors. ")
LU Policy 18: 'Details of public access pathways along the entire length of the urban separator shall be established- during the
development review process, in concert with project.design.
LU Policy 21: The City''does not guarantee that any individual "project will be able to achieve the maximum densities shown on thto
Land Use Map.
The Open Space, Conservation, "amd ;Energy Section of Petaluma General Plan states goals of ;1) retaining waterways and.
adjacent land in'their natural state in the Petaluma Planning Referral Area and 2) protecting and preserving natural resources in
the Petaluma Planning Referral Area: The Restoration" Guidelines for the Petaluma. River. Watershed , (Uy.1996) would also
apply to the proposed "project. The,.putpose of these guidelines is to encourage integrated" management and maintenance of
stream corridors and flood control channels within the Petaluma River Watershed. Relevant General Plan policies related to
'Open Space, Conservation and.Energy (OS /C/E) include the following:
OS /C/E Policy 21: Watershed lands shall be protected, and any development of watershed area shall retain as much natural
vegetation as is feasible.
OS /C/E Policy 27: The City shall promote water conservation through development standards, building requirements landscape
design guidelines, and other applicable city-wide policies and programs.
The Petaluma General Plan specifies that developers of planned residential developments of 5 or more units shall provide 10 -15
percent of their units as affordable. This can be done in one ofthree ways: 1) paying an in -lieu housing fee for each.residential lot
payable at the close of escrow for each lot or residential unit;; 2) providing 10 -15 percent of units affordable to low and moderate
incomes; or 3) dedicating a portion'of the land to the City for use as a site for. affordable housing.
The project site would be subject to the City's Hillside Residential Development Combining District (H -R -D) regulations (Article
19.1, Section 19.1 -100, City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance): The H -R -D designation regulates development on hillsides in the
interest of preserving natural topographic features and aesthetic character of the City; controlling runoff, siltation, and erosion;
maintaining existing vegetative cover and wildlife habitat; providing ;safe and convenient access to hillside development;
encouraging design and development practices to ,provide. safety for human habitation and enjoyment; decreasing the risk` ol�
developing high fire hazard areas; and achieving land use densities and open space consistent with the General Plan.
a) No Impact. The proposed project would be located on a site that is bounded by Helen Putnam,Regional Park_ on the south,
existing residential communities on the east and west;.and an exi sting, low-density residential neighborhood on the north. All
Page 6
Project Name: Rockriddge Point
•
Page 7
Potential'
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated
of the surrounding uses are distinct neighborhoods separate from the project site, therefore the project would not physically
divide an existing community.
b). Less Than Sig With.Miti ation Incorporated. The project site is not currently within Petaluma's incorporated limits
g
although it is within Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary and is therefore within the City's Planning Referral Area.
A portion of the site is located in an area designatedas part of the Urban Separator Overlay in the General Plan (General Plan,
LU Policy 13). The Urban Separator Overlay requires a 300 -foot setback' between the undeveloped rural lands and adjacent
developed areas. The proposed project 'would incorporate a 300 -foot setback along the southwest perimeter of the
development. The Urban Separator , Overlay allows property owners to transfer,d_evelopment potential of land designated as
urban separator to another portion:of the same�site. The proposed transfer of development rights to allow all of the permitted
r.
residential lots on ' 27 acres of 'the property would be consistent. with this policy.
The project: applicant submitted a;Prelin inary Riparian Area Enhancement,Plan that adheres to the guidelines set forth by the
City. Please see attached Figure 4.
The proposed project does not include provisions for affordable housing units. The applicant would be required to contribute
to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to the of the Housing Element of the Petaluma General Plan. See
Mitigation Measures section below.
The cluster of residences proposed for the northern
homes that are lots that are over two acre portion of the site would be immediately adjacent to rural residential
; s m size. Therefore the densr and. scale of the houses for the proposed project
•
would not be compatible with those of the adjacent properties to the north, The proposed project does not include plans for
additional landscaping in the,buffer area to screen existing residences from'the proposed development. Implementation of a
vegetative buffer at the northern property- boundary would reduce related impacts to a less than significant level. See
mitigation measures section below. The proposed lots would be larger than the properties of the Victoria subdivision.
To the extent described above, the applicant has taken into account relevant plans and.'policies adopted by the City, and has
attempted to incorporate these concepts into the proposed project. With implementation of the mitigation measures
described below, impacts related to consistency with relevant plans policies, and regulations would be less than
significant.
c) No Impact. The project wouldnot conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservatiionplan.
Miti cation. Measures/Monitorin>?
1. The Applicant shall contribute to the City's affordable housing program pursuant to the of the Housing Element of the
Petaluma General Plan; The Applicant shall participate through: (a) payment of an in -lieu housing fee for each residential
lot payable at the close of escrow for each lot or residential unit; (b) dedication ' of land to the City for development of
affordable housing; or, (c) provision of between 10 to 15 percent of the units at below- market rents or prices as described
in the General Plan.
2. A landscaped buffer zone; shall be provided along the northern boundary of the property. This buffer zone shall be
developed as a band of vegetated open space with variation in, vegetation types and sizes and shall not be a
contiguous wall or hedgerow. Only native vegetation shall be planted within this buffer. Vegetation that is planted shall
be mature, and shall'provide necessary screening in all areas of the buffer within 3 years of project implementation. (DCE
• 1997).
3. The proposed project:,shall be reduced by one lot to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation which allows
61 lots, for this property.
Page 7
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 8
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
2. Population, Employment and Housing Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes, and
businesses) or `indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of 'existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the
construction.of replacement housing, elsewhere? .
•
10
Discussion:
Surrounding land uses are residential, agriculture, and public open space. The ,proposed land use would be consistent with the
General Plan land use designation.
a) Less.. Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The land 'use designation in the General Plan is Rural Residential
allowing 0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of 62 dwellings in an area encompassing approximately
123 acres would _not be consistent with this land use designation. The impact would be 'reduced to less thaii significant by
reducing the proposed' project by one lot for a total of '61 lots. (See Section 1., Mitigation Measure 3 above)
b -c) No Impact. No existing housing or any persons would be displaced'by the proposed project.
Mitigation Mea §ures/Monitoring: Not: applicable.
Geology and Soils Would the project:
a. Expose, people or structures to potential, substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or.death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by' the '
State Geologist for 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?
iii. Seismic- related,ground failure, including
liquefaction?
b. Result:in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? .
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil,that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result:in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
Page 8
r
i
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 9
•
Discussion:
Potential
collapse?
d.
Be located on expansive =soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
Significant
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
Significant
substantial risks to life or property?
e.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic
Impact
substructures?
f.
Result in disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
g.
Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
h.
Result in the destruction, covering or modification of any
X
unique geologic or physical features?.
i.
Result in any increase in wind or'water erosion of soils,
X
either on of off site?
j.
Result in changes indeposition or, erosion ;of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
•
which may modify channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
k.
Result in exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes,1diidslides, mudslides,
ground failure or similar hazards? '
Discussion:
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
In order to minimi the risk to people or structures associated with potential, rupture of nearby faults, a site - specific geotechnical
study was conducted as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.' - The original study was by Giblin Associates
in 1995, and updated for the current project in November 2000 and March 2001. The report concludes that, from a geotechnical
engineering standpoint, the site can be used for the proposed residential construction. The most significant factors specified in the
Giblin report that require consideration for special design and construction measures 'include: weak, porous upper soils; plastic
clayey soils with expansion potential; weak and/or plastic clayey soils overlying bedrock materials on,sloping terrain; and existing
fills. All recommendations regarding the level of risk related to appropriate design features„ and construction measures necessary
to minimize potential adverse effects associated with geotechnical failure and recommendations associated with fault rupture and
related secondary effects - have been incorporated as elements of the project. See Appendix B.
As proposed, the project would dedicate graded and repaired areas, , within Parcels; B, C, D as public open space.. It is unlikely
that the City or County�agencies would accept graded or repaired areas that would likely incur ongoing liability and maintenance
issues Parcel A (10� 11 acres) that includes the detention/retention :facility would be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association., A mitigation is included that would require that graded or repaired areas, , be included in the
common area for the Homeowner's Association.
Soils
e site soil composrtion;.consists of Cotati fine sandy loam, Goulding cobbly loam and Los Osos clay loam. Runoff from
se soils' is medium to rapid and hazard of erosion is moderate to high. These soils are generally used for rangeland, pasture,
and grazing. (USDA. So�i]Aurvey of Sonoma County Updated 1972).
Page 9
X
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
In order to minimi the risk to people or structures associated with potential, rupture of nearby faults, a site - specific geotechnical
study was conducted as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.' - The original study was by Giblin Associates
in 1995, and updated for the current project in November 2000 and March 2001. The report concludes that, from a geotechnical
engineering standpoint, the site can be used for the proposed residential construction. The most significant factors specified in the
Giblin report that require consideration for special design and construction measures 'include: weak, porous upper soils; plastic
clayey soils with expansion potential; weak and/or plastic clayey soils overlying bedrock materials on,sloping terrain; and existing
fills. All recommendations regarding the level of risk related to appropriate design features„ and construction measures necessary
to minimize potential adverse effects associated with geotechnical failure and recommendations associated with fault rupture and
related secondary effects - have been incorporated as elements of the project. See Appendix B.
As proposed, the project would dedicate graded and repaired areas, , within Parcels; B, C, D as public open space.. It is unlikely
that the City or County�agencies would accept graded or repaired areas that would likely incur ongoing liability and maintenance
issues Parcel A (10� 11 acres) that includes the detention/retention :facility would be owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association., A mitigation is included that would require that graded or repaired areas, , be included in the
common area for the Homeowner's Association.
Soils
e site soil composrtion;.consists of Cotati fine sandy loam, Goulding cobbly loam and Los Osos clay loam. Runoff from
se soils' is medium to rapid and hazard of erosion is moderate to high. These soils are generally used for rangeland, pasture,
and grazing. (USDA. So�i]Aurvey of Sonoma County Updated 1972).
Page 9
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 10
Potential
Less Than
ess'Than'
Less, Than'
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated
•
Seismicity
The proposed site is located in region where earthquakes occur frequently. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately
ten miles to the southwest, and the Healdsburg- Rodgers Creek Fault is, located approximately seven miles northeast of the site.
No known active faults pass through the project site.
a)
b)
i) No Impact. The proposed project site has no known active faults that pass through it, therefore development of the
project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects from fault ruptures:
ii) Less Than Significant, With Mitigation Incorporated: A major seismic event on the San Andreas Fault or
Healdsburg– Rodgers Creek Fault could cause severe groundshaking at the proposed project site. All
recommendation& from the site - specific geotechnical study to minimiz the level of risk related to ground shaking
have been incorporated as elements of 'the project. While it is not possible to eliminate �a1L damage caused by
earthquakes, implementation of these recommendations would avoid structural collapse and reduce. the damage
associated 'with_ potential fault rupture to the extent practicable. Therefore, implementation of 'these
recommendations would reduce this impact to a'less - than- significant level.
iii) Less Than Significant With.Mitigation Incorporated. ,Liquefaction typically occurs in highly granular,soils, such
as sand. The isoils on. the site are clays and loams that are not normally susceptible to .liquefaction. Therefore
affects related to liquefaction are highly unlikely and_related impacts would be considered less than significant.
0
Less than Significant-impact. The project is underlain by soils that have medium to high runoff potential and,moderate to
high °potential,for erosion. The proposed grading plan includes 80;0-00 cubic yards of cut and fill and
therefore there exists a potential for soil erosion and sedimentation. In : accordance with requirements set by State Water
Resources Control. Board, the applicant will prepare an Erosion Control Plan (ECP) as part 'of a.-Storm Wate,r.'Pollution
Prevention Plan (SW—PPP) in order to protect against. excess erosion and siltation and to maintain water - quality: The'ECP must
also include. a post - construction maintenance and.monitoring program for the detention.basin. The ECP would be subject to
review and approval by'the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit.' •Implementation of
the ECP wouldreduce this potential impact to a less- than - significant level. See also section 5. Hydrology and Water Quality;
c) Less Yhan Significant With Miti` -dtioh Incorporated. New structures underlain by natural soils or non - engineered fills be
prone to sufficient,settlement that could result in. structural distress. A subsurface investigation was performed to detenri ne
the presence and limits of.such materials within the proposed building areas (Giblin 1995). The site'is underlain by variable,
weak and porous upper soils that can undergo considerable' strength loss and settlement when saturated under load (Giblin
1995). Where weak and/or . plastic clayey soils overlie bedrock materials on sloping terrain, soil. creep.(a gradual long -term
downhill migration of approximately a fraction of an inch per year) might occur. Because of soil. creep, special design
measures for foundations on slopes at the project site would be needed. If the existing materials are 'incapable of providing
suitable foundation support, appropriate measures would be taken to mitigate potential settlement of structures supported by
such- materials. These.measures may include removing unsuitable soil/fill.and.replacing,it with properly compacted structural
fill, extending the foundations into suitable ground beneath° "the fill, or construe_ ting the buildings on strengthened foundations
designed to resist the anticipated differential settlements.
Since the adjacent graded slopes of the residential area located east of the project site have experienced landslides and
sloughing and have similar underlying soil and bedrock conditions as, the project site, 'similar instabilities in soil could
occur (Giblin 1995). The project site contains two existing landslides, one on the northeast- facing slope: along the middle
of the east property line, and one, on the middle portion of the site northeast of the existing barn. Since cuts are being
proposed in areas that have experienced past shallow landslides, design features and construction recommended by;the�
project; geotechnical engineers, would be implemented to lessen risks . associated with soil instability, In many instances,
repairing erosion in gullies would minimize the natural damage that would occur over time. Therefore, implementation of
these measures wouldxeduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Page 10
Project Name: Rockriddoe Point Page 1 1
•
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Signif cant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigatiorr
Impact
Incorporated
The southwestern portion: of the property,, which would be dedicated as open Ispace,. is an area that is subject to soil creep
and slumping. The project does not propose any development or repair work in this area.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The combination of soils underlying .the site is defined as expansive
by the Uniform Building Code. The'uppertopsoils are porous with a low to moderate expansion potential and would tend
to undergo low to moderat&>strength and volume changes with seasonal variation 'in moisture content. The surface soils of
some areas of the site consist of highly expansive clays. Expansive soils are prone to shrinkage and swelling when
moisture content changes and can heave and distress lightly loaded.footings and slabs (Giblin Associates 1995). Because
of the limitations of the soils, special design considerations, per recommendations in the site - specific geotechnical study,
would be implemented to reduce adverse effects associated with. expansive soils. hi addition, the project soil engineer
should be consulted to provide specific recommendations for foundation support of the structures to reduce the risk of. future
structural distress resulting from differential supporting conditions (Giblin Associates 2000). Implementation of these
recommendations would lessen this potential impact to a less than.significaalevel.
e) Less Than S gnif cant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve the grading and earthwork of
approximately 250 80;000 cubic yards of'soil. According`to' Giblin ,Associates, the site's existing fill materials were
not properly placed and compacted under soil engineering observation and testing services, and therefore could be subject
to settlement under loads. As recommended in the geotechnical study, existing fills in the proposed. development area
would be excavated as part of site grading and replaced, as engineered fills to reduce this impact to a less - than - significant
level.
• Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and .compaction
operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
20.04'; of the Petaluma Munici al Code and Gradin and Erosion C tzrtta s .Subdivision Ordinance ( #1 -046, Title 20, Chapter
Petal
p ) g " ontrol Ordinance (#1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the'
Petaluma Municipal Code).. Measures 'have been incorporated :'into the, proposed project to lessen potential impacts
associated with soil disruption. Compliance with the geotechnical study would lessen this impact to less - than- significant
levels. See also Sections 3.b., c., and d.
g) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in substantial changes to the
topography of the site. The project would be designed to preserve three existing, predominant knolls. The development
area within the site would be located in,one of the flattest portions of the site to minimize the amount of grading necessary.
Approximately 2} 50 percentof'the'grading proposed is for the related' "^ dir -eeti g a -^^ or -ity o f t h e d age f em the site
to4he- proposed detention basin. Therefore, with implementation of these. measures the impacts on changes in topography
would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
h) No Impact. A. prominent, rock outcropping exists, on the northwestern portion. of the site. The outcropping would be
p rese rve'd 'and' would .be, dedicated as open space to be: included, °iri, the onsite public park. The outcropping would not be
covered, modified or destroyed, therefore there would be no impact.
i) Less Than 'Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project calls for grading and earthwork of
approximately 250 80;00Q cubic yards of material. This amount of earth ,disturbance, combined with the soil type and
topography'of the proposed project site, would likely increase thepotential'for erosion of soils. (See also Sections 3.b., c.,
d., and' f). The.Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan that will incorporate mitigation measures into the project to
reduce the impacts of potential increases `in water and soil erosion (see also Section 3.b.). Some wind erosion would likely
occur during construction due to exposure of graded soils. Implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and of mitigation
measures found in Section 4, Air Quality would lessen this impact to a.less- than - significant level.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation, Incorporated. The proposed grading plan would modify and fill in several drainages
and seeps. The project would result in. filling approximately 0.050 acres of waters and 0.325 acres of wetlands (Zander
2001). The project applicant would be required to apply for permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and to comply with all measures'set forth by these agencies in order to proceed
with the proposed gradingplan.
Page 11
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 12
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
`No
Significant
Significant
'Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
I I
The proposed project includes plans to construct a detention. basin. The .basin would be designed to collect most of the
drainage from the site and slow the water flow to allow sediment and pollutants to settle before water flow enters the
channel adjacent to Windsor Creek, a tributary to Marm Creek. (See also Sections 3.b. and i.). The detention basin would
be sized to handle water flow from a 100 -year event.
Construction of the detention basin could result in impacts to the creek. The detention, basin shall be designed to, protect
existing riparian habitat and would be subject to review and approval.by the Community Development Department. See
also'Mitigation °Measures section below. With implementation, of detention basin, changes in siltation and deposition
would not have a significant impact on creeks, streams, or other water features on or offsite:
k) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The recommendations in the site- specific geotechnical study would
be implemented to lessen potential impacts associated with exposure of people or property to geologic hazards to the extent
practicable. (See also Sections 3.a., c., d., and e.)
Mitigation Measures /Monitoring
1) All disturbed ,areas -(graded and repaired areas)' shall be 'included as part of the common 'area for the Homeowner's
Association.
2) Planned fills shall be properly-keyed subdrained, and benched into firm underlying bedrock material, and the fill must be'
placed and compacted under soil engineering observation. and testing services. (Gibhn Associates 1995)
I..
3) Existing fills in planned improvement areas shall be removed for their full depth and replaced as properly compacted fill.
(Giblin Associates 1.995)
4). In the event that structures are to be placed on the transitionsbetween cut and fill, a geoiechnical engineer shall make
design recommendations to minimize the potential for differential settlements between cutandfill material.
5) Cuts and fills shall be revegetated.
6) Annual maintenance inspections sheer shall be made of all cuts and fills and all. drop - inlets on all common areas to
identify problems and correct them-before they require major repair. Such maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
Howie Owners Association.
7.) Subsurface drainage facilities must shall be included as part of 1he fill slope construction to reduce build -up of- hydrostatic
pressure. The soil engineer during the development of final grading plans shall establish preliminary locations of
recommended keyways, benches, and subsurface'drainage facilities. (Giblin Associates 1995).
8) Post - tensioned slab foundations for residential structures shall be designed to resist vertical movements associated with the
shrinking and swelling of expansive clay soils. (Giblin Associates 1995).
9) The project soil engineer shalf be consulted to provide specific: recommendations for foundation support of the structures to
reduce the risk of future structural distress resulting from differential supporting conditions. (Giblin Associates 1995):
10) Catchment: and retaining walls shall be, designed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical study
dated August 1995 and sh : sball. be: inspected and maintained annually.
11) Following grading of each slope, cut and fill slopes and areas disturbed during site preparation shall`be with deep- rooted, fast -
growing, ground'cover or native grasses to reduce erosion. (Giblin Associates 1995). I s
12) The Applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment?Control Plan prepared by both a registered., professional engineer and
by an erosion control specialist; as an integral part of the improvement plan. The Erosion Control Plan shall include a post-
construction maintenance and monitoring program for- the detention basin, implementation of which shall be the
Page 12
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 13
0
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant'
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
responsibility of the Home- Qowners Association for the proposed development. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
shall be subject to review and approval by.the City Engineering, and Planning Divisions, 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. Specific measures to be included in the ECP would be included as conditions of approval.
13) The Creek Enhancement Plan shall be- modified to, include methods to protect the creek and adjacent riparian habitat during
construction.
4.
Air. Where available, the significance ,of criteria established . by the applicable- air quality management or air pollution
control district maybe relied upon to make the following
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard.or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quali
violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increa
criteria pollutant for whrch,the project,region is
attainment under an "federal or state a.
• air quality standard (including releasing emissio
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precurs
d. Expose sensitive receptors - -to substantial polluta:
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable +odors;affecting�'a substantiz
of people?
Discussion:
Air quality for the project area and the City of Petaluma is under the jurisdiction of the,Bay Area Air Quality Management District
( BAAQMD). The district administers air quality regulations for the region. The project site is located within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 'indicate. that a, single - family housing development with greater than 375 units
would typically generate a sufficient number of trips to trigger the District's threshold.for emissions.
a) Less Than!, Significant Impact. The 'proposed project would not obstruct' implementation of the air quality plan for the
region. Emissions associated with the-project are included as part of the growth projections made for the area and the air
quality plan.for the region and any associated impact is expected to be less than significant.
b) .Less Than Signifcant With Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the project would result in short-term emission of
particulates from grading, site preparation, and construction along with a small quantity of pollutants from construction
equipment. To minimize the :local impacts from construction activities .mitigation measures for dust suppression and
combustion engine emissions. `control would be incorporated as part of the' proposed project. Specifically, project
construction
inco rporate m
ntrol Measures (BCMs) recomended by the BAAQMD as a list of feasible
construction ermssaons and dustB ointr 1 measures that can reduce construction impacts to a less - than - significant level.
mntation of these cont rol me
Implee h ' measures 'to be incorporated during construction of the proposed project would reduce
`
related impacts to a less than- srgnifi cant level.
h
According; to,BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is well below the established threshold; therefore, emissions
associated with traffic related to the project would be less- than - significant. ,
Page 0
Project Name: Rockr Point
Paae 14
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
•
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the scale of the project, it is anticipated that the development would not create a
substantial net: increase in the cumulative level of any criteria pollutants for which the region. is in nonattaintnent.
Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact Development of the proposed project would not subject nearby residents to substantial
pollution concentrations. 'The. roposed project is residential in nature .and is not expected to generate any Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs). Development of the project would generate short-term construction emissions. Measures incorporated
into the project to control construction emissions wouldxeduce potential air quality impacts from,construction to less -than-
significant levels. There would be no significant air quality impacts during future operation of the proposed' site.
e Less Than: Si i cant Im act. There may be relatively minor objectionable odors from the operation of`diesel`- powered
equipment during � g
e ur construction of the proposed new buildings. However, these odors would be short-term and,intermittent,
and would not result in a "significant impact.
Mitigation Measumfflonitoring
1) The Applicant shall, incorporate Best Management Practices to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions into the
construction,and improvement plans and clearly indicate- :these provisions in the specifications. Specific practices would
be included as,conditions of approval.
2) The Construction Contractor shall adhere to the requirements addressing emission control measures for asphalt paving
emissions in,the BAAQMD Rulebook.
Hydrolocly and Water Quality Would - the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit:in aquifer: volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production.
rate of pre- existing.nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses` or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river in a.mantier which would resultin
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, orsubstantially increase the rate or
amount of surface.runoff in a mariner that would result in
flooding on -or off -site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
x
x
•
Page 14
Project Name,: Rockriddge Point Page 15
•
g. Place housing within a 100 -year floodUz7ard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard,Boundary Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area,, structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significantrisk of loss,
injury or death involving'flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of ,a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or'mudflow?
Discussion:
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
x
x
x
Hydrological features on the site consist of an unnamed natural creek channel, side :drainage channels, and several seeps. The
main creek channel varies in width from 6 to 12 feet and its banks are up to six feet high. The channel drains into a creek that
is a tributary to Marin Creek. Marin Creek drains to the Petaluma River, and eventually drains to San Pablo Bay (Sycamore
Associates 1998). Several drainages flow through the proposed. project site, which are generally defined by Windsor
Road/Marin Creek and the ridgeline located on the northern portion of the site (DCE 1997). The most recent hydrologic study
�hurch 2000) for the site identifies five distinct drainages areas (see Appendix Q.
A preliminary wetlands delineation for the site, prepared by Sycamore Associates (1998) identified approximately 1.19 acres
(51,852 square feet) of potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 0.17 acres (7,280 square
feet) of potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional unvegetated waters of the United States. In addition, the site contains
several freshwater seeps, with the largest ones located on the northern and northeastern drainages, and on a portion of the site
south of Windsor Avenue, as shown in Appendix C.
Construction of the project would result in filling of approximately 0.375 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters and wetlands
(Zander 2001). Included in these wetlands are springs that may be considered potential habitat for the California red - legged
frog. Therefore, it will be necessary for the applicant to consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and to comply with any'mitigation- measures set forth,by these agencies, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
See also Section 6 on Biological Resources.
The site is comprised o to steep slopes with soils that have medium to rapid runoff rates and moderate to high hazard
of erosion. See Appendix D (Wetland Delineation) and Section 3, Geology and Soils of this Checklist for more details on soil
types.
In accordance with requirements set by the State Wwater Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the applicant shall woUld
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout
project construction and op`eratio'n The applicant shall complete and submit.a.Nofice of Intent and appropriate filing fee to the
SWRCB. 'The applicant' ',shall file aNdfice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or
issuance of gr_a'ding , or building. permits: City inspectors shall inspect the irprovements, and verify compliance prior to
acceptance of improvements.
40 Less Than. Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of buildings and streets and would result in an
increase of`'impermeable surface area across the site. The increase in impermeable surface area and potential associated
surface contaminants (e:g., oil) would, result in an increase in stormwater .runoff „.and pollutants that could result in adverse
impacts on waterquahty. In accordance with requirements set by the SWRCB, the ,applicant wetild shall prepare ECP as part
of a SWPPP in order to protect against excess erosion and siltation and to maintain water quality. The measures in the ECP
would shall be consistent with applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Plan
Page 15
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 16
Potential
Less Than
Less Than.
No
Significant
Significant
Significant,
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation_
Impact
Inco orated
•
shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for
foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants;into the drainage
system. The ECP must shall also include a post - construction maintenance and monitoring program for the detention basin.
The -ECP would shalt subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a
grading permit. Specific requirements for the ECP wou shall, be included in conditions of approval. Implementation, of the
ECP would:reduce this potential impact to a less - than - significant level.
The plan shall also.include landscaping and replanting measures in areas disturbed by grading. (See discussion in Section
3, Geology and Soils).
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not substantially deplete any sources of
groundwater: Operation of the development would involve water use on site; however, watevfor the, project would not be
drawn from ,groundwater supplies and would be provided by the City of Petaluma (Curt Bates, City of Petaluma
Engineering Division, October 2001).
According to a groundwater basin study conductedby the Califomia Department of Water Resources in 1974 (DCE 1997),
the Petaluma Valley groundwater basin underlies the project site. This basin includes most of the watershed- of the
Petaluma River. Development on the project site would - mvglve an increase in impermeable surfaces on -site that would
reduce the level ofstormwater percolation10 subsurface soils. However, the local groundwater basin,is much larger:than
the proposed project site, covering approximately 60,000 acres extending from Penngrove south to the Marin County
and San Pablo Bay(DCE 1997). Therefore it is unlikely 'that "development of the proposed project alone wouldresult in a
significant reduction in groundwater recharge.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would involve substantial grading and a substantial
increase in impervious ; surfaces, and would therefore substantially alter drainage patterns on site.. According to the site
specific drainage study (SC.Church,Water Consultants December 2000), the proposed detention basin and sedimentation
pond would accommodate the anticipated amount of runoff and siltation associated with development of 'the project.
Construction of the detention basin and implementation of the Erosion Control Plan would reduce impacts to levels less-
than-significant. See also section, 5.a. of this checklist.
d) Less Than Significant. Impact. Development of the proposed project would substantially alter'the natural drainage pattern
of the site. Appropriate measures to mitigate the increase in surface' water runoff have been incorporated into the; project.
See Section 5.c. for additional details. With implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and construction of the 'detention
basin, flood - related impacts would be less than significant.
e -f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project shall comply with requirements for maintaining water quality in
order to avoid significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, erosion, or siltation on- or off -site. 'See` also the
response to Section 5.c. and 8.c and the Mitigation Measures section below.
g -h) No Impact According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management. Agency, the
proposed project site is not located in an area subject to flooding from'the 100 -year flood event. The proposed project
would not involve'the construction of housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, there are no expected
related impacts.
i) No Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Dam Failure Inundation Hazard'Maps, the project site is
not located in an area that would be impacted by potential dam failures upstream. Therefore, there would 1 be no impact.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located near the coast and is at an elevation of approximately 200 feet
above sea level. There are no large water bodies nearby and therefore the likelihood of a tsunami or inundation by a•
seiche, or seiche flooding, would be extremely'low.
Page 1;6
i
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 17
•
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
Potential
Less Than
Less .Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimiz the sediment and/or entering directly
or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into
the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of
grading or building permits.
a. The applicant shall designate; construction staging areas and areas -for storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor
oil, fuels, paints,) used during construction on the improvement plans and the'SWPPP. All construction staging areas
shall be located away from any stream and adjacent drainage areas to .prevent runoff from construction areas from
entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper
containment features to prevent contaminants from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak.
b N o
c concrete or washings thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, oil
or petroleum so il ,
roducts or oth 1.
p p er orga_nic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All
discarded material including washings` and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved
disposal site. The Applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or
in the specifications.
c. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any creek channel. All in- stream channel work shall be limited to the dry
season (typically defiled as May lst.through October 15th) and performed in.accordance with conditions specified by
the Dept. of Fish and Game in :a Streambed .Alteration Agreement and the Army Corps Section 404 Permit. The
applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the
permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or,issuance of grading permits for work within any channel.
2. The applicant shall prepare an operation and maintenance manual for the detention basin to include dredging and ongoing
.maintenance, to be submitted as part of the improvement plans.
3. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on site by September 15. All earth -
moving activity shall be completed by October 1 prior to the on -set of the rainy season with all disturbed areas stabilized
and revegetated by October 15.
6. Biological Resources Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse,' effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications; on.any species 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.S. Fish
and W ildlife,Service?
b. Have a,subsiantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive�natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies; regulations or by the California
Department Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
•
C. Have, a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal,' etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
x
M
x
Page 17
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 18
d. Interfere substantially with 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 Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion:
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
•
x
x
x
The assessment of biological resources on the site is based on information from an evaluation conducted by Zander Associates
(2001) and from previous.biological assessments prepared as part of the Hillside Village Draft Environmental ImpactReport
(DCE 1997). The Preliminary : Biological Resources Assessment (Zander 2001) is attached as Appendix E.
The project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan policies intended to protect'open space and to conserve natural resources.0`
Specifically, the following policies applyto the proposed project:
Chapter 6, Policy 21; Watershed. lands shall be protected, and any development of watershed areas shall retain as much natural
vegetation as is feasible.
Chapter 6, Policy 23: Streams and streamsides shall be used to provide natural -open space, recreation, or - activity areas for
adjacent development.
Chapter .11, Policy 35: The City shall preserve adequate vegetative cover and prevent development that increases erosion and
sedimentation potential,along streams or in unstable soil areas.
Chapter 11, Policy 36: The City shall seek to preserve public and private watershed lands as permanent open space.
Chapter 1.1, Policy 37: The City shall seek controls to protect potential groundwater recharge areas and streamsides from urban
encroachment.
Plant :Species
The proposed.project site is characterized by gently rolling hills used for open grazing. The vegetation.on site consists mainly
of non -native pasture grasslands with a few annuals and perennials (e:g., California poppy (Eschscholzia californica),
lupine (Lupinum nanus), blue dicks (Dichelostmma pulchellum), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), and yarrow
(Achillea millefohum). Dense oak woodland occurs on the portion,ofthe site, south of Windsor Drive that would be preserved
as open.space. (DCE 1997 and Zander Associates 2001). Several native frees on the portion of the site proposed:for
development.(i.e., two large valley oaks along the west bank of main creek; two California bays (Umbellularia californica)
and four California buckeyes (Aesculus californica) on the knoll- and two buckeye trees near the northeastern boundary of the
site) would be preserved.
Animal Species
The grasslands on site support a variety of plants and animals and provide foraging and breeding areas for small reptiles, birds,
and other. animals. Some of the species found on site include western meadowlark, savannah sparrow, Brewer's blackbird,
western fence lizard,. gopher snake, deer mouse, Bottaepocket,gopher, andatriped skunk. A number of predatory birds and .
mammals also rely on the smallermamtnals and birds of, the grasslands as an important source of prey. These include: •
American kestrel, red - tailed hawk, great -homed owl, barn owl prairie falcon, red fox, gray fox,.and coyote. (DCE 1997 and
Zander Associates 2001). See Appendix •E for additional details.
Page 19
•
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 19
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation.
Impact
Incorporated
Special Status Species
Zander (200.1) identified several special, status plant and animal species that could occur on site based on review of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB.). Most of the species that could occur on site are, associated with vernal pool
habitats or riparian wetlands. Detailed rare plant surveys were conducted in late spring, summer, and fall of 1996 as part of the
Hillside Village EIR (DCE 1997) whenmost of;the special status species potentially present would not be identifiable._ No
plant species of concern were found. Zander 's (20Q1) analysis concluded that because;of an. absence of suitable habitat on the
site, the probability of occurrence of many of thesespecies is unlikely; however, the ;absence of all plant species cannot be
conclusively determined without additional early spring surveys.' Potentially occurring; early- blooming special status plant
species include Clark Hunt's milkvetch (Astagalus clarianus), Baker's larkspur (Delphinium bakeri), dwarf downingia
(Downingia pusilla), and fragrant fritillary (Fritilaria liliacea). In order to better. assess the presence of these species on the
site, additional surveys would need to be conducted in.early Spring (April). See Appendix E (DCE and Zander) for a list of
species.
Several raptors were observed during,the site gisit in October of 2000 by Zander. These included American kestrel (Falco
sparverius) and barn owls (Tyto alba). Due to the timing 9f1he survey .;no nests or' nesting behavior were observed, but
potential nesting habitat for raptors andbats „including'Pallid bat (Antrozous'pallidus)' ispresent. The taller trees on site could
provide nesting habitat for raptors and the barn _and other outbuildings could provide.habitat for bats. Therefore, additional
surveys for active raptor nests and bats should be conducted prior to clearing or construction onsite.
The project site is located outside of designated critical habitat for the frog, however CNDDB and other records indicate the
sence of California.red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) just downstream of the property in the same creek that flows
Op-- ough the project site (CDFG, Oct6ber.2000)..Red- legged frogs are knownto:move considerable distances and use both
lands and wetland habitats. The creek and springs /seeps; on the property likelyprovidesuitable aquatic habitat.for the
California red - legged frog. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife: (FWS) also typically considers uplands within 300 feet of suitable
aquatic habitats to also be habitat for the frog; Red= legged frogs also are known to.make considerable overland movements
irrespective of terrain or vegetation cover. These sorts of dispersal areas between aquatic habitats are also considered
important to the frog.
Potential Wetlands
Sycamore Associates prepared a' wetland,delineation.for the site in May 1998. This study, as later confirmed bythe'U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, identified approximately 1.05 acres,of wetlands (springs /seeps, 1 freshwater marsh in the central drainage
channel) and 0.16 acre of waters of the United; States (drainage channel) on the property:
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Preliminary Biological Resource Assessment (Zander
Associates 2001), the project site contains present or potential habitat for number of candidate, sensitive, or special status
species.
Although California red- legged frogs (Rana;,aurora draytonii), have not been found on site suitable habitat is present,in the
central part, of the site. The California Natural. Diversity Database and othevrecords have indicated the presence of red-
legged frogs just downstream of the property boundary in thesame creek that flows.through the site. The project°would
resultcin filling approximately 01105:0 acres of waters and ;0.325 acres of wetlands (Zander, 2001). Included in these
wetlands are springs that may be considered habitat for the California red - legged frog. Upland habitat associated with
these. aquatic habitats and'within',300 feet of the creek would also be impacted. Filling,of wetlands and springs on site,
potential disturbance -of the creek and areas surrounding the creek, and potential:impacts on water quality on -site or
downstream`could,l'ead to significant impacts on red- legged frogs or their, habitat: Therefore, the applicant would be
required to implement the mitigation measures listed below in order to reduce impacts to a less- than - significant level.
• Nesting raptors are protected under California Fish and.Game Code §3503:.5. The site, especially the taller eucalyptus
trees, could potentially provide nesting habitat for several raptors, including red- shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), red -
tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), great horned
owls (Bubo virginianus), and "barn owls (Tyto alba). Three barn owls were located near the large barn during 1996 surveys
(DCE 1997). The eucalyptus trees on site provide potential nesting habitatfor raptors. Project development plans call for
the preservation of these trees. The on -site large barns and buildings could provide potential nesting and roosting habitat
Page 19
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 20
Potential Less Than Less Than 'No •
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact w /Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
for barn owls and status bat species such aspallid bats (Antrozous- pallidus) and Townsend's western big -eared bats
(Plecotus towns.endii). 'The loss of these buildings, if being used by these species, would be�a significant impact.
Therefore; if surveys identify1hese species on site, the mitigation measures listed below would be implemented to reduce
the impacts to less- than - significant- levels.
No impacts are anticipated to special- status:plarit species. A survey conducted in 1996 and amassessment of the potential
occurrences of special- status plants based on habitat characteristics indicate that such species are - unlikely to be present:
However, the.absence of all plant species cannot be conclusively °determined without additional early spring surveys. In
order to better assess the presence of these species on the site, additional surveys would need to be conducted in early
Spring (April). See mitigation measures listed below.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The .central drainage course paralleling Windsor Drive has no
developed riparian vegetation except for two valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and common instream plants such as cattails
(Typha angustifolia),- umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and water. cress (Rorippa nasturtium-
aquatica) (Zander 2001). Aside from the construction of the detention basin, no development would occur within 100 feet of
the central drainage course. According to the biological assessment, if designed and managed properly,, `(i.e., as a natural
feature with colonization by native vegetation) the detention basin could potentially act as an enhancement to the stream,
.corridor (Zander 2001).,See,,mitigation measure 2-'under section 5..Hydrology and Water. Quality. No wetland'vegetatioii or
si gnificant
Plan tached ripari n ha b'i 4s However, due to 6 ti lnimpacthbutary:drainages. See the Preliminary Riparian Enhancement
?'» s to red - legged frogs and. their. habitat,, there is a potentially
significant impactto sensitive natural communities identified' by California Department of Fish,and Game sand the USFWS.
Further evaluation of impacts, on these species *and habitats will .be': required, including'assessment of impacts on red-le
frogs and their habitat,; surveys for the presence of raptors and bats, identification of relevant regulatory,approvals,'and of
appropriate mitigation measuress,to lessen.impacts'to levels less - than'` significant.
c) Less. Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated., The project would result in filling approximately 0:050 acres of waters
and 0.325 acres of wetlands ,(Zander 2001). The loss of these wetland communities represents a significant impact unless
mitigation is.incorporated into the project approvals. See, mitigation measures section below. .
d) Less Than Significant hnpac_t. The project is not expected to create,;a major barrier to movement or dispersal of wildlife,
including the California red - legged, frog. The project is essentially an in -fill development as existing, medium- density
residential uses on the,east and west, and a low- density residential community to the north, surround the site. These areas do
not provide significant habitat for the frog. The - southern portion of the site would be retained as open space habitat
contiguous with Helen Putnam Regional Park.
e) Less Than,Significant With Mitigation. Incorporated. To the extent described above 'inthe'Discussion portion of this section, .
the applicant.has taken into account relevant plans and policies adopted by the City, and has attempted to incorporate these
concepts into the proposed project. The proposed development plans include provisions to preserve much of the natural
vegetation ;, dedicate a substantial portion of the site as permanent open space; and the streamside would be protected. from
sedimentation and enhanced with natural vegetation. With implementation the mitigation measures described below,
potential impactsrelated to consistency with relevant plans policies; and regulations would be less than significant.
f) No Impact. The site is not located within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation,Plan, Natural Community
Conservation' Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorine
Incorporation and.�implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate the above impacts to a less than•
significant levels.
1) Preconstruction surveys for iactive raptor nests, including barn owls and bats shall be conducted during appropriate seasons
prior to any site grading,. tree removal, or demolition of buildings:
Page.20
Project Ndme Roekriddge Point Page 21
•
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
a) If nesting raptors are identified; ttfe,applicant. shall,avoid:construction in areas that would.disturb the nest until the young
have fledged and are capable of , fli ht on their own
g p g or the nest is otherwise unoccupied. The applicant shall consult with
the Department of Fish and Gameto'establish appropriate buffers zones around occupied nests.
b) If barn owls and/or bats are found nesting or roosting in the buildings on the site, the applicant shall prepare and
implement plans to :replace lost nesting/roosting habitat. The plans shall be developed in consultation with the
Department of Fish and Game and shall,include measures such as construction and installation onnest and/or roost boxes
within the preserved open, space, portions of the site. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval.
2) Because of the potential impacts (take) ofred- legged frogs and habitat, in,and, adjacent to the creek-and springs /seeps located
on the site, the applicantshall submitrevidenceto the Community'Development Director that the'project is in compliance with
the Federal Endangered' Species Act prior to any site,grading. Evidence of compliance can include a letter from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service stating the project will not effect the frog, a; valid Biological Opinion from a Section 7 consultation, or a
Section l0a permit. The applicant: shall also provide evidence to the Community Development Director that any required
habitat mitigation required by the Service has been implemented prior to occupancy of the project.
3) 'Grading and improvement plans shall show location and number of trees to be preserved (i.e., valley oaks, buckeyes and
bays) and shall include measures; for their protection.
The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of California red- legged frog aquatic and upland habitat through preservation and
enhancement of existing habitats. At a ; the applicant shall preserve a mmunum of 1 acre of upland habitat for
every acre of upland habitat impacted by the,,project. This, preserved acreage can be satisfied with the proposed open space
dedication. The applicant „shall also provide additional mitigation-for impacted aquatic habitat at a minim 1:1 ratio. The
amount of upland and aquatic frog habitat on the site shall be determined .in coordination with the U:S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
5) The applicant shall also implement. appropriate protection measures as outlined in the Programmatic Formal Endangered
Species Act Consultation. On Issuance Of Permits Under - Section 404 Of The Clean. Water Act -Or Authorized Under
Nationwide Permit Program For Projects That ,May Affect The: California Red- Legged,Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
January 26, 1999). These measures are designed to minimiz the potential for adversely impacting red- legged frogs during
construction activities.
a) A survey of the watercourses on the project site shall be conducted by a:USFWS- approved biologisttwo weeks before
the onset of construction activities. 'If California red - legged frogs,, tadpoles; or eggs are found, the approved biologist
Shall, contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these life stages is appropriate. Only USFWS- approved
biologists shall' participate in activities associated with the capture handling, and monitoring of California red - legged
frog.
b) Before any construction activities begin ion the project, USFWS- approved biologists shall conduct a training session
for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include: 1) a description of the California red - legged
frog and habitat for this species; 2) the ,general measures that are being - implemented to conserve the red - legged frog;
as they relate to the' °project;'and 3) the boundaries within which the maybe accomplished.
c) A USFWS- approved .biologist 'shall'be present at the. work site until such time as all removal of red- legged frogs (if
found) instruction of workers, and,.habitat disturbance has beewcompleted. After that time, the contractor or permittee
• shall designate a,person to monitor-on-site compliance with all minimization measures. The monitor and the USFWS-
approved biologist shall have the authority to halt any action that might result in impacts that exceed the levels
anticipated by the Corps the USFWS.
d) During project activities, all - trash that, may attract predators shall be contained and removed from the project site
regularly.
Page 21
Project Name: Rockriddae Point
Page 22
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
' Impact
Incorporated
•
e) All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment, and staging areas, shall be located. at .least: 20 meters
(65.6 feet) from the watercourses. Prior to the onset of work, the City planning staff shall ensure that. the project
proponent has prepared a plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills into'the watercourses.
All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and the appropriate measures to take should a
spill occur.
f) The number of access routes,. number and size of staging areas, and total area of the activity shall be limited to the
,minimum,necessary.to complete the project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly defined, and these areas shall be
located outside the riparian corridor:
g) Earth - moving activities (e.g., grading) shall be completed between April 1 and October 1. Should the project
proponent demonstrate the need to conduct activities outside this period, approval from the USFW would.be<required.
6) The'applicant,shall conduct 'appropriately °timed early season ( um March, and April) surveys to confirm the. absence of
special status plant species such as 'Clara Hunt's milk vetch (Astragalus clarianus), dwarf downiiigia (Doivitiiigid pusilla),
and fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria lilacea). If ,federally listed special status species are found, the U.S: 'Fish, and `Wildlife
Service shall be contacted and .the, appropriate mitigation measures . shall be implemented. If California -state listed or
California Native Plant: Society listed special! status species (lists lb; 2' and 3) are found, the California Department of Fish
and Game shall be contacted and associated: mitigation. measures shall be implemented. Probable mitigation measures would'
include the protection of'the existing plant population and the replanting and transplanting of pjafit species.. A compensatioe
plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to grading.
replace impacted w prepare
ds at ,, a ratio of 1 (mitigation): 1 (impacted). Preferably, the mitigation re a mal be l , located "shall
7 The applicant shall re are and ' implement a lan to mitigate the loss of impacted wetland s.
on areas_ shall be located onsite or
on open space lands adjacent to the - project site. If offsite: (greater than 1 mile from the site) mitigation.is necessary, the ratio
should increase to' 2 :1. The applicant shall .submit the mitigation plan to the Community Development'Director for review
and approval prior to site, grading.. The, applicant shall also provide evidence to the Community Development Director: that
the applicant'has complied with and obtained, appropriate permits and with applicable regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and'Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
7. . Noise Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of personsto or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome 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 in the projectvicinty above levels existing
without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a,plan has.not been, adopted, within two miles
of a public,airport or public use airport, would the project
expose' people' residing or working in the project area to
Page 22.
i
4 7
Projp
•
Name: Rockriddge Point
excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise'levels?
Discussion:
23
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
•Significant
Impact
I mpact
_
w/Mitigation
Impact
Inco orated
Assessment of the project's noise irnpact was based.on noise standards ;identifred.in the City of Petaluma Zoning
Ordinance/Performance Standards and Chapter 11, Community Health and Safety (1,1.9 Noise) Element of its General Plan.
The main considerations relevant to increases in existing noise levels are short-term construction noise and vehicular traffic
noise.
The City's Zoning Ordinance /Performance Standards restrict construction" activity to between the.hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m
Monday .through Friday. Although City regulations allow construction on weekends, the proposed project would be prohibited
from construction on weekends and legal holidays due the close proximity of adjacent, existing neighborhoods.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the ,project would add short-term noise from construction equipment and
vehicles. Measures to minimize short-term noise impacts have been: incorporated into the proposed project in accordance
with applicable Performance Standards in the %Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. These measures would be
specified in the construction contract.
Development of the project wouldresult in somedncreased noise by adding vehicular traffic on Western Avenue and Windsor
Drive. The project would generate ,593 additional daily trips (Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, 2001). Based on
preliminary review the proposed site would not be "exposed to traffic noise exceeding acceptable levels for the area due to
the fact that the proposed houses on 'the sie would be located more than 3.00 feet away from the road. Therefore, the
increase in traffic and associated noise is not anticipated to. increase noise beyond acceptable levels for the area and the
related impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phase,, excessive groundbome vibration or
groundborne noise levels could occur. However, these. impacts would be short-term and intermittent. With the
implementation of mitigation measures impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels. See the Mitigation
Measures sectionbelow.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Traffic Impact Study by Whitlock and Weinberger conducted in 2000 (see
Appendix F); traffic volume would increase along !several roads and intersections near the project site. This increased
traffic would likely raise.noise levels to some degree but is not expected to result in significant impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Temporary intermittent noise from short- term construction activities associated with the
development of the project would occur. The noise level would' be elevated compared to existing ambient noise.
However, it would be a short-term impact:and.therefore would not be considered significant.
e -f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not within the vicinity of any known private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
� 1 construction activities shall comply with °applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and
unicipal Code.
1) In order to minimize potential impacts :related to construction noise, construction activities shall be limited to between 7
a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for
additional hours. No construction .shall be permitted on Sundays or City of Petaluma recognized legal holidays. There
Page 23
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 24
Potential
Less Than
Less'Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
L `
will be: no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 7:00 a.m.,, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor
equipmentprior to 7:30 a.m; nor past 5 :00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment pasU6 :00
p.m., Monday through Friday; no. servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday.
2) All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained to minimize
noise. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
3) Construction maintenance, storage and staging areas for equipment shall avoid- proximity to residential areas
to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction „equipment such as compressors, mixers, etc., shall ;be placed
away from residential areas and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction` equipment shall be used when
possible.
4) The Applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority to implement the mitigation measures who will be
responsible for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. The
Project Manager's telephone. number shall be. conspicuously posted-at the construction site'. The Project. Manager shall
determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early, faulty muffler -et�) and shall take prompt action to correct
the problem.
8. Visual Quality arid'Aesthetics Would the project:
a. Have a..substantial adverse effect on 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 or glare which
would adverselyaffect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
The Open Space, Conservation, and Energy Element of the Petaluma General Plan includes specific policies intended to protect
scenic resources within the City. Several scenic routes are located in the vicinity of the project including Bodega Avenue, Spring
Hill Road, Chileno Valley Road, and Western Avenue. Specifically, Chapter 6 ,Program 7 of the General. Plan prohibits
development on prominent ridges and encourages screening and other landscaping. Other relevant policies in .the General Plan
include the following:
Policy 4: Wherever feasible, the City shall use the urban separator to connect .open space lands
Policy 12: The City encourages the County and other public agencies to accept dedications of open space lands of regional
significance. The City also encourages private entities to preserve open space lands.
The proposed project site is rural in nature and is characterized byrolling hills_ comprised of,grasslands and oak woodlands. The
project site is visible from Chileno Valley .Road, which is designated as a scenic, roadway in the City of Petaluma's General.
Consultants to the applicant prepared a series of computer- generated visual simulations of the proposed project from locations on`•
Windsor Drive, Western Avenue, and Chileno Valley Road. These simulations are attached as Appendix G. The view points. for
the simulations are shown on Figure 5.
Page
Project Narne Rockriddge Point Page 25
•
Potential'
Less'Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Existing residential developments and rural residences on adjacent
properties have prominent views of the. site. The site is also visible to drivers on roadways in the vicinity, particularly on
Windsor Drive and Chileno Valley Road. Computer- generated visual simulations submitted by the applicant demonstrate
that scenic views currently available to residents and drivers iii" the , area would be impacted by the proposed development.
The project would'be designed to preserve three existing, predominant` knolls.. The development area within the site would
be located in one of the flattest portions of the site. Preserving: the knolls and clustering the development in the flatter
areas would minimiz views of the proposed buildings. Foreground vegetation,, proposed in the landscaping plan for the
project, would screen a substantial portion - :of`fhe 'development although portions of die-it would still be visible from the
aforementioned adjacent areas.' The design of the proposed project would be .subject to SPARC review to ensure high
quality design that is compatible with the character of the area. With implementation of these measures, the impacts
would be minimized.
b &c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation The proj
Incorporated. ect, would change the existing visual character of the site by
changing portions of the natural landscape of tolling hills and grasslands to one of residential development including homes,
streets, landscaping, and lighting.. Thi change is -acknowledged by the City's General Plan in designating the property for
residential use. With the development of 62 residential uni ts doe ,•ia� ' ° ; the proposed project would change the
character of the site from rural to developed suburban. The project would, also, result in the removal of several buildings
associated with ranching. Drivers on Windsor Drive, adjacent, residents, and users of Helen Putnam Regional Park would
have views of the proposed development: As shown in Viewpoint #5, the proposed development would be visible from the
listed location on Chileno Valley Road, "a .City of Petaluma designated scenic roadway. The development would alter the
views from this part of the scenic highway by changing the landscape, from grasslands and oak woodlands to a residential
development area. Preservation of open space to% the south of Ahe site and implementation of the landscape plan, would
mitigate these impacts to levels thatiare less than significant. See also mitigation in Section 1. Land Use.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would create anew °source of light and glare. This light and
glare could adversely affect the surrounding rural residential uses. The 'project would need to incorporate measures to
minimize the impacts of additional lighting and to: landscape the development area with vegetation to buffer the project site
from other existing rural development,, especially on „the northemTortion of the property boundary. With implementation of
these mitigation measures, the impacts are'expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring:
1) Improvement Plans, including proposed,archtecture, lighting, and landscaping., shall be subject to review and approval by
SPARC.
2) All exterior, lighting shall be directed. onto the project site and access ways and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto
adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted. .for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which
reflect the location and, design of all 'proposed street lights, and any other exterior lighting proposed.
3) Development plans 'shall 'be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and other light- sensitive living
areas of any-nearby residential. 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.
4 In order to
reduce potentiat,jihpacts from light and glare, no illumination shall be installed within a stream buffer zone or
the z designated open space area except for !low level lighting along, designated pathways adjacent to public streets or across
pedestriair bridges: The im rou
p ement drawings and landscape ^plans prepared for the project shall reflect the location and
0 design details of.a1P light fixtures "proposed. These locations and details shall'be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan
and Architectural Review Committee and the Parks and Recreation Director, prior to the approval of the final map,
improvement plans or advertising for bids.
5) The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and the Parks and Recreation Director shall review the landscape and
lighting plans for the public improvements proposed within a public park�and designated open space area.
Page 25
ct Name: Rockriddge Point
Page 26
Potential.'
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant.
Significant.
Significant ..
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
' Impact
Incorporated
6) Shade trees shall be incorporated into, building and improvement plans along public streets and within parking_ areas in
conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade.
Hazards & Hazardous' Materials Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmentthrough,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
accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
C. Emit hazardous 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 listof
,hazardous materials -sites compiled pursuant to
Government. Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
wouldit create a significant hazard 6the,public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, .
where such a'plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport ormpublic use airport,- would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing, or working in
the`.projct'area?
f. For, a project within the vicinity of a,private airstrip,
would.the project result; in a safety hazard 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, .
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wil'dlands are:adjacent to'urbanized -areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
x
x
•
x
x
American Technologies, conducted an environmental site_ assessment of`the proposed project site, which evaluated hazards and
hazardous materials in 1995. Engeo, Inc. updated the original _assessment in August of 1997 The assessments show no evidence
of soil or ground -water contamination. Hazardous materials observed at the site consisted of less than 15 gallons of home
maintenance products and approximately 200 square feet of asbestos - containing linoleum in an existing residence on the project:
site.
Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition and removal of the existing structures on the site and use of
various types of construction equipment that may require supplies.such as oil and batteries. Development of the project would
Page 26
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 27
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
not require the use of hazardous materials. The proposed residential development would not involve the use of hazardous
materials other than regular household use of such potentially hazardousi substances as motor oil, fuel, paint, and solvents.
The applicant would comply with "Petaluma General Plan Fire and Police Services requirements as follows:
Policy 21: Fire hazards shall be mitigated where appropriate with proper siting, use of fire - resistive materials and landscaping,
and/or installation of early warning systems, such as alarms and sprinklers.
Policy 23: All landscaping within 50 feet of buildings in fire hazard areas shall be fire- resistive.
Policy 23.1: Developers shall consider using a_portion of the urban separator as a firebreak in fire hazard areas.
In addition, the applicant would be :required to comply with measures recommended by the City of Petaluma Fire Marshal.
These measures are included as conditions of approval.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed development would construct buildings for residential purposes. The
applicant would comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling,
storage, and/or disposal of potentially ;hazardous substances on the site, and therefore hazards to the public would be
minimiz during construction. Residential: use would not include the manufacturing, storage, or utilization of hazardous
materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed development would construct 62 residential units and
demolish the existing ranch - related structures on site. The existing residence contains some asbestos - containing material.
Recommended mitigation measures to be implemented when the residence is demolished would reduce any potential
impacts to levels that are less than significant. The manufacture or storage of hazardous material would not occur on site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
c) No Impact. Although three existing schools are located within the vicinity of the project, no schools are located within
one - quarter mile of the site. Therefore there would be no impact.'
d) No Impact. According to the. Environmental Site Assessment Update.,by 1997 ENGEO Incorporated (see Appendix H),
and the Environmental Assessment by American Technologies (1995), the proposed site is not on a list of hazardous
materials sites and would riot create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e -f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an adopted airport use plan nor is it within the vicinity of a
public or private airport or a private airstrip.
g) Less Than Signifcant;Impact. The proposed project plan would.include designfeatures that would allow emergency access
to the. site. These features iiclu, de 28-foot wide minimum circulation : aisles, offset driveways on opposite sides of the
streets and:an emergency-accessible ,pedestrian bicycle path. (See also Section 10.d.)
h) Less Than .Significant With Mitigation: Incorporated. The project site is designated as a High Hazard Fire Area in the
County's Wil'dlands Fires'Hazards Map and as a Very High Fire Hazard Security Zone by the Petaluma Fire Department
(DCE 1997). 'Therefore, the applicant would have to comply with all policies in the General Plan relevant to fire safety
and , any additional fire safety measures required by the City Fire Marshal. ' These measures are summarized in the
mitigation measures section below. Adherence to, and implementation of, fire and safety measures as required in the
General Plan and as recommended by the City Fire Marshal would reduce related risks from wildland fires and other
® related hazards to a less- than- significant'impact.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
Page 27
Project Name: Rockriddge Point
Page 28
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
is
1) For uses, including construction activities, involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on -site, the Applicant
shall file a declaration form with -Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit.
2) If hazardous materials are used. or stored on- site,: the Applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and submit
for review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or grading or building pemut
for construction activities. The RMP shall include the following as appropriate:
a) The Applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous materials and shall maintain
emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire Marshall, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities.
b) The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination existing on -site and shall provide for
proper treatment, removal and disposal during construction.
3) If any vapors•or other signs of contamination are detected during project construction, all local, state, And federalrequireinents
for remediation and disposal of contaminated materials shall be'followed.
4) The applicant shall comply with all existing Federal and State safety:regulations related to the transport, use, handling,
storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances on the site.
5) A qualified asbestos abatement specialist shall perform the asbestos mitigation (i.e., removal of the , asbestos-containing
linoleum in the fes'idenc6)1 to demolition of.'the building. An environmental professional shall also be present duningdahk
demolition and pre - grading activities to observe and monitor areas of the property that may have been obscured by th
existing buildings:. (Engeo, Inc. 1997)
6) Existing wells and septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state regulations. (Engeo Inc. 1997.).
7) Because this project site is located within a high fire hazard severity zone the applicant shall, comply with all mitigation
measures recommended,by the City of Petaluma Fire Marshal (Memorandum dated August ?988 2002 These measures are
included as conditions of approval.
10. Transportatioi /Traffic Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic; load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substant al increase in,either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion atintersectons)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 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 increase hazards due to , a design.feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in.inadequate parking capacity?
Page 28
•
Project Name.:' Rockriddge Point Page 29
Potential Less Than Less Than No
Significant . Significant Significant Impact
Impact w /Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans programs x
supporting alternative transportation, i.e.,'bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Discussion:
The stud evaluated o eratinconditions for the weekda moinin and A Traffic Impact Stud was prepared b Whitlock & Weinber er ^Trans ortatio n, Inc. in December, 2000. (See Appendix F).
y p g' ( y g evening, and the weekend midday, peak periods under
four scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project Conditions, Future Conditions and Future plus Project Conditions),
on -site traffic circulation and access issues, and pedestrian access "and facilities.
The proposed project would include an entranceway and access street, off Windsor Drive that would be constructed as a `tee' or
a roundabout intersection. All of the proposed dwelling units would use this ingress /egress for access to and from the site.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on;the findings of the traffic evaluation, the proposed project would contribute to an
increase in traffic in the project area but would not generate significant off -site traffic impacts such as a significant traffic
load increase or significant congestion. All of the intersections; in the vicinity would continue to operate acceptably at a
level of service of C or better. Therefore, implementation of the project would have' a less than significant impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact..According to the Traffic Impact Study,,d"eyelopment of 'the project would not contribute to a
change in level of service at any of the nearby intersections, - therefore, the impact would be less than significant. See
Appendix F for the complete traffic study.
c) No Impact. Current air traffic patterns would be maintained, therefore development of the project would not result in
substantial safety risks.
d -e) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Traffic Impact Study (December 2000), the proposed project would not
alter any roadways that would adversely affect emergency access. All, access ways on the new site would be designed to
allow for 322-8-foot wide minimum circulation aisles with two -way street parking on both sides of the drive aisle.
Driveways on opposite sides of the 'streets would be offset to ensure adequate emergency access. St feet segments lae t °a
en 1341si e s .,:. uld b C- 0 11-s;st° „t yifli .G t 4 Pet.,l,,ma Munieipal C.i.7o:....:th .6 ztp 4himum ..,idf 0-f 28_ -f °t ..,;th
par -1. ri en en one s ide Of +ho _t.° °t t provide 6 an f sle .. eee � fe . e - ° ney ye hi e e Both the proposed
pedestrian/bicycle path between Western, Avenue and the loop street a nd at44 can i efi g °sidenees to epe spae
ar� would also provide emergency access. All construction activity (including staging of supplies and equipment) would
take place on the proposed project. site and would not require road closures.
Plantings proposed along the creek on the southern. portion of the proposed development impede sight distance at the
intersection on Windsor.Drive. Measures to ensure that vegetation would not limit the sight distance would be necessary
to reduce this potential impact to a less- than - significant level.
With implementation of the mitigation measures specified below, the project would not include design features that would
increase hazards and the _impacts would he less than significant.
f) No Impact. The proposed project provides adequate parking for the 'development and would not result in inadequate
parking capacity. The parking plan includes adequate parking on each •residential lot and on one side of the newly
constructed residential streets. Therefore; development of the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
•
No Im pac t. p The pro p p osed p ro J ect would construct emergency vehicle access, including a pedestrian and bicycle path,
along a 20- foot'wide access through the site, connecting to Western Avenue, Petaluma Junior High School students could
use the path to access Western Avenue:. Public' transit (Petaluma Transit'Route 1) travels along Western Avenue and
Bantam Way and connects to downtown Petaluma, Petaluma Junior High School, and Petaluma High School. The
Page 29
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 30
Potential
Less Than
Less nan
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
•
proposed project would. not be in conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there
would be no significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorine
1) In order to preserve sight distance, landscaping of the park along the existing creek along Windsor. Drive shall be designed so
that the line of sight Windsor Dri ve fromthe new project site.is not impeded. Landscape details shall.. be reviewed and
approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and the Parks and Recreation Director prior to the
approval of the final map, .improvement plans or advertising for bids.
1. 1. 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
construction 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:
The subject property is.located southwest of the Petaluma city limits, within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, and therefore
within the city's sphere,of influence. The applicant is requesting annexation into the City.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma Fire Department would provide fire protection services to the
proposed project site. The Petaluma General. Plan includes policies that address potential ; impacts to fire protection
services as a result of citywide employment and population growth (see General Plan, p. 120, sec. 11.7). Adherence to
these policies would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma Police Department would provide ,police services to the proposed
project site. Response time for emergency vehicles within the City is four minutes: The City of Petaluma General Plan
includes policies that address impacts to police protection services as a result of citywide employment and population
growth (see General. Plan, p. 120, sec. 11.7). Adherence to these policies would reduce any impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of residents to the project site, and coul
therefore create an indirect demand for additional school facilities. In order to mitigate the costs' of providing school
facilities, in accordance with Title 17, Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code, -the City of :Petaluma requires new
development toapayCommunity Facilities Fees prior to, building permit' issuance and these fees are °used to maintain school
performance standards. The Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address impacts to school'services as a result of
Page 30
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 31
0
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
population growth (see General Plan, Section 7.4). Adherence to these policies would reduce the impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Petaluma General Plan includes policies that address
impacts to ark services
p p as'a resu It of population growth (see General Plan, Section 7.2). The proposed project would
.
construct a neighborhood park within the ,development. The park, would conform to the General Plan's basic guidelines
for community park development (see General Plan, Section 7.2). The project also proposes to dedicate approximately 7-C}
83 acres of open space.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The scale of the proposed project and estimated number of residents is not so large that any
other public facilities (e.g., public library or general municipal facilities) would be significantly affected.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
1) In accordance with City regulations; the Applicant ",shall be responsible for payment of Community Facilities Development
fees to offset the impacts to public facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance
and are due and payable by the Apphcantprior`to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
2) In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park and Recreation Land
Improvements fees. These fees provide for acquisition, development and improvement of neighborhood and community
park and recreation facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City at the of building permit issuance and are due and
payable by the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3) In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for'payment of School Facilities fees. Fees shall be
calculated by the City at time of building permit issuance and are due and payable directly to the school district by the
Applicant prior to final inspection or Osuance.of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall provide a receipt or proof
of payment of school facilities fees to the City Building Division prior to :final inspection or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
12. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such,that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project. include. recreational facilities or require
the construction' or expansion.on recreational facilities
which might have�anadverse physical effect on the
environment?
•
x
Page 3'1
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 32
Discussion:
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
x
•
The proposed project includes a 2 acre public park site ,(per Project Description provided by applicant, dated August 2001 , and
letters dated December 14, 2001.- and - February 27,. MO2 and July 8, 2002 on -site and the dedication of approximately '83 -79
acres of open space. The project, proposes to construct a 2046ot wide pedestriarvbicycle path and, emergency vehicle access
corridor connecting residences to Western Avenue the dedioated publie Yew r_ (D ) : The residences would
also have access to Helen Putnam Regional Park, which is across from the development on Windsor Drive.
a- b)Less Than Significant Impact. Development'of ihe'project.would result in an increase in residents to the area, which would
indirectly increase demand for recreation facilities in the area. The project plans include construction of an on -site "park
that would offset the 'increased use of existing neighborhood eem� parks. The City of Petaluma has adopted policies
and programs to address the need for recreational facilities ,and parks, and therefore adherence to these policies would
reduce the related impacts to a less- than - significant level. (See General Plan, Section 7.2).
Mitigation. NMeasures/Monitoring
1) To mitigate for the increased demand for recrational facilities generated by an increase in residents in the area, the
applicant shall be responsible for payment -of Park and Recreation Land Improvements fees. These fees provide for
ac quisition, P
calculated b ne t of neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities. Fees shall be
y the C ty at the �P time of, building ding permit 'issuance and are due and payable by the Applicant prior to fins
inspection or issuance -of 'a certificate of occupancy. (See General Plan, p. 58, sec. 7.2) (See also'Section l Ld above) .
13. Utilities Infrastructure Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional "Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of a`newwater 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 facilities or expansion of existing "facilities, the
construction ofwhich.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 or may serve the project that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing "
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the;project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
•
Page 32
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
•
Page 32
Project Name: Rockriddge Point Page 33
10.
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No '
'Significant
..Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/N itigation
Impact
Incorporated
The proposed project site is currently outside of the Petaluma city lirrutsand'the applicant is requesting annexation to the City. If
the City annexes the project site, the City would be obliged to provide water and wastewater facilities and solid waste removal
services to the site.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Development "of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
established by the RWQCB. The ,project site would be served by existing sewer lines .located within the Southwest
Sanitary ewer Service Basin, an
y d the "C7 street pumping station and would be conveyed to an existing treatment plant
located between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad and the Petaluma Riyer, just west of Highway 101. The City operates
the wastewater treatment plant and expects to have adequate capacity to• accommodate the additional flow anticipated from
the proposed development (Curt Bates, City ofIPetaluma Engineering- Division, October 2001). Therefore, the impacts on
water treatment requirements would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not require construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities. The project site would'be served by existing utilities provided by the City of Petaluma (Curt
Bates, City of Petaluma Engineering Division, October 2001). An '8 -inch diameter sewer main runs through the project site
along Windsor Drive and connects to: a pumping station that was 'constructed for the Victoria subdivision project. Potential
increases in water usage resulting from development of the general area would be slight in relation to overall supply of the
City of Petaluma's water allocation's and treatment' capacity for'the site would be available (Curt Bates, City of Petaluma
Engineering Division, October 2001). Therefore, development of:the project would not result in significant impacts.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the,drainage facilities on -site could potentially result in
adverse environmental effects due to impacts on upland areas associated with aquatic habitats appropriate for California red-
legged frogs. Mitigation measures specified in Section 6 of this Checklist. Implementation of these measures would reduce
potential impacts to a less - than - significant level.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The applicant proposes that the City of Petaluma would provide water to the site. The City has
capacity available to provide water the site (Curt Bates, City of Petaluma Engineering Division, October 2001). See also
section 13.b. of this checklist.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Petaluma would provide wastewater treatment services for the proposed project.
Recent upgrades to the City'.s wastewater treatment plant and sewer collection system have increased capacity to meet future
needs for the vicinity. Therefore, development ofthe project would not result in a significant impact.
f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Given the scale ".of the proposed project site (62 single - family
restdences the City anticipates ample capacity to accommodate solid waste:,disposal:from the site. The:mitigation measures
listed below would minimiz impacts on landfill capacity from construction, debris and long -terns household waste. With
implementation of this these,measures, the project would have a less - than - significant impact on landfill capacity.
g) No Impact: The proposed project would be subject to compliance with all,federal, state and local requirements for solid
waste reduction and recycling. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorinll
1) To mimrnuzeim acts on landfill capacity. the ro'ec
I,
p � p rojec t t shall sheu.ld follow the. following measures: recycle construction and
demolition debris to the maximum extent feasible; and provide adequate space for the storage and collection of recyclable
materials at the proposed. development. _ Evidence of an intent to comply with. this measure shall be submitted with
lrnprovement'_ Plans:
14. Mineral Resources Would ,therprcject:
a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mine "ral x
resource that would be or value to the region and the
Page
Project Name: Rockriddge Point
residents or the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of ;'a locally- important
mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion:
Paae 34
Potential
Less Than
Less Tban
No
Significant
Significant
Significant '
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
-
•
a -b) No Impact. The proposed. project site has no known significant minerals and the'proposed development would °have no
impacts related to mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : None.
15. Cultural Resources Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource, as defined in §15064.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuantto § 15064.5.?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains,, including those, interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
x
x
x
Discussion:
Tom Origer and Associates conducted a cultural '. resources study`in 1996 for the previously proposed Hillside Village project.
A copy of this study is attached,as Appendix 1. The previous'study identified four potentially significant resources: a pre -1867
homestead; a small dairy complex (including a house and several barns' from the 1930s); a - stone fence; and 'two wells. (one
probably associated with the,pre -1867 homestead and one with the pre- 1910'house). Appropriate documentation in accordance
with California Department of Parks and Recreation ;regulations was completed for the dairy, complex and the stone fence.
However, the two wells and the pre -1867 homestead location could have 'historical significance and further study was
recommended (Origer 1 Because the pre-1867 homestead location was covered with excessiye 'vegetation, a proper
surface survey of the homestead site could not be conducted at the time. Evidence of the structure could be identified below
the vegetation or ground surface (DCE 1997). These potential historical resources would be removed during construction of
the proposed project.
a) Less Than Significant 'With Mitigation Incorporated. The two potentially significant historical resources on site that have
not yet been documented (the two wells and the pre - 1'867 homestead location) could be impacted during construction of
the proposed project. Further archival research, field investigation, and appropriate documentation would mitigate any
impacts. See the'.Mitigation Measures section below for more detail.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the previously prepared study, archival. research has
shown that isolated cultural artifacts such as arrowheads and spear points have been documented in the vicinity of the
project site. Therefore, there is the possibility that such resources could be encountered during, site preparation or
construction of the project. In order to avoid potential impacts, a monitoring program, carried out by a qualified
archaeologist, shall be .implemented during subsurface disturbance associated: with project construction. If, artifacts are
discovered during construction, they would be collected andpreseryed at an appropriate facility. Implementation of these
mitigation: measures would reduce the impacts to level less than significant.
Page 34
j7
Project'Narne: Rockriddge Point Page 35
0
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Iylitigation
Impact
Incorporated
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. It is not known if significant subsurface paleontological resources
exist in the area. In order to avoid potential impacts, a monitoring: program, carried'out by a qualified paleontologist or
archaeologist, would be implemented during; subsurface disturbance associated with project construction. If artifacts are
discovered during construction, they would be collected and preserved at an appropriate facility. Implementation of these
mitigation measures would reduce this impact to levels less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact.- There are no .known human remains., on the site. If remains should be discover_ ed during
construction, all construction activity in the area would be halted and the County Coroner notified immediately. Measures
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code 5097.98, and Health and Safety Code
7050.5 would be implemented.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring
1) Further archival research and field .suiveys shall be conducted in relation to the two wells and the pre -1867 homestead
location to determin shall h +veu to bal s ignificance. , Should the wells or homestead be determined to be historically
significant, p aavoided through . a monitoring program to be implemented during subsurface
disturbance associated with project construction and carried out bya qualified archaeologist. (DCE 1997).
2) To assure that archaeological and paleontological deposits are properly identified and protected, an archaeological monitor
shall be present during initial grading to final grade and site preparation. ''If prehistoric: or historical archaeological deposits
• are encountered, the monitor shall must', have the authority to temporarily halt construction in order to evaluate the
significance of the• deposit. If the deposit is, potentially 'significant and the deposit cannot be avoided by construction
activities, a data recovery program.;shall'be implemented. Such a'program shall include archaeological excavation of the
deposit, laboratory processing of artifactual materials, analysis of the recovered materials, and preparation of a report of
findings.
16. Agricultural Resources In dete whether- impacts to agricultural resources are significant .environmental
effects, . lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California. Department- of Conservation as an optional model, to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Iiiportance (Farmland) as shown on the .
maps prepared pursuant'to'the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non- agricultural use?
b. Conflict•with existing:zoning.fcr agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
C. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,
due to their locationor nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
x
x
i:0
scussion•
The California .Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is a voluntary land conservation
program.administered by counties and cities. Land enrolled in a Williamson.Actcontract entitles the landowner to a lower tax rate
in- exchange to restricting the use of their land to agricultural and open space purposes. The proposed project site was formerly
Page 35
Project Name: Rockriddge Point
Paqe 36
Potential
Less,Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
under a Williamson Act contract but the :contract expired in 2000 (DCE 1997). The proposed site is not considered prime
agricultural land and has °not been used for farming or crop production. in recent history.
.a) No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime- Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland Statewide Importance.
The site is categorized as Grazing Land, but no commercial grazing activity occurs on the site. Therefore, there are no
related impacts.
•
b) No Impact. The project site is not currently under a Williamson Act contract and current County zoning for the site is
Rural.:Residential, which would allow for low- density residential development. While one of the approval's being sought
by the Applicant is the prezoning of the site to Planned Unit Development, the project would`noi conflict with the zoning
of the site, therefore there; would be no impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not effect any agricultural areas - currently in
crop production. The site has recently been used for non - commercial cattle grazing. However the grazing value, of the
site is not considered significant.
Mitigation :Mea §itres /M nitoririQ Not applicable.
17. Mandatory. Findings of Significance.
a. Does. the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
.substantially reduce the habitat of fish -or wildlife - species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining'levels, threaten-to eliminate a plant or animal_
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered Plant-or
animal or eliminate important examples of themajor.periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively' considerable " means that the incremental effects of a
projectare considerable when viewed. in connection with,the effects of past projects, the.
effects of othevcurrentprojects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse.effects.on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
Yes No
X
X
X.
a) No Impact. Based upon the evaluation in this Initial Study, the proposed project'• would not have the potential to
significantly degrade the quality of the environment,. substantially reduce the habitat of `a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife .population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important. examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory providing that all of the mitigation measures outlined in this document are
implemented.
The property, contains several :.features with wetland characteristics that most likely meet CWA jurisdictional. criteria. The
Project would result in filling, approximately 0.050 acres of waters and 0.325 acres of wetlands. The applicant would
follow appropriate•protocol with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water. Quality Control Board and would
comply with any required mitigation for potential wetland impact. Therefore, the impacts wouldbe reduced to a less -than
significant level.
Several special status species or suitable habitat for such species, are present on the proposed project site. Early - blooming
special status plants that could" potentially occur on the site and have not been surveyed for include: Clark Hunt's
milkvetch (Astagalus clarianus), Baker's larkspur (Delphinium bakeri), dwarf downingia ( Downingia pusilla), and
Page 36
T
Project Name; Rockriddge Point Page 37 -
i s
Potential
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
fragrant fritillary (Fritilaria liliacea). In order to better assess the presence of these species on the site, additional surveys
would need to be conducted in early Spring (April).
Several raptors were observed on.site including American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and barn owls (Tyto alba). No nests
or nesting behavior were observed, but potential nesting habitat for raptors and bats, including Pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus) is present. Therefore, additional surveys for active raptor nests and bats should be conducted prior to clearing or
construction onsite.
Although California red- legged frogs (Rana aurora draytond) have not been found on site, suitable habitat is present on
the site. Filling of wetlands and springs on'site, potential disturbance of the creek and areas'surrounding:the creek and
potential impacts on water quality on -site or downstream could lead to significant impacts on red- legged frogs or their
habitat. Therefore, the applicant.would`be required to implement the mitigation measures listed in Section 6, Biological
Resources, in order to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The project would result in potentially minor short-term effects from construction activities such as particulate emissions
and erosion during construction. However, these possible impacts are considered' less than significant, an expected part of
construction, and would be addressed by the measures to lessen.,these effects to the extent practicable. There would be no
significant environmental impacts from the post - project operation of the Rockridge Pointe project.
b) No Impact. The proposed project wouldmot.have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long -term ones (a short-term impact on the environment'is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
• period of time while long -term impacts would endure well into the future). Relatively minor impacts may occur from
construction activities, but these effects would`be of short duration and not cumulatively considerable.
c) No Impact. The development ofthe proposed projectwould not,have environmental effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,' either directly or indirectly. ,Potential environmental impacts have already been
discussed as part of the evaluation. Less than significant impacts would be primarily limited to short-term construction-
related impacts.
I, , the project applicant,, have reviewed. this Initial Study and hereby
agree to incorporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified•herein into the project.
Signature of Applicant
Date
SAK- Planning Commission\IS\Rockridge.doc
•
Page 37
a �AL'U City of Petaluma, Cal fornia
Community Development Department
Planning Division
•' 185$ : 1.1 English Street, Petaluma, CA'94952
Project Name: Rockridge Pointe
File Number: AfNX 00002, PRZ 00001, PUD 00004, TSM 00003
Address /Location: Windsor Drive at Western
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures
This document has been developed pursuant to, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to
ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
4rv�llld +Ihd^ Jx �,�
Q @ 5�uP4 1 �46
,
�'
!�I�rOWDUE' + i�', FINISRV!
�DATEp l �li eEii ��PA���lah��lll
Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures
1. The Applicant shall contribute to, the City's affordable housing program pursuant to the
of the Housing Element of the Petaluma General Plan. The Applicant shall participate
through: (a) payment of an in -lieu housing fee for each residential lot payable at the
• close of escrow for each lot or residential unit; (b) dedication of land to the City for
development of affordable Housing; or, (c) provision of between 10 to 15 percent of the
units at below- market rents or prices as described in the General Plan.
2.. A.landscaped buffer zone shall be provided along the northern boundary of the property.
This buffer ,zone shall be developed as a natural band of vegetated open space with
variation in vegetation types andrsizes and shall not be a contiguous wall or hedgerow.
Only native vegetation shall be planted within this buffer. Vegetation that is planted
shall be mature, and shall provide necessary screening in all areas of the buffer within 3
years of project implementation. (DCE 1997).
3. The proposed project shall be reduced by one lot to be consistent with the General Plan
land use designation, which:allows 61 lots for this property.
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures
1. All disturbed areas (graded and repaired areas) shall be included as part of the common
area for the Home Owners Association.
2. Planned fills shall be properly keyed, subdrained, and benched into firm underlying
bedrock material, and the fill must be placed and compacted under soil engineering
observation and testing services. (Giblih Associates 1995)
L J
Department Requested By or Due Date Page 1
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering+ CO Certificate of .Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitorin
Rockridge Pointe
City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures:for Approval
3. Existing fills in planned improvement areas shall be removed for their full depth and
replaced as properly compacted fill. (Giblin Associates '1995)
4. In the event that structures are to be placed on the transitions between cut and fill, a
geotechnical engineer shall make design recommendations to minimize the potential for
differential settlements between cut and fill material.
5. Cuts and fills shall be revegetated..
6. Annual maintenance inspections should be made of all cuts and fills and all drop- inlets
on all common areas to identify problems and correct them before they require major
repair. Such maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association.
7. Subsurface drainage facilities must be included as part of the fill slope construction to
reduce build -up of hydrostatic pressure. The soil engineer during the development of
final grading plans shall establish preliminary locations of recommended keyways,
benches, and subsurface drainage facilities. (Giblin Associates 1 -995).
8. Post - tensioned slab foundations for; residential structures shall "be design_ ed to resist vA
movements associated with the shrinking and swelling of'expansive clay soils. (Giblin
Associates 1995).
9. The project soil engineer .shall be consulted to provide specific recommendations for
foundation support of the structures to reduce the. risk of future, structural:distressresulting
from differential;supporting conditions. (Giblin Associates 1995).
10. Catchment and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations
contained :in the geotechnical study dated August 1995 and should be inspected and
maintained annually.
11. Following grading of each slope, cut and fill slopes' and areas disturbed during site
preparation shall be with deep- rooted, fast - growing, ground cover or native grasses to
reduce erosion. (Giblin Associates 1995).
�J
Department ReguestedBy or Due Date Page 2
PD Plari ing.Division PM 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
h
Rockridge Pointe City of Petaluma, California
. Reco - Mitigation'Measures for Approval
"� �1�' a I' IIPgI I P1 N rwy nYrWU iii aa' �� �tIN�
i �+ n,oi w i a�. id r n li ww l4i� ail iwu uiki�nun
12. The Applicant shall submit: an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by both a
registered professional engineer and by an erosion control specialist as an integral part
of the improvement plan. The Erosion. Control Plan shall include a post - construction
maintenance:.and monitoring. program for the detention basin, implementation of which
shall be, the responsibility of the Home Owners Association for the proposed
development. The Erosion. and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineering. and Planning Divisions, 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 Specific measures to be included in the ECP would be included as conditions of
approval.
13. The Creek Enhancement Plan shall be modified to include methods to protect the creek
and adjacent riparian habitat during.construction.
Air Mitigation Measures
1. The Applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices to limit fugitive dust and
exhaust emissions into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate
these provisions in the specifications. Specific; practices would be included as conditions
of approval.
The Construction Contractor shall adhere to the requirements addressing emission
control measures for asphalt paving emissions in the BAAQMD Rulebook.
Hydrolociy and Water Quality Mitigation Measures
1. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment
and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground
water. The Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction
plans and specifications, to be verified, by the Community Development Department,
prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
a. Thei applicant shall designate construction staging areas and areas for storage of
any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) used during
construction on, the improvement plans and the SWPPP. All construction
staging areas shall be located away from any stream . and adjacent drainage
areas to prevent runoff from,construction areas from entering into the drainage
system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include
proper containment features to prevent contaminants from entering drainage
areas in the event of a spill or leak.
r �
Department Requested By or Due Date Page 3
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
,ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Rockridge Pointe
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
r,,i DCPT � e� OR DUC � it FINISHEC jSTAFH.' .
`� .3^ D.�1T6 * '£i ; a L g INITIAL'S`
2. The applicant shall prepare an operation and maintenance: manual for the detention b
to include dredging and ongoing maintenance, to be submitted as part off
improvement plans.
3. Material and equipment: for implementation of erosion. control measures shall be on site
by September 15. All earth - moving. activity shall be completed by October 1, prior to the
on -set of the rainy season with all disturbed areas stabilized and revegetated by October
15.
Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
1) Preconstruction surveys for active, raptor nests, including barn owls, and shall be
conducted during appropriate seasons prior to any site grading, tree removal, or demolition
of buildings.
a) If nesting raptors are identified, the applicant shall avoid construction. in areas that would
disturb the nest until the young have fledged and are capable of flight on their own or the
nest is otherwise unoccupied. The applicant shall consult with the Department of Fish and
Game to establish appropriate buffers zones around occupied nests.
City of Petaluma, California
b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete -or washings thereof, or other
construction related m ateri als or wastes, oil or petroleum, products o2 other
organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All
discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be
removed and disposed of at an approved disposal sites The Applicant shall
designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities .on the construction
plans or in the specifications.
No heavy equipment shall be' operated in any creek . channel.. All in- stream
channel work shall be limited to the dry season (typically .defined as May 1 st
through October 15th) and performed in accordance with conditions specified
by the Dept. of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement and the
Army Corps Section 404 Permit. The applicant; shall, provide ; a copy of the
approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the
permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of
grading permits for work within any channel.
•
Department
R equest
PD Planning Division
FM
FM Fire Marshal
BP
ENG Engineering
CO
BD Building Division
SPARC
LTM
Building Permit
Certificate of Occupancy
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
Long -Term. Monitoring
Page 4
Rockirld §b Pointe
.wrkl �I� �I ��u lull ��Y�i IW i� x'+41 w 4i'i il�i � ��BIMaN w'd�iN,�
xRE��C�i I. �iREQ f ���i,D';1TE55uuG� ����DCPT h ((��
�i� DEPT��� IiORDL�C'ti� �FLYISIaEC�f �ru STAFF(
lh IAITI�LS�',
ue rn
City of Petaluma, California
b) If barn owls and/or bats are found nesting or roosting in the buildings on the site, the
applicant shall °prepare and implement plans to replace lost nesting /roosting habitat. The
plans, shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and shall
include _measures such as construction, and installation on nest and/or roost boxes within the
preserved open. space portions of the .site. The plan shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director for review and approval.
2) 'Because of the potential impacts. (take) of red = legged frogs and habitat in and adjacent to the
creek and springs /seeps located on the site, the applicant shall submit evidence to the
Community Development Director that the project. is in compliance with the Federal
Endangered Species Act prior to any site grading. Evidence of compliance can include a
letter from the. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stating the project will not effect the frog, a
valid Biological Opinion from a Section 7 consultation, or A Section 10a permit. The
applicant shall also ;provide evidence to the Community Development Director that any
required,habitat mitigation required by the Service has been implemented prior to occupancy
of the project.
3) Grading and improvement plans shall show location and number of trees to be preserved
(i.e., valley oaks, buckeyes and bays) and shall include measures for their protection.
4) - The applicant. shall mitigate for the loss of California red- legged frog aquatic and upland
habitat .through preservation and enhancement of existing habitats. At a minimum, the
applicant shall preserve a minimum of ' l acre of upland habitat for every acre of upland
habitat ,impacted, by the project. This preserved acreage can be satisfied with the proposed
open space dedication. The applicant shall also provide additional mitigation for impacted
aquatic habitat at a minimum l sa ratio. 'The amount of upland and aquatic frog habitat on the
site shall be- deteimned.in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5) The applicant shall also implement appropriate protection measures as outlined in the
Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act .Consultation On Issuance Of Permits Under
Section 404 Of The Clean Water Act Or Authorized Under Nationwide Permit Program For
Projects That May Affect The California, Red- Legged Frog (U.S. Fish: and Wildlife Service,
January 26, 199,9). These measures are- designed to minimize the potential for adversely
impacting: red- legged.frogs during. construction activities.
a) A survey of the- watercourses on the project site shall be conducted by a USFWS- approved
biologist two weeks 'before the : onset of construction activities. If California red- legged
frogs, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved biologist shall contact the USFWS to
determine if moving any of these life stages is appropriate. Only USFWS- approved
biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring
of California red- legged frog.
Department Requested By or Due Date
PD Planning Division FM Final Map
FM Fire Marshal BP Building Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan.and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
Page 5
Rockridge Pointe
2
City of Petaluma, California
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
�.
b) Before any construction activities begin on the ;project, USFWS- approved ;biologists shall
conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall
include: 1) a description of the California red - legged frog and habitat 'for this species; 2) the
general measures that are being implemented to conserve the red- legged frog; as they relate
to the project; and 3) the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
c) A USFWS- approved biologist shall be present at the work site; until such time as all removal
of red- legged frogs (if found), 'instruction of workers, and habitat disturbance has been
completed. After that time, the contractor or permittee shall designate a person to monitor
oh-site compliance'with all minimization measures. Thesmonitor and the USFWS= approved
biologist`, shall have the authority to halt any action that might result in impacts that exceed
the levels anticipated by the Corps and the USFWS.
d) During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall'be contained and removed .
from the project site regularly.
e) -All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment, and staging areas, shall be
located at least 20 meters (65.6 feet) from the watercourses. Prior to the onset of work, the
City planning staff shall ensure that the project proponent has prepared a plan to allow a
prompt and'effective response to any accidental spills into the watercourses. All w
shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and the appropriate measures to
should a spill occur.
f) The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and. total area of the 'activity
shall `be .limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project: Routes and boundaries
shall be clearly defined; and these areas shall be Iocated;outside the riparian corridor.
g). Earth- moving activities (e.g., grading) shall be completed between April 1 and October 1.
Should the project proponent demonstrate the need to conduct activities, outside this period,
approval from the USFW would be required.
6) The applicant shall conduct appropriately timed early season (minimum March and April)
surveys to confirm the absence of' special status plant species, such as Clara Hunt's milk
vetch (Astragalus clarianus), dwarf downingia (DoWningia pusilla), and fragrant. fritillary
(Fritillaria lilacea). If federally listed special status species „are found, the U.S..Fish and
Wildlife Service shall be contacted and the appropriate mitigation measures shall be
implemented. If California -state listed or California Native Plant Society listed. special
status species (lists lb, 2 and 3) are found, the California,Department of Fish and Game shall
be contacted and associated mitigation. measuresshall be implemented. Probable .mitigation
measures would include the protection of the existing plant population and the replanting
and transplanting of plant species. A compensation plan shall be submitted' to the
Community Development Director for review and approval prior to grading.
Department
PD
Planning, Division
FM
Fire Marshal
ENG
Engineering
BD
Building Division
Requested By
or_D�u`e.Date
FM
Final Map
BP
Building Permit
CO
Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM
Long -Term Monitoring
Page 6
t .
r.
R®ckridge !Pointe
City of Petaluma, California
Re rtingli0bri t fing Record; - Mitigation- Measures for Approval
e
7) The applicant shall prepare and implement a plan to mitigate the loss of impacted wetlands.
At a minimum, .the plan shall',replace impacted wetlands at a ratio of 1 (mitigation): 1
(impacted). Preferably, the mitigation areas shall be located onsite or on open space lands
adjacent to the project site. =If offsite,(greater than 1 mile from the site) mitigation is
necessary, the ratio, should increase to 2:1. The applicant shall submit the mitigation plan to
the Community Development Director for 'review and approval prior to site grading. The
applicant shall also provide evidence to the Community Development Director that the
applicant has complied with and obtained appropriate permits and with applicable
regulations of the U.S. Army -Corps of Engineers the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
the Califomia Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Noise. MitigationMeasures
All' construction. activities shall comply Vith applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
1) In order to minimize potential impacts related to construction noise, construction activities
shall be limited to. between '7 am. and 7 pm. Monday through Friday, unless a permit is
first 'secured from' the City Manager (or, his /her, designee) for additional hours. No
construction shall be permitted on iSundays or 'City of Petaluma recognized legal holidays.
There will be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 7:00 a.m., Monday through
Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment,prior to 7:30 a.m nor past 5:00 p.m, Monday
through Friday; no cleaning of "machines nor equipment past 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday; ono servicing of equipment past 6 :45 p.m., Monday through Friday.
2) All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly
muffled-and maintained to minimize Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
3) Construction maintenance, storage; and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid
proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction
equipment, 'such as compressors, mixers, etc. shall be placed away from residential areas
and/or provided with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when
possible.
4) The Applicant shall designate a.Projeci Manager with authority to implement the mitigation
measures Who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood,
prior Ito issuance of a building /grading permit. The Project Manager's telephone 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..
Department
Requested By or Due Date
PD Planning Division
FM
Final Map
M Fire Marshal
BP
Building Permit
ENG . Engineering
CO
Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division
SPARC
Site Plan;and Architectural Review Committee
LTM
Long- Term
Page 7
Rockridge. Pointe
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval
Visual Quality and Aesthetics Mitigation Measures
•
1) Improvement Plans, including proposed architecture, lighting, and landscaping shall be
subject to review and approval by SPARC.
2) All exterior lighting shall be directed .onto the project site: and access ways and shielded to
prevent glare and intrusion:.onto adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted for SPARC
review and approval shall incorporate lighting, plans, which reflect the location and design of
411 proposed street lights, and any other exterior lighting proposed.
3) Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom,areas
and other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility.
Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections. or in other potentially light-
sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design 'features to screen
interior living space from the headlight glare.
4) In order to reduce potential impacts from light and glare; no illumination shall be installed
within a stream buffer zone or the designated open space area except for low :level lighting
along designated pathways adjacent to public streets or across pedestrian bridges.,
improvement drawings and landscape plans prepared for the' project shall reflect the; loc u
and design details of all light fixtures proposed. These locations and details shall be
reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and the Parks
and Recreation Director --prior to the approval of the final •map, improvement plans or
advertising for bids.
5) ' The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and the Parks and Recreation Director
shall review the landscape and lighting plans for the public improvements proposed within a
public park and designated open space area.
6) Shade trees shall be incorporated into 'building and 'iinprovement`plans along public streets
and within parking, areas in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review
Guidelines to reduce glare and provide shade.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures
1) For uses, including construction activities, involving storage of chemicals or hazardous
materials on -site, the Applicant shall file a declaration,form with Fire Marshal's office `and
shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit.
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 Planrand.Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term- Monitoring
City of Petaluma, California
Rockrldg'e Posnte City of Petaluma, California
Igq9�u i dM�� �I VIII !I'P�f�1�I�J� liii � i 6�i n�t.;1N uVB iu� � v �Rgflrllpl�li�i I' t
i���UEPT d,�v 4 $ r ORDUE a � i�rINISHEC� �'�STAFF'���
2) If hazardous materials are used or stored on -site, the Applicant shall prepare a Risk
Management. Plan (RMP) and ,submit for review and approval by the Fire Marshall prior to
issuance of a. certificate of occupancy or grading or building permit for construction
activities. The RMP shall include the following as appropriate:
a) The Applicant,shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous
materials and shall maintain emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire
Marshall, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities.
b) The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination
existing on -site and shall provide for proper treatment, removal and disposal during
construction.
3) If any vapors or other signs of contamination are detected during project construction, all
local state, and federal requirements for remediation and disposal of contaminated materials
shall be followed.
4) The applicant shall comply with all existing: Federal and State safety regulations related to
the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances on
the-site.
5) A qualified asbestos abatement specialist shall perform the asbestos mitigation (i.e., removal
oft h asbestos - containing linoleum in the residence) prior to demolition of the building. An
.environmental professional shall also be present during demolition and pre - grading activities
to observe and ;monitor areas of the property that may have been obscured by the existing
buildings. (Engeo Inc. 1997)
6) Existing wells and septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state
regulations. (Engeo, Inc. 1997.)
7) Because this project site is located within a high fire hazard severity zone the applicant shall
comply with all mitigation measures recommended by the City of Petaluma Fire Marshal
(Memorandum dated August 20020): These measures are included as conditions of approval.
Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures
In order to preserve, sight distance, landscaping "the park along the existing creek along Windsor
Drive shall. be designed so that the line of sighfalong Windsor Drive from the new project site is
not impeded. Landscape details shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee and the 'Parks and Recreation Director prior to the approval of
the final map, improvement plans or advertising for bids.
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
Rockridge Pointe City of Petaluma, California
Rec ReportinglMonitoring - Mitigation Measures for Approval
'RE�IE�1 - RCQ'�BY � UQTE i � -DEPT
Public Services Mitigation Measures
1) In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall, be responsible for payment of
Community Facilities Development fees to offset the impacts to public facilities: Fees shall
be calculated by the City the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by
the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy..
2) In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park
and Recreation Land Impiovetnents fees. These fees provide for acquisition, 'development
and improvement of neighborhood and community park and.recreation facilities. Fees shall
be calculated by the City at the time of building permit issuance and,are due and payable by
the Applicant prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
3) In accordance with City regulations, the Applicant shall be responsible for .payment of
School .Facilities fees. Fees - shall be calculated by the City at the time of building permit
issuance and are due and payable directly to the school - district by the Applicant prior to final
inspection or issuance of a certificate . of occupancy. The Applicantshall provide a receipt or
proof of , payment of school .facilities fees . to the City Building. Division prior to final
inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. •
Recreation Mitigation Measures
To mitigate for the increased demand for recrational facilities generated by an increase in
residents in the area, the applicant shall be responsible for payment of Park and Recreation Land
Improvements fees. These fees provide for acquisition, development and iinprovemerit of.
neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities. Fees shall be calculated by the City
at the time of building permit issuance and are due and payable by the ,Applicant prior to final
inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (See General Plan, p. 58, sec. 7.2) (See
also Section l Ld above).
Utilities infrastructure Mitigation Measures
To minimize impacts on landfill capacity, the project shall follow the following measures:
recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent feasible; and provide adequate
space for the storage and collection of recyclable materials at the proposed development.
Evidence of an intent to comply with this measure shall be submitted with improvement plans.
Department
PD Planning Division
FM Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering
BD Building Division
Reguested,By
or Due,
FM
Final Map
BP
Building Permit
CO
Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM
Long -Term Monitoring
Page 10
Itockridge Pointe City of Petaluma, California
Rec r
.Re orting/Monitoring u rnra i ii i e m u L 7Pr k� tl
iaaa u
�� DEPT i��i� �ORiDUC i�FINISHEC ��STAFt��+�
i��IWp i �l Q� iuny�W I(pp�ri N I� r it lii�
Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
1) Further archival research and field surveys shall be conducted in relation to the two wells
and the pre -1867 homestead location'to determine their historical significance. Should the
wells or homestead be determined to be historically significant, impacts would be avoided
through a monitoring program to be implemented during subsurface disturbance associated
with project construction and carried out by a qualified archaeologist. (DCE 1997).
2) To assure that archaeological and paleontological deposits are properly identified and
protected, an archaeological monitor shall be present during initial grading to final grade and
site preparation. If prehistoric or ; historical ,archaeological deposits are encountered, the
monitor must have the authority to temporarily halt construction in order to evaluate the
significance of the deposit. If the deposit is potentially significant and the deposit cannot be
avoided 'by construction activities, a data recovery program shall be implemented. Such a
program shall include archaeological excavation of the deposit, laboratory processing of
artifactual materials, analysis of the recovered materials, and preparation of a report of
findings.
S:\Tnonitoiing\rockiidgepointe.doc
Department Reguested:By or Due Date Page 11
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