HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 94-64 03/21/1994R~SOIUtIOrl N~. 94-64 N C.S.
1 of the City of Petaluma, California
2
3 A RESOI..UTION OF TIIE CITX OF PETAL~TMA ADOPTING SPECIFIC FINDINGS
4 REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
5 MONITORING FOR THE ROITNDWALK VILLAGE PROJECT
6 (APN 048-080-037)
7
8 WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act provides that all local agencies
9 prepare or cause to be prepared, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), for any project
10 intended to be carried out or approved, which may have a significant effect on the
11 environment and that said local agency shall certify the adequacy of the EIR; and,
12
13 WHEREAS, an application for a General Plan amendment from Industrial to Urban High
14 was submitted on November 19, 1991 and deemed complete on February 2, 1992; and an
15 application for a Rezoning from M-L: Light Industrial to PUD: Planned Unit
16 Development, and request for approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan with a 40%
17 density bonus was submitted on November 8, 1993, and was deemed complete on
18 December 8, 1993; and,
19
20 WHEREAS, a DEIR was prepared for the project, published and then circulated for public
21 comments between February 3, 1994 and March 21, 1994; and,
22
23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after holding two public hearings on February 23,
24 1994, and March 8, 1994, recommended that the DEIR be forwarded to the City Council,
25 together with comments made at the public hearings and responses thereto, for
26 certification, based on the findings listed in the minutes of their March 8, 1994 Planning
27 Commission meeting; and,
28
29 WHEREAS, the Planning Commissions recommendation was forwarded to the City
30 Council for consideration at their March 21, 1994 meeting; and,
31
32 WHEREAS, the City Council of Petaluma certified the FEIR for the Roundwalk Village
33 project as adequate on March 21, 1994 by Resolution No. 94-s3 NCS; and,
34
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council, in connection
36 with the certification, approval and adoption of the FEIR on said project, hereby makes the
37 following findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091:
38
1
Res. No........_9.4-6.4...... N.C.S.
1 A. Potential impacts relating to Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality were
2 identified as follows:
3 '
4 Impacts
5 1. Construction of the project will increase the impermeability of the site,
6 resulting in increased amounts and velocities of storm water runoff
7 discharged to Capri Creek. (S)
8 2. Construction of the project would result in increased concentrations of
9 pollutants commonly associated with high-density residential development.
10 (S)
11
12 The identified impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
13 mitigation measure to be incorporated into the project:
14
15 Mitigations
16 1. At the discretion of the Director of Engineering, the applicant shall either
17 provide on- or off-site detention areas to provide storage capacity equal to
18 the calculated increase of runoff from the project site, or pay a fee to the City
19 of Petaluma to provide for such on- or off-site storage (City of Petaluma
20 Municipal Code, Chapter 17.30). Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding:
21 Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
22 Responsibility: City Engineering Department (design review and approval,
23 or imposition of fees); Applicant/Developer (design and construction of
24 detention basin, or payment of fees).
25
26 2. The project's storm drain system shall be designed to meet Sonoma County
27 Water Agency's Flood Control Design Criteria. Mitigates: Impact 1 (I).
28 Funding: Applicant. Timing: Prior to submitting of Grading and Building
29 Permits. Responsibility: City Engineering Department (design review and
30 approval); Sonoma County Water Agency (design review and approval); and
31 Applicant/Developer (design and construction of storm drainage system).
32
33 3. Provide an energy dissipator at the outfall (Capri Creek) of the project's
34 storm drain system. An energy dissipator is a physical device composed of
35 rock, grouted riprap, or concrete rubble which is placed at the outlet of a
36 pipe or channel to prevent scour of the soil caused by high flow velocities,
37 and to absorb flow energy to produce non-erosive velocities. Mitigates:
2
Rest. ~`~ ~ ~ L4- ACS
1 Impact 1 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of
2 a Grading Permit. Responsibility: City Engineering Department (design
3 review and approval); Sonoma County Water Agency (design review and
4 approval), and Applicant/Developer (design and construction of structure).
5
6 4. A grading and erosion control plan shall be developed and implemented
7 during construction in accordance with Chapter 17.31 of the City of Petaluma
8 Municipal Code, and the requisite permit obtained. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I).
9 Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading
10 Permit (plan submittal) and on-going throughout construction.
11 Responsibility: City Engineering Department (review plans, issue permit,
12 and implementation); Applicant/Developer (develop and implement plan,
13 obtain permit); and Public Works Inspector (monitoring during
14 construction).
15
16 5. Label storm drain inlets with the phrase, "Do Not Dump, Flows to Capri
17 Creek," or its substantive equivalent. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding:
18 Applicant/Developer. Timing: After construction, prior to occupancy of
19 each phase. Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (implementation).
20
21 6. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to the project's landscaped
22 areas during the wet season (October -April). When irrigating the
23 landscaped areas, avoid overwatering so that runoff does not flow onto
24 streets or into storm drains. These measures will reduce the discharge of
25 water which may have been contaminated with nutrients and pesticides.
26 These requirements shall be included in the project's landscape plan, and
27 should be specified in any landscape contracts let by the applicant.
28 Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: N/A. Timing: Prior to issuance of a
29 Building Permit (plan submittal) and on-going through the life of the project
30 (implementation). Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plans,
31 implementation, and monitoring); Landscape Contractor (implementation);
32 and City Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments (plan review and
33 approval).
34
35 7. Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain coverage under the State of
36 California General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
37 (NPDES) Permit for Construction Activities (General Permit) and develop
3
~es~. G-~-~~NCS
1 and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
2 Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to
3 grading. Responsibility: Regional Water Quality Control Board (General
4 Permit); Applicant/Developer (prepare SWPPP and submittal of evidence of
5 obtaining a General Permit to the Planning Department).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
B. Potential impacts relating to Biological Resources were identified as follows:
Impacts
1. The direct loss of the 1.5 acres of ruderal/disturbed vegetation, 0.53 acres of
landscaped ornamental vegetation, and associated wildlife resource values.
(I)
2. Removal of eucalyptus trees that fall under the classification of landmark
trees and major groves. (PS)
3. Cumulative loss of 0.44 acre of seasonal wetlands. (PS)
The identified impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
mitigation measures:
1Vlitigations
1. Removal of any trees on the project site shall be completed during the
nonbreeding season (August through February) to avoid disturbance,
reproductive failure, and possible mortality of nesting birds and other
wildlife. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing:
Prior to or upon commencement of construction. Responsibility: City
Planning Department (approved and monitoring), Applicant/Developer
(compliance).
2. Landscape plans shall clearly state the use of native trees and shrubs which
have greater value to nesting birds acid other wildlife to the maximum extent
feasible without compromising the need for providing attractive, useful
outdoor places for humans. Recommended trees include coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California laurel
(Umbellularia californica). Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding:
Applicant jDeveloper. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading or Building
Permit. Responsibility: City Planning Department (approval and
monitoring); Applicant/Developer (submittal of landscape plan in
compliance with recommendations and implementation of measures).
4
Reso • 9'-1-- l~'~-~'~1CS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 C.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3. A permit must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers if any of the
jurisdictional areas will be filled. Responsibility: City Planning Department
(plan review, approval and coordination with the Corps),
Applicant/Developer (revisions to plans, coordination with the Corps, obtain
Corps permit, and submittal to the City Planning evidence of Corps permit);
Corps (plan review and approval). Mitigates: Impact 3(I). Funding:
Applicant/Developer. Timing: Corps approval must be obtained prior to
grading. Responsibility: City Planning Department (plan review, approval
and coordination with the Corps) Applicant/Developer obtain Corps permit,
and submittal to City Planning evidence of Corps permit; Corps (plan review
and approval).
4. The applicant shall clear the ruderal vegetation from the eastern side of
Capri Creek and plant native riparian trees and shrubs acceptable to both
CDFG and SCWA. The applicant's landscape plan shows compliance with
this recommendation. Mitigates: Impact 3 (I). Funding:
Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading and Building
Permits (submittal of landscaping plans). Responsibility: City Planning
Department (plan review, approval, and coordination CDFG and SCWA);
Applicant/Developer (plans and coordination with CDFG and SCWA).
A potential. impact relating to Cultural and Historical Resources was identified as
follows:
Impact
1. Prehistoric and historic materials may be present within the project area
which were not visible during the ground-surface inspection; the potential
remains for buried material to be present. Project subsurface construction
activities could encounter such resources. (PS)
The identified impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
following mitigation measure:
1Vlitigations
1. The Applicant/Developer shall inform in writing all construction contractors
and subcontractors of the possibility of discovering buried archaeological
materials and include this notice on the improvement plans. The written
notice will include descriptions of the types of materials to be aware of (e.g.,
Reso . q ~ - la ~- N~5
5
1 locally darkened soil, chipped stone, fire-cracked rock, bone, ceramics,
2 bottles, and foundation remains). This notice will also inform construction
3 contractors and subcontractors of the process to follow for treatment of
4 fortuitously discovered cultural resources. In the event that archaeological
5 remains are encountered during grading and/or other ground preparation
6 activities, work shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be
7 consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend further action.
8 The local Native American community shall also be notified and consulted
9 within the event any Native American archaeological remains are uncovered.
10 In summary, this process will require the supervising contractor to stop work
11 at once within 100 feet of the find and contact the City Planning Department
12 which will assume responsibility for retaining a qualified archaeologist at the
13 expense of the project developer to assess the find and recommend
14 appropriate mitigation measures. No further work is to occur within this
15 area until the appropriate mitigation measures .have been implemented. In
16 the event of the discovery of human remains, the City will assume
17 responsibility for contacting the County Coroner and for facilitating
18 communications with the Native American Heritage Commission, as
19 appropriate. Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer.
20 Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. Responsibilities:
21 Applicant/Developer (draft of notice and submittal to City Planning
22 Department, implementation, site check, and coordination with City
23 Planning Department. City Planning Department (approval and
24 monitoring).
25
26 D. Potential impacts relating to Traffic and Circulation were identified as follows:
27 Impacts (Site Access, Internal Circulation and Parking)
28 1. Need for a separate turn lane on McDowell Boulevard North: the absence
29 of a separate northbound left turn lane on McDowell Boulevard North (to
30 site access driveway #1) would result in a high potential for rear-end
31 collisions due to turning movements being made from a relatively high-speed
32 through lane and operational problems (slow-downs in the flow of through
33 traffic due to vehicles slowing to turn from high-speed through lane). These
34 would be significant safety and operational impacts. (S)
35
36 2. As described above (refer to "Constrained Analysis"), the absence of a
37 separate right turn lane on the eastbound (access driveway #1) approach to
6
Re s~ . q ~ - lQ-~r KCS
1 the McDowell Boulevard North/Palo Verde Way intersection could result in
2 back-ups for existing traffic and deterioration in the intersection service level
3 operation, resulting in a significant impact for peak hour traffic. (S)
4
5 3. Access Driveways #1 and #2 at 22 feet wide, are not wide enough to
6 accommodate large vehicle (heavy trucks such as garage/recycle trucks)
7 turning movements into and out of the site. The curb radius at the corners of
8 both driveways is 5 feet, forming too tight (restricted) a turning space for
9 large vehicle turning movements. These are considered significant impacts.
10 (S)
11
12 4. The space provided at both access driveways for entering and exiting vehicles
13 to stack (upon entering the site, or while waiting to turn out of the site) is
14 inadequate. There is barely room for one vehicle to wait free of conflicts
15 with internal parking spaces (i.e., waiting vehicles may block cars attempting
16 to back out of or pull into parking spaces; collisions can result from this
17 parking/driveway configuration). This is considered to be a significant
18 impact. (S)
19
20 5. The site plan appropriately allows for a loop roadway system with two access
21 points to McDowell Boulevard North. The size of aisle widths meet the
22 recommended minimum dimensions shown in the Traffic Engineering
23 Handbook, 4th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1992).
24 However, the intersections of the 24-foot wide internal roadways are too
25 narrow to comfortably and safely accommodate large garbage/recycle truck
26 turning movements without the truck intruding into the opposing travel lane.
27 Inadequately sized internal roadways is considered a significant impact,
28 requiring mitigation. (S)
29
30 6. Parking Analysis: the sizes of the proposed compact and full size parking
31 spaces meet or slightly exceed the minimum dimensions recommended in the
32 Traffic En ing Bering Handbook, 4th Edition, by the Institute of
33 Transportation Engineers (1992). However, a relatively large percentage
34 (41%) of the parking spaces shown on the .site plan are designed for compact
35 sized vehicles. This exceeds the City's Design Guidelines recommended
36 maximum of 34% and is considered to be a significant impact. The City of
37 Petaluma can make exceptions through the Planned Unit Development
7
Re-So ~ ~- -~~ isGS
1 (PUD) process. However, for purposes of this EIR evaluation, exceedance
2 of a recommended standard is identified as significant impact. (S)
3
4 7. The City of Petaluma requires a per unit contribution to the City's traffic
5 mitigation fee program.
6
7 The identified impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
8 mitigation measures:
9 1Vlitigations
10 1. Provide a separate left turn lane on the northbound approach to the
11 McDowell Boulevard North/Palo Verde/Access Driveway # 1 intersection.
12 This would require removing a portion of the existing raised median to allow
13 for a striped (painted) left turn lane. Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding:
14 Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit
15 (improvement plan approval). Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan
16 revisions and implementation); City Planning Department (plan review and
17 approval); City Traffic Engineer (plan review and approval).
18
19 2. Provide two outbound lanes, each 12 feet wide, on the Driveway # 1
20 approach to McDowell Boulevard North or as approved by the City Traffic
21 Engineer. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing:
22 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit (improvement plan submittal).
23 Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan revisions and implementation);
24 City Planning Department (plan review and approval); City Traffic Engineer
25 (plan review and approval).
26
27 3. At a minimum widen project access Driveway # 1 to accommodate large
28 vehicle inbound turning movements, with a minimum inbound .lane width of
29 14 feet, and two 12-foot wide outbound lanes or as approved by the City
30 Traffic Engineer. The total width of the driveway should be 38 feet or as
31 approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Driveway #2 should have 12-foot
32 inbound and 12-foot outbound lanes (total 24 feet). Both driveways should
33 have minimum 15-foot curb radii or as approved by the City Traffic
34 Engineer. Mitigates: Impact 3 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing:
35 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit (improvement plan submittal).
36 Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan revisions and implementation);
8
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
3b
37
City Planning Department (plan review and approval); City Traffic Engineer
(plan review and approval).
4. Provide Driveway # 1 and Driveway #2 sufficient inbound and outbound
vehicle stacking space to accommodate two vehicles (minimum SO feet,
measured from the McDowell. Boulevard roadway edge), free of conflicting
internal driveways or parking spaces. (This would eliminate 4 parking spaces
at each driveway). Mitigates: Impact 4 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit (improvement plan
submittal). Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan revisions and
implementation); City Planning Department (plan review and approval); City
Traffic Engineer (plan review and approval).
S. Design the internal roadways to adequately accommodate large vehicle
turning movements (fire trucks, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc.), so that
they can avoid intruding into the opposing traffic lane consistent with the
City's site design standards. This would require that aisles be widened to
accommodate turning maneuvers of single unit trucks. Mitigates: Impact S
(I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building
Permit. Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan revisions and
implementation); City Planning Department (plan review and approval); City
Traffic Engineer (plan review and approval); Cinnabar School District (plan
review); City Fire Department (plan review).
6. Ratio of compact to full size on-site parking spaces shall comply with the
City's Design Guidelines maximum of 30 percent compact size spaces, and
they shall be distributed evenly (and clearly labeled) throughout the site,
subject to review by City SPARC. Alternatively, the EIR traffic engineer
recommends that the site plan be revised to provide all "mid-size"
(approximately 17' x 8.5') .spaces, with no differentiation in parking space
size, maintaining 2 spaces per residential unit (with an additional 6 spaces
designated for use by the cafe/store, subject to review by SPARC. Mitigates:
Impact 6 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of
a Building Permit. Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (plan revisions and
implementation); City Planning Department (plan review and approval); City
Traffic Engineer (plan review and approval).
9
Resa. Q `~ - lo'-F ~! cs
1 7. The project applicant shall contribute to the City's traffic mitigation fee
2 program as required by City Ordinance 91-45. Mitigates: Impact 7 (I).
3 Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
4 Responsibility: ApplicantJDeveloper (payment of fees).
5
6 E. Potential impact relating to Air Quality was identified as follows:
7 Impact
8 1. The proposed project could have short-term impacts due to the generation of
9 dust during grading activities. However, with adequate dust control
10 measures during construction, this is not anticipated to result in substantial
11 air emissions or deterioration of the ambient air quality. (PS)
12
13 The identified impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
14 mitigation measure:
15 1Vlitigation
16 1. The potential air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions and from
17 vehicle and construction equipment emissions shall be reduced with
18 compliance with the BAAQMD air pollution control strategies and the City
19 of Petaluma Municipal Code (Chapter 17.31, Grading and Erosion Control).
20 Construction contractor shall create an erosion control plan that includes
21 measures of controlling fugitive dust. This plan shall be subject to City
22 review prior to granting construction and grading permit. The plan should
23 include implementation of the following dust control measures to reduce
24 dust generation.
25
26 During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation:
27 a. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used in sufficient quantities
28 to prevent dust raised from leaving the sites.
29 b. Minimize idling time for all heavy equipment to reduce on-site
30 emissions.
31
32 After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed:
33 a. Seeding and watering until ground cover is grown.
34 b. Wetting the area down, sufficient to form a crust on the surface with
35 repeated soaking as necessary to maintain the crust on the surface and
36 prevent dust pickup by the wind.
10
ReSo . Q ~' - l.c'~- ~ CS
1 c. As determined necessary by the City, sweep the construction area
2 adjacent to streets of all mud and dust on an "as needed" basis.
3
4 Activation of Increased IDust Control lYleasures:
5 a. The contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
6 control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to
7 prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday
8 and weekend periods when work may not. be in progress.
9
10 Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding: Contractor. Timing: Prior to issuance of
11 a Building Permit, upon commencement of site preparation, and ongoing
12 throughout construction. Responsibility: Contractor (submittal of plan,
13 compliance, and implementation); City Public Works Inspector (monitoring).
14
15 Recommended Action:
16 To assure compliance with TCMs and minimize cumulative effects to air
17 quality, the following measure is recommended:
18 a. The plan designs should incorporate Transportation Control
19 Measures (TCMs) that implement adequate improvements to assist in
20 the reduction of cumulative vehicle emissions through improving
21 traffic flows, minimizing stop and go traffic, and encouraging bicycle
22 and pedestrian use through the placement of bicycle paths and
23 pedestrian sidewalks and crossings. In addition, coordination with the
24 Sonoma County Transit and Petaluma Transit Districts should be
25 assured for consistence with TCM programs.
26
27 F. Potential impacts relating to Noise were identified as follows:
28 Ianpacts
29 1. The project site a buildout would not be a significant noise generator, but
30 could be exposed to exterior noise levels above the City's goal of L.an60 from
31 noise generating sources such as the NWP railroad, US Highway 101,
32 McDowell Boulevard North, and potential industrial noise (i.e., forklift and
33 truck operations, employee vehicle parking, and industrial processing) from
34 Southpoint Business Park. (5)
35
36 2. Building construction is anticipated to be in two phases and commence
37 sometime in 1994. Phase I is anticipated to be completed and occupied in
11
Re-sc~ ~ q ~!- - l~~ 1sCS
1 March 1995 and Phase II by February 1996. Construction noise during parts
2 of the day could affect residents in the area; however, this would be
3 considered a temporary impact. (PS)
4
5 The identified impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
6 mitigation measures:
7
8 Mitigations
9 Exterior Noise
10 1. McDowell Blvd. North: A six foot soundwall (refer to Figure 3-G-2 of the
11 DEIR), shall be constructed to reduce exterior levels for the first story levels
12 (outdoor living areas).
13
14 If there are locations where exterior La„60 is not fully achieved, assuming 6
15 foot fences are used, they should be reviewed by an acoustical engineer and
16 refined as designs progress during the design phase.
17
18 A two feet earthen berm planted with vegetation shall be installed in front of
19 the patio walls to provide for screening of patio walls and provide for some
20 additional attenuation from McDowell Boulevard North.
21
22 2. NWP Railroad Line. Six feet sound walls shall be constructed for those units
23 (a total of 23) along the rear property line to attenuate noise from the NWP
24 railroad line (refer to Figure 3-G-3 of the DEIR). In addition, exterior noise
25 levels upon the units located within the project's interior would be attenuated
26 by those units bounding the property lines.
27
28 Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to
29 issuance of a Building Permit. Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (project
30 plans, implementation, and review by an acoustical engineer), and City
31 Planning Department (plan review and approval) and Building Department
32 (plan review, approval, and inspections).
33
34 Interior Noise
35 3. NWP Railroad Line and McDowell Boulevard North. Structures closest to
36 the NWP railroad line (a total of 23) and McDowell Boulevard North (a total
37 of 14) shall be constructed with building materials (i.e., 3/16" glass windows
12
1 and insulation for a noise reduction by about 20-25 decibels) that would
2 further attenuate noise to acceptable interior levels of La„45 (average day-
3 night noise level). The orientation of operable windows and door openings
4 shall be discouraged on units that face directly toward noise sources that
5 exceed the noise compatibility standards. As an option, another method to
6 attenuate the interior levels to meet the La„45 would be to flip the upper and
7 lower floor plans for those units along McDowell Boulevard North and the
8 NWP railroad line (bedrooms on first level and living area on second level
9 and locating bedroom windows away from the sides of the units that face
10 directly toward noise sources that exceed the noise compatibility standards).
11 In addition, a report reviewed and/or prepared by an acoustical engineer in
12 compliance with the State Building Code (Part 2, Title 24) shall be prepared
13 to determine interior building requirements.
14
15 Interior noise levels upon the units located within the project's interior would
16 be attenuated by building materials used. Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding:
17 Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
18 Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (project plans incorporating measures
19 identified by an acoustic engineer and implementation) and City Planning
20 Department (plan review and approval) and Building Department (plan
21 review, approval, and inspections).
22
23 4. Southpoint Business Park and US Highway 101. Potential noise from
24 Southpoint Business Park and US Highway 101 shall be attenuated to
25 acceptable interior levels of La„45 (average day-night noise level) from the
26 building materials used (i.e., approximately 3/16" glass windows and
27 insulation for a noise reduction by about 20-25 decibels). Noise from US
28 Highway 101 will be further attenuated and reduced once Southpoint
29 Business Park is built out. Mitigates: Impact 1 (I). Funding:
30 Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
31 Responsibility: Applicant/Developer (project plans incorporating measures
32 identified by an acoustic engineer and implementation) and City Planning
33 Department (plan review and approval) and Building Department (plan
34 review, approval, and inspections).
35
36 5. The contractor shall comply with all vehicle codes pertaining to noise. All
37 motorized equipment shall be operated with the mufflers recommended by
13
~~e.so. q~--~~. cSCS
1 the manufacturer and construction workers provided with state approved ear
2 protection. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to
3 5:00 pm on weekdays, and no work shall be allowed on weekends and
4 holidays. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: Developer/Contractor.
5 Timing: Upon commencement of construction and ongoing throughout
6 construction. Responsibility: Contractor (equipment check) and City
7 Planning Department (site inspections).
8
9 G. Potential impacts relating to Public Services were identified as follows:
10 Impacts
11 1. The proposed project would not require additional Fire Department
12 personnel. The project would have cumulative impact on the Fire
13 Department because of the potential for additional fire and medical
14 incidents as well as the need to provide additional administrative services
15 such as inspections, plan reviews, and public education. (PS)
16
17 2. The site plan appropriately allows for a loop roadway system with two access
18 points to McDowell Boulevard North. The internal roadways provide for a
19 24-foot wide roadway (fire protection standard is 20-feet wide) between
20 parking stalls which is adequate fire protection access and a maximum turn
21 width radius of 48 feet which complies with the Fire Department's standards
22 for access requirements and all weather driving surfaces to support 20 ton
23 fire apparatus. However, the intersections of the 24-foot wide internal
24 roadways are too narrow to comfortably and safely accommodate large truck
25 movements without the truck intruding into the opposing travel lane. (S)
26
27 3. The Police Department beat four area is at its capacity for meeting officer-
28 to-population ratio.
29
30 Based on the Department's ratio of officers to population, an additional 0.48
31 sworn officer should be added to the City Police Department. However, the
32 City's general fund may not allow opportunity for additional police officers in
33 a timely manner. (PS)
34
35 4. The project could generate 40-50 additional elementary students which is
36 beyond what the school district believes they could accommodate. (PS)
37
Reso. q~ -~-~ uses 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The identified impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following
mitigation measures:
Mitigations
1. To assist in mitigating cumulative effects to the Fire Department, automatic
fire sprinklers, alarm systems, class "B fire rated roofing and exterior wall
siding, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, adequate vertical clearances,
hydrants, and "No Parking" signage placed where necessary shall be installed
in the project. Mitigates: Impacts 1 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer.
Timing: prior to issuance of Building Permit. Responsibility: City Fire
Department (plan review, approval and inspection), City Building
Department (plan review, approval and inspection), and
Applicant/Developer (submittal of plans and implementation).
2. The applicant shall design the internal roadways to adequately accommodate
large vehicle turning movements (fire trucks, garbage trucks, delivery trucks,
etc.) so that they can avoid intruding into the opposing traffic lane consistent
with the City's site design standards or as approved by the .City Traffic
Engineer. Mitigates: Impact 2 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing:
Prior to issuance of Building Permit. Responsibility: Applicant/Developer
(plan revisions and implementation); City Planning Department (plan review
and approval); City Traffic Engineer (plan review and approval); Cinnabar
School District (plan review); City Fire Department (plan review).
3. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the following: ample, vandal-proof
lighting fixtures along the pedestrian walkways and parking area; solid wood
doors or comparable material with dead bolts at athree-quarter to one-inch
throw and "peep holes"; and private security for the proposed recreation
area, cage/general store, and pedestrian walkways at night. The need for a
private security officer shall be re-evaluated on a yearly basis. Mitigates:
Impact 3 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer. Timing: Prior to Building
Permit approval and upon certificate of occupancy. Responsibility:
Applicant/Developer (plan design and implementation); City Police
Department (plan review and approval); and Building Department (plan
review, approval, and building inspections).
~eso ~ q ~ - (~ -~ ~ CS 15
1 4. Construction of two new classrooms shall be developed in a timely manner so
2 to accommodate the students generated by the project development.
3 Mitigates: Impact 4 (I). Funding: Applicant/Developer; School District.
4 Timing: To be determined by the Cinnabar School District. Responsibility:
5 Applicant/Developer (contribution of necessary fees and coordination with
6 the school district on timing of occupancy and phasing); Cinnabar School
7 District (collection of fees and implementation).
8
9 Recommended Action
10 For assuring student safety, the following measure is recommended:
11 1. Construction of a protected bus stop should be provided on-site if it is
12 determined that the existing off-site transit bus stop on McDowell Boulevard
13 North in front of the Southpoint Corporate Plaza office building is
14 inadequate to serve the School District's needs.
15
16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that potential alternatives to the project were identified
17 as follows:
18
19 1. No Project
20 2. Mixed Use Project
21 3. Lower Density Residential
22 4. Alternative Site
23
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 21081(c) of the California
25 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), the
26 above alternatives are found to be infeasible due to economic, social, technological and
27 other factors as follows:
28
29 1. No Project. Requiring that the site remain undeveloped would be inconsistent with
30 the City's Housing Element policy encouraging housing on under-utilized land.
31 Industrial development of the site resulting from no change in the General Plan
32 Land Use and Zoning designations would result in greater peak hour traffic impacts
33 and would eliminate the opportunity to provide a better land use transition between
34 the industrial park and the mobile home park.
35
36 2. Mixed Use. A mixed use project would have greater peak hour traffic impacts. No
37 significant impacts would be eliminated by this alternative.
38
1 3. Lower Density. A lower density alternative would be incompatible with adjacent
2 industrial uses and would not eliminate any significant impacts.
3
4 4. Alternative Site. The alternative site is not currently available to the project
5 developer. The alternative site at Baywood Drive, having similar land use planning,
b noise and traffic impacts would not eliminate any significant impacts. Additional
'7 impacts relating to the accessibility of the site, noise impacts on the site from
8 Highway 101 and Lakeville Highway are anticipated. In general the alternative site
9 was identified as having more impacts and requiring more mitigations than the
10 project site.
11
12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that implementation of the specific findings of mitigation
13 contained herein, shall be accomplished through the conditional approval of the PUD
14 Development Plan for the Roundwalk Village project and hereby incorporates, by
15 reference Resolution No. 9.73 NCS N.C.S. setting forth said conditional approval.
16
17
1g rdwkeir/dd12
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
y ( gut ) (1~,X1j~~~Qia~I) meeting ,._._._...___.-
Council of the Cit of Petaluma at a Re ar f°~
r
on the ..21st .............. day of ......~.4~Iax~la.........-...-........................-., 19:~.~.., by the _
following vote:
City Attorn y
AYES: .Nelson, Sobel, Hamilton, Shea, Vice Mayor Read, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: None
ABSENT: gar as ~ ~ ,
ATTES'T' : ..... ... ..................................................................~.........---......-. ~. .-.
--- . ~---- - -----------------••--•--.-....................--- •- G--•
City Clerl: Mayor
Council File ....................----°---...-.. 17
cn to-as xES. ~o........94.-6.4........ n+.cs.