Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 04/04/2005r. CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFOR A p ri l 4., 2005 AGENDA BILL i Agenda Title: Woodridge Planned Unit District. Discussion and Meeting Date: April 4, 2005 Possible Action Regarding a Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Approve a 1) Request for Rezoning to PUD 2) PUD Development Plan and Guidelines 3) a Vesting Tentative Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM Subdivision Map and 4) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for X 7:00 PM a 5 lot residential subdivision at 804 6th Street, APN 008-232-054, File# 03 -TSM -0010 (Moore/Gordon) Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar X Public Hearing X New Business ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation Department: Director:Contact Person: Phone Number: Community Michael Mqo* _ , Kim Gordon ._ s 778-4301 Development Associate Planppr Cost of Proposal: N/A Amount Budgeted: NIA Account Number: N/A Name of Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. "Draft" Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. "Draft" Ordinance Authorizing a Rezoning to Planned Unit District & Approving the PUD Plan and Guidelines 3. "Draft" Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map 4. Location Map, General Plan Map, Zoning Map 5. Planning Commission staff reports and Minutes Excerpt of 9/28/04 and 11/23/04 6. Initial Study 7. Noise Study 8. Public Correspondence 9. Proposed PUD Guidelines 10. Plans (Full Size & Reduced- Vesting Tentative Map, Unit Development Plan, Architectural Plans) Summary Statement: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on September 28 and November 23, 2004. After deliberating and taking public testimony, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve with conditions the request for rezoning to PUD, approve the Unit Development Map and Guidelines, and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for 5 residential lots and a private street on a 2.77 acre parcel Recommended Citv Council Action/Suggested Motion: The Planning Commission recommends adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Rezoning to PUD, Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit Development Plan and Guidelines. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attornev: Ap r`iive by City Manager: Date: Date: Date: ' LIAR Z 11 2005 k Today's te: Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: March 16, 2005 # s:/cc-city council/reports/woodridge v I CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 APRIL 4, 2005 3 4 AGENDA REPORT 5 WOODRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 6 7 Subdivision of one 2.77 acre parcel into 5 residential lots and a Private Street, Rezoning, Vesting 8 Tentative Subdivision Map, PUD Map and Guidelines, Mitigated Negative Declaration at 804 6rh 9 Street, APN APN 008-232-054 10 11 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 12 Proi ect Description 13 Steve Lafranchi of Steve Lafranchi & Associates submitted an application requesting approval of 14 a 1) Rezoning of a 2.77 acre parcel from R1-6,500 to Planned Unit District (PUD) 2) Vesting 15 Tentative Subdivision Map for a 5 -lot subdivision 3) PUD Map and PUD Guidelines and 4) 16 Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 17 18 The project includes subdividing the property into 5 lots and Parcel A. Parcel A would be 19 developed as a private street to provide access to Lots 1-4. The lots would range in size from 20 9,573 to 22,873 square feet. Lots 1-4 would not be developed as part of the project. Lot 5 would 21 retain the existing single-family residence and detached garage and outbuilding. 22 Proiect Approvals 23 Following Planning Commission review and City Council approval, the proposal would be 24 required to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of the Master 25 Landscaping Plan and PUD Guidelines. 26 General Plan Consistency 27 The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Urban Standard. This land use 28 designation is intended for single-family dwellings and has a density range of 2.1 to 5.0 units per 29 acre. Based on the gross acreage of 2.77 acres (including the proposed private street), the range of 30 units allowed for the subject property is 5.8 to 13.8. Based on the net acreage of 1.92 acres 31 (without the private street), the range of units allowed for the subject property is 4.0 to 9.6. The 32 project proposes to subdivide the property into 5 parcels. Planning Commission determined that 33 the 5 lots proposed as part of the project is consistent with the density due to the slope of the 34 property, access to the site, and consideration of neighborhood issues. 35 Zoning Consistency 36 The subject property is zoned One Family Residence District with a minimum lot size of 6,500 37 square feet (R-1 6,500). Due to the slope of the property, the project is also subject to the 38 requirements of the Hillside Residential Development Combining (HRD) District. Based on the 39 average slope of the subject property, the minimum lot size would be 12,894 square feet. Parcels 40 1-3 exceed this lot size. Parcels 4-5 do not comply with this minimum lot size. However, the 41 average slope of Parcels 4 and 5 is 12.5%, resulting in a minimum parcel size of 9,453 square feet. 42 Both parcels are consistent with this minimum lot size. Since a PUD allows for flexibility in the 43 application of the HRD requirements and all five parcels comply with the minimum lot size based G 1 on the slope their respective locations, Planning Commission determined that the lot sizes proposed 2 are consistent with the intent of the HRD District. 3 4 The project includes a rezoning to PUD. The neighborhoods surrounding the subject property are 5 zoned Rl- 6,500. This zoning designation allows single-family residences. The proposed project 6 is consistent with the residential uses allowed in the surrounding zoning district. 7 8 2. BACKGROUND: 9 10 Planninz Commission Review 11 On September 28, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project (See 12 Attachment 5, Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes Excerpts). The Commission 13 heard public testimony, closed the public hearing and deliberated on the proposed project. The 14 public comment included support of the project, as well as concerns related to an increase in 15 traffic, drainage, noise, and access. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant 16 consider the following items and continued the item to the October 28, 2004 hearing: 17 18 Olive Street Access 19 • Widening the Olive Street access 20 • Improving the site distance and safety 21 • Reducing the height of the retaining wall 22 23 PUD Guidelines 24 • Prohibiting accessory dwellings and detached structures 25 • Requiring SPARC review of all homes 26 • Increasing the setbacks for Lots 1-4 27 • Decreasing the buildable footprint for each lot 28 • Requiring houses to be stepped and to work with the topography 29 • Providing guidelines that reduce the mass of the homes 30 31 Miscellaneous 32 • Providing more developed site sections 33 34 On November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission reopened public comment and reviewed the 35 modifications to the project made by the applicant (See Attachment 5, November 23 Planning 36 Commission Minutes). The public comment included a request for consideration of an alternate 37 access to the project. The Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to forward a recommendation to 38 Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Approve a Rezoning, Vesting Tentative 39 Subdivision Map and PUD Map and Guidelines. The Planning Commission added a condition 40 that prior to the project being heard by the City Council the applicant provide a noise study that 41 included an assessment of the noise generated as a result of the increase in traffic that would be 42 created by the project. The applicant submitted a noise study prepared by Illingworth and 43 Rodkin (See Attachment 7). The noise study indicates that traffic generated by the project would 44 not substantially increase noise levels at properties adjacent to the access driveway or along the 45 local street network (See Attachment 7, Page 8). Therefore, the impact of project generated 46 traffic would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. The noise study 47 also evaluated construction noise. The study concluded that construction related noise could 48 result in a potentially significant impact and recommended four mitigation measures to reduce 49 this impact to a less than significant level (See Attachment 7, Pages 8 & 9). The initial study that F I was prepared for the project and reviewed by the Planning Commission includes mitigation 2 measures that are the same or more restrictive than the mitigation measures recommended in the 3 noise study (See Attachment 6, Pages 13 & 14). Therefore, no modifications to the initial study, 4 mitigations measures, mitigation and monitoring report, or conditions of approval have been 5 made, 6 7 New Neighborhood Correspondence: 8 Since the last Planning Commission hearing, staff has received one additional letter from the 9 neighborhood. The letter from Bill Tomrose, 121 Olive Street expresses concerns related to 1) 10 preservation of his existing views through 2) location and timing of subdivision boundary fence 11 construction 3) damage to existing landscaping on his property as part of construction of the 12 improvements for the subdivision 4) access to his property during construction of subdivision 13 improvements and 5) reconfiguration of the existing irrigation system on his property (See 14 Attachment 8). 15 The proposed PUD regulations include language related to the preservation of existing views and 16 require the future houses for Lots 1-4 to be reviewed by SPARC. A view analysis and story poles 17 would also be required as part of SPARC review of individual lot development (See Attachment 18 9, Page 1, Item A & Page 3, Item E), The applicant has indicated that subdivision boundary 19 fencing and landscaping would be installed as part of the improvements for the subdivision. The 20 exact timing of the installation of the fencing has not been determined at this time. The applicant 21 has indicated that construction equipment would access the site via the existing private driveway 22 at Olive Street. However, access to the site during construction for the owners and residents of 23 101 and 121 Olive Street has not been addressed. The remaining issues raised by Mr. Tomrose 24 have not yet been addressed by the applicant, 25 ALTERNATIVES: 26 27 a. The City Council may accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission to 28 adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the rezoning of the subject 29 property to Planned Unit District (PUD), approve the 5 -lot Vesting Tentative 30 Subdivision Map, and approve the Unit Development Plan and PUD Guidelines. The 31 City Council may approve the proposed project with modifications to the conditions 32 of approval and/or modify the conditions of approval from the Planning Commission. 33 34 b. The City Council may deny the request to Rezone the property to PUD, the Vesting 35 Tentative Subdivision Map, and the Unit Development Plan and PUD Guidelines. 36 37 3. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 38 39 This is a private development subject to any applicable City Special Development Fees. 40 The project is subject to the cost recovery fee system; therefore, the developer is required 41 to pay all costs associated with processing the application. To date the City has collected 42 $11,845.50. Approximately 98 hours of staff time at a cost of $4,655 has been expended 43 to date. M 45 4. CONCLUSION: 46 47 The Planning Commission found that the proposed rezoning to PUD and Vesting 48 Tentative Subdivision Map would not have a significant environmental impacts and that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 R1 7. the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code and recommended that the City Council approve the project with conditions. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION: N/A RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance Rezoning the subject property to PUD and approving the Unit Development Plan and Guidelines, adopt a Resolution for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve a Resolution for a 5 -lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of 5 lots with a private street. S:Mreports/Woodridge a 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WOODRIDGE REZONING AND SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 8046 TH STREET, APN 008-232-055 WHEREAS, an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared and the results of the study indicated that the proposed Woodridge subdivision project, as mitigated, will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma held public hearings on September 28 and November 23, 2004, on the subject application, heard testimony and concluded that the findings and conditions as amended were adequate and recommended to the City Council approval of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Woodridge Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map proposal on April 4, 2005, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning potential environmental impacts resulting from the project before rendering a decision; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the following Findings and Mitigation Measures: Findinus for Approval of a MitiEated NeLyative Declaration: 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on a small site surrounded by development with none of the resources as defined in the Code. 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 1 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public 2 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, 3 Petaluma, California. 4 5 MITIGATION MEASURES 6 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the Woodridge Subdivision and 7 Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for the 8 Woodridge Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 9 10 sAcc-city councilVesos400dridge mnd 11 12 4- 1 ATTACHMENT 2 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. N.S.C. 3 4 Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember 5 6 7 8 9 REZONING A 2.77 ACRE PARCEL, APN 008-232-055, TO PLANNED UNIT 10 DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE UNIT DEVELOPEMTN PLAN AND 11 GUIDELINES TO ALLOW FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND A PRIVATE 12 STREET AT 804 6TH STREET 13 14 WHEREAS, by action taken on November 23, 2004, the Planning Commission 15 considered the proposal and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve 16 the Rezoning to PUD; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental 19 Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and ,20 adoption of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to 21 address the specific impacts of the Woodridge rezoning and subdivision; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed project on April 4, 24 2005, after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the form 25 required by Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Rezoning; 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the Rezoning to 30 Planned Unit District subject to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures, and 31 Conditions: 32 33 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and 34 rezone the subject parcel from R1-6,500 to Planned Unit District (PUD) will 35 result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than 36 would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning 37 districts. 38 39 2. The proposed uses comply with the Planned Unit District designation, which 40 allows inclusion within its boundaries of a mixture of uses, or unusual density, 41 building intensity, or design characteristics, which would not normally be 42 permitted in a single use district, and to govern the development of residential I projects. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of 2 the PUD -Planned Unit District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 4 3. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be 5 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and 6 rezoning the site to Planned Unit District. 7 8 Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S.; and based upon the 9 evidence it has received and in accordance with the findings made, the City Council 10 hereby adopts an amendment to said Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., so as to pre - 11 zone said property herein referred to. 12 13 The City Council hereby approves the Unit Development Plan and Residential 14 Development standards subject to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures, and 15 Conditions: 16 17 1. The Planned Unit District Development Guidelines describe permitted and 18 conditional uses as well as those that would not be allowed to be established at 19 this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any nuisance to the 20 existing surrounding uses. 21 2. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been 22 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated 23 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential 24 impacts generated by the proposed Woodridge Planned Unit District. 25 26 3. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 27 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from R1-6,500 to 28 Planned Unit District (PUD). Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was 29 made that no significant environmental impacts would result. A copy of this 30 notice was published in the Arcus Courier and provided to residents and 31 occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements. 32 33 4. The adoption of the PUD Development Guidelines, as conditioned, are in general 34 conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and zoning regulations of the City of 35 Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally, the Fire Marshal 36 and Engineering Division have prepared conditions of approval to address safety 37 issues and design criteria for the construction of the buildings and design of the 38 site. 39 40 5. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the 41 adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in 42 residential uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing 43 surroundings. uses. The density standard under the proposed Development 44 Guidelines will be 2.6 units per acre (without the private street) which is 45 appropriate for the site and consistent with the General Plan. The guidelines for I the proposed development present a unified and organized arrangement of 2 buildings and facilities that are appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby 3 properties and adequate landscaping is included to ensure compatibility. The 4 guidelines shall also be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural 5 Review Committee. 6 7 6. The most logical development of the subject property requires that Parcels 1-4 be 8 accessed via a new private street with access from Olive Street in that the private 9 street is an extension and improvement of the existing access to the site, the site 10 has been designated for development by the General Plan, the project results in 11 the lowest density allowed under the General Plan, and the design of the private 12 street has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and City Engineer and determined to 13 be adequate. 14 15 16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 17 All conditions adopted in conjunction with the Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map -are 18 herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 19 20 MITIGATION MEASURES 21 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the Woodridge Subdivision and 22 'Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for the 23 Woodridge Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 24 25 S:Mordinances/sweedrezoneord 26 27 28 I ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.S.C. 4 5 APPROVAL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 6 WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL 7 LOTS AND A PRIVATE STREET LOCATED AT 8 8046 TH STREET, APN 008-232-055 9 10 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N.C.S., Assessor's Parcel Number 008-232-055 11 comprising 2.77 ACRES, has been rezoned to Planned Unit District; and 12 13 WHEREAS, by action taken on September 28 and November 23, 2004, the Planning. 14 Commission considered the proposal and forwarded a recommendation to the City 15 Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 5 residential lots and a 16 private street, date stamped March 28, 2005; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental 19 Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and 20 adoption of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to 21 address potential impacts of the Woodridge Rezoning and Subdivision project; 22 23 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Woodridge subdivision proposal on April 4, 24 2005, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning potential 25 environmental impacts resulting from the project before rendering a decision; 26 27 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Vesting 28 Tentative Subdivision Map subject to the following Findings and Conditions of 29 Approval: 30 31 FINDINGS 32 33 1. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent 34 with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision 35 Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 36 37 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and 38 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to 39 the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will 40 be installed, including water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 41 42 3. The site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development 43 proposed. 44 45 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause 46 substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will 1 occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating 2 that there would be no significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts. 3 4 5. The most logical development of the subject property requires that Parcels 1-4 be 5 accessed via a new private street with access from Olive Street in that the private 6 street is an extension and improvement of the existing access to the site, the site 7 has been designated for development by the General Plan, the project results in 8 the lowest density allowed under the General Plan, and the design of the private 9 street has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and City Engineer and determined to 10 be adequate. 11 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13 14 From the Planniniz Division (778-4301) 15 16 1. Prior to approval of improvement or building permit plans, the applicant shall 17 revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the 18 Improvement and Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval as 19 notes. 20 21 2. The plans submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 22 shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit 23 Development Plan, and Landscaping and Fencing Plan date stamped March 8, 24 2005, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 25 26 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative 27 Declaration for the Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map project 28 are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 29 30 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of 31 Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to 32 the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the 33 County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 34 35 5. Prior to final map approval, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 36 shall review the site plan design, the final PUD Guidelines, and landscaping, 37 fencing, and lighting plan. 38 39 6. All of the General Tree Preservation Guidelines and the recommendations for 40 individual trees included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004 and 41 the supplemental letters date stamped April 14, 2004, July 12, 2004 and September 42 10, 2004 are included as conditions and mitigations measures for the project. 43 44 7. On the improvements plans, the utilities (storm drain, sanitary sewer, etc.) and 45 concrete ditch on Lot 4 shall be relocated so that they do not encroach into the V. 1 dripline of Tree #20. The location of the utilities and ditch is subject to staff review 2 and approval. 3 4 8. On the improvements plans, the water main shall be relocated so that encroachment 5 into the driplines of Trees #1 through #15 is limited. The location of the water main 6 is subject to staff review and approval. 7 8 9. On the improvement plans, the existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced 9 portion of the dripline of the trees as recommended in the arborist's report. 10 11 10. On the improvement plans, the location and numbering of trees #14 and #15 shall 12 be consistent with the location and numbering of trees as shown on the site plan 13 included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004. 14 15 11. Improvements plans shall include the location of all protective tree fencing. The 16 fencing shall be cyclone and 5' in height. The location of the fencing shall be 17 consistent with the location recommended in the arborist's report from Horticultural 18 Associates date stamped February 4, 2004. All fencing is subject to staff review and 19 approval. 20 21 12. Prior to approval of final map and improvements plans, the CC & R's for the 22 project shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 23 24 13. The approved fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any grading 25 or construction and shall remain in place until the completion of the subdivision 26 improvements. 27 28 14. Any tree pruning required in order to install the improvements required for the 29 subdivision shall be reviewed by the project arborist and reviewed and approved by 30 staff. The work shall be done by or under the supervision of the project arborist. 31 32 15. Trees shown as "to be removed" on the approved plans shall be replaced at a ratio 33 of three (3) trees per interior lot (Lots 2, 3, and 4) and four (4) trees per corner lot 34 (Lot 1). These mitigation trees are in addition to the trees shown on the landscaping 35 plan and shall be installed as part of the development of Lots 1-4. 36 37 16. Removal of any trees not identified as "to be removed" is subject to staff review 38 and approval. The replacement ratio and species shall be recommended by the 39 project arborist and reviewed and approved by staff. 40 41 17. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 42 p.m. Construction activities that generate little or no exterior noise, such as 43 painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., are permitted on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. 44 to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by 45 the City of Petaluma. 46 13 1 18. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related 2 machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 3 4 19. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non - 5 holiday). between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6 7 20. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 6:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:00 p.m. Monday 8 through Friday. 9 10 21. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be 11 properly mufflered and maintained. 12 13 22. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal 14 combustion is prohibited. 15 16 23. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as 17 practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All 18 such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 19 20 24. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever 21 possible. 22 23 25. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the 24 contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any 25 local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall 26 determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) 27 and take measures to correct the problem. 28 29 26. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously 30 posted at the construction site and shall be included on the improvement plans and 31 building permit plans. 32 33 27. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding 34 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management 35 techniques for the protection of pedestrianibicyclists. The applicant shall be 36 required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and 37 bicyclists. 38 39 28. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent 40 feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill. 41 42 29. Lots 1-4 shall have Olive Street addresses. The applicant shall apply for the 43 individual lot addresses prior to final map approval. 44 0 1 30. Prior to City Council review of the project, the applicant shall submit a noise 2 study for the project that includes an evaluation of the increase in noise due to 3 project generated traffic. 4 5 31. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma's Municipal Code, the applicant 6 shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at the time of building permit 7 application, including, but not limited to sewer connection, water connection, 8 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities, in -lieu 9 housing, and traffic mitigation fees. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 32. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City. 21 From the Citv Engineer (707) 778-4301 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Prior to improvement plan and final map approval, the following Engineering conditions shall be met: 33. Site grading shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report. Prepare and submit the required documents for erosion control and surface water quality during and following construction. 34. Off-site street and gutter repair shall be constructed as indicated on the tentative map. 35. The proposed water main system shall be public and have the capacity to deliver a continuous fire flow as designated by the Fire Marshal. 36. New water services shall be 1.5 -inches in diameter with a 1 -inch meter. 37. All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to, electrical, communication and television shall be placed underground. 38. Maintenance documents shall be prepared and recorded for the private road, private sanitary sewer system and private storm drains. 39. Improvement plans and final map shall be prepared according to the latest City policies, codes, ordinances, resolutions and standards. l�5' 1 From the Fire Marshal (707)778-4389 2 3 40. The design of the private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road 4 reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. Any modifications to these plans require 5 approval from the Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. 6 7 41. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the 8 hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 121 Olive Street. 9 The language for the signs is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal. 10 11 42. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA-13D are 12 required in residential structures; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 13 square feet or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. These systems shall be 14 calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. 15 16 43. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure shall be in excess of 150 feet 17 from a fire hydrant. The last fire hydrant on the main shall be relocated from the 18 east end of the hammerhead to the west end closer to Lot 4. The location of fire 19 hydrants is subject to staff review and approval. 20 21 44. The minimum fire flow for this project is 1,000gallons per minute at a minimum of 22 26.9 psi. 23 24 45. Article 9 of the California Fire Code requires the height clearance to be a minimum 25 of 13' 6". Compliance with this requirement may require pruning of onsite trees. 26 27 From the Police Department 28 29 46. An address monument for Lots 1-4 shall be placed at the Olive Street entrance to 30 the private street and shall list the addresses for lots 1-4. 31 32 MITIGATION MEASURES 33 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the Woodridge Subdivision and 34 Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for the 35 Woodridge Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 36 37 Sxc/resos/woodridge.tsm 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 o UJ 0 a ,� c� � ( e8o =<pPj IBM -11 1__'IVI 1 AC out i 0? V'� WI 3NTM WK f, �v 10* L PAP Mau-! Ali! ' UK— pt r f � � � .� �� ', A/" Ilk yy RON A -51 A xM I PA MW,oo M -A t 77H ILIU, F7M > Safip ga _1Z -97 R54�,_ Jr_ -Sk VA AMIN SIR ING: 41 W0711 - S I �11 7C OM mill V T-11 7A p 151 77; wp X MINN. _41 PIC K 70q of"'AU3 MR` SAW 71'54, 17 0 2 U3 — Z S 4-4rr kW fv INV n' - (n Attachment 4 MIN Attachment 4 J W Z O 7 N Z ¢ J J Z w08 Z > wo v ��� 2wW0 �W�� �m BE ng�§IL I a '� Q 4 J ++ = Z 2 �- F U J p tU—i l~- (~ Y w O= Z tL W W C7 m O 'eyo9 ege�. $ e`` �. 0 3 j N }U H �W ¢¢�o=�n J�UZ���?�tacwna J JM�ZZZZ=wQOJ�F ¢¢UO�UZv� U »a¢¢UUU0'a�v�UUJOUJ¢Z s§ § 8. h !n»7 �Oln Z�:n a:n¢a�0 gS$'sg"egb� r®�0000aoo MIN Attachment 4 � i , � A«achmen 4 7 e z ��k 7 }} - k § )§\ ~«� �� �(/) )§/ )§ \ k������� Oo� L A §§8 k88° 2§§(§\//k//§\§( N�■ 04 §})�§�l2��kkkff§;£m» �� k° \2%§$§§)§)§\\}}}}}§\§§§ � i , � A«achmen 4 7 6 ATTACHMENT 5 I CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us 6 7 DATE: September 28, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11 8 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 71_. FROM: Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: WOODRIDGE REZONING AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 14 REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 15 5 -LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITH COMMON AREA PARCEL 16 8046 TH STREET, APN 008-232-054 17 18 19 Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction on 1) the 20 General Plan definition of density in order to determine if the project complies with the required 21 minimum density (See General Plan Consistency below) and 2) the Zoning Ordinance Hillside 22 Residential Development Combining District in order to determine if the project complies with 23 the required minimum parcel size (See Hillside Residential Development Combining District 24 below). 25 26 Should the Planning Commission choose to make a recommendation on the project to the City 27 Council, staff has included drafts of the following: 28 29 1. Findings for Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. 30 2. Findings for Approving a Rezone the project site to the Woodridge Planned Unit District. 31 3. Findings for Adopting the Unit Development Plan for the Woodridge Planned Unit 32 District. 33 4. Findings for Adopting the Development Standards for the Woodridge Planned Unit 34 District. 35 5. Findings for Approving the Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map. 36 6. Conditions of Approval. 37 38 39 I PROJECT SUMMARY 1 40 41 Project: Name: Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 42 Address: 8046 1h Street 43 APN: 008-232-054 44 Project File No.: 03 -TSM -0100 Page I pZD I Project Planner: Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner 2 3 Project Applicant: Steven Lafranchi, Steven Lafranchi and Associates 4 5 Property Owner: Chris Wood and Kelly Wood-Casselman, Andree Wood, Creed Wood 6 7 Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Raymond Heights and Branching Way 8 9 Property Size: 2.77 acres 10 11 Site Characteristics: A small portion of the site is developed with an existing single-family 12 dwelling and detached garage and outbuilding. The remainder of the site is vacant with an 13 average slope of 17%. The undeveloped portion of the site is covered in grasses, weeds and 14 native and non-native trees. 15 16 Existing Use: Single -Family Residential 17 18 Proposed Use: Single -Family Residential 19 20 Current Zoning: R1-6,500 21 22 Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit District 23 24 Current General Plan Land Use: Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre) 25 26 Proposed General Plan Land Use: No Change 27 28 Subsequent Actions if Project is Approved: 29 30 . City Council Review and Approval 31 . Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Review and Approval 32 . Improvement Plans/Final Map 33 . Grading and Building Permits 34 35 -- 36 37 I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 38 39 The applicant is seeking approval of a Rezoning to Planned Unit District (PUD) and a Tentative 40 Subdivision Map and for a 5 -lot residential subdivision and Parcel A (a private street) on a 2.77 41 acre site. The site is located at 804 6'h Street between Branching Way and Raymond Heights 42 (See Attachment G, Context Map).The lots would range in size from 9,573 to 22,873 square feet. 43 The development of the lots is not proposed as part of this project. A Unit Development Plan 44 and PUD Guidelines for the project are also proposed. 45 Page 2 �j I REQUESTED APPROVALS . 2 The applicant has applied to the City for approval of a rezoning of the subject property from the 3 One Family Residential District with a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet (R1-6,500) to 4 Planned Unit District (PUD), a 5 -lot tentative subdivision map, and a Unit Development Plan 5 (See Attachments O and P) and PUD Guidelines for the Woodridge Planned Unit District (See 6 Attachment M). 7 The applicant has applied for a rezoning to PUD to allow the following: 8 1. A private street serving 6 lots (Lots 1-4 and 101 and 121 Olive Street) 9 2. Reduction in the minimum lot size required pursuant to the Hillside Residential 10 Combining District 11 .--- 3. Reduction of the minimum lot width required by the R1-6,500 zoning district 12 4. Reduction of the minimum setbacks required by the R1-6,500 zoning district 13 Following Planning Commission action, the application will be reviewed by the City Council. 14 After City Council action, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee will review the 15 site, lighting and landscaping plans and Unit Development Plan and PUD Guidelines for the 16 project. 17 18 SETTING 19 The project would be located on a 2.77 acre in -fill parcel that has frontage on Sixth Street and 20 Olive Street. The majority of the site located in the center of the block bounded by Olive Street, 21 Raymond Heights, 6`h Street, and Branching Way. The project site is surrounded by single - 22 family residences. The subject property has an average slope of 17 %. The undeveloped part of 23 the site is covered with trees, weeds and grasses. Fifty-one native and non-native trees are 24 located on the site, including oak, cypress, cedar, redwood and eucalyptus. 25 26 PROJECT ANALYSIS 27 General Plan Consistenev: 28 The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Urban Standard. This land use 29 designation is intended for single-family dwellings and allows 2.1 to 5.0 units to the acre. Based 30 on the gross acreage of 2.77 acres (including the proposed private street), the range of units 31 allowed for the subject property is 5.8 to 13.8. Based on the net acreage of 1.92 acres (without the 32 private street), the range of units allowed for the subject property is 4.0 to 9.6. The General Plan 33 definition of density states the following: For housing, density is the number of permanent 34 residential dwelling units per acre of land. All densities specified in the General Plan are 35 expressed in maximum number of units per gross developable acre. Staff requests that Planning 36 Commission determine if the proposed 5 units is consistent with the minimum number of lots 37 required for the site. 38 The project is consistent with the following General Plan polices and objectives: 39 Housing Element 40 Policy 1.1: Promote residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary. 41 Page 3 6262- 1 Policy 1.2 Encourage the development of housing on underutilized land. 2 Land Use and Growth Management Element: 3 Policy 3: It is the policy of the City to build within an agreed-upon Urban Growth Boundary. The 4 parcel to be subdivided lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and will infill an existing 5 neighborhood. 6 7 Policy 5: It is the policy of the City to ,discourage urban sprawl. This subdivision is within the 8 City limits and will subdivide the property at a density consistent with the minimum density 9 required by the General Plan. 10 11 Policy 6: Growth shall be contained within the Urban Growth Boundary. The necessary 12 infrastructure for growth will be provided within the Urban Growth -Boundary. The subject parcel 13 lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits and the necessary services will be 14 extended to the new parcels as part of the subdivision improvements. 15 16 Open Space, Conservation and Energy Element: 17 Policy 25: Developers shall provide adequate drainage and erosion control during construction. 18 The project sponsors will prepare an erosion control plan before the construction phase of 19 development. 20 21 Zoning Ordinance Consistencv: 22 The subject project is currently zoned One Family Residence District with a minimum lot size of 23 6,500 square feet (R1-6,500). Since the average slope of the property exceeds 5%, the project is 24 also subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential Combining District. As part of the 25 project, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to Planned Unit District (PUD). The 26 application for rezoning includes PUD Guidelines and a Unit Development Plan (See 27 Attachments M and P). The final draft of the PUD Guidelines will be subject to Site Plan and 28 Architectural Review Committee review and approval. 29 30 All 5 parcels are consistent with the minimum lot size and meet the minimum lot width and lot 31 depth requirements, 50 feet and 70 feet respectively, of the R1-6,500 zoning district, except for 32 Parcel 5 which is 47.5 feet wide. The applicant has proposed to rezone the property to PUD in 33 order to reduce the minimum lot width to 47.5 and to have lesser setbacks than require&in the - 34 R1-6,500 zoning district. The R1-6,500 zoning district requires the following minimum 35 setbacks: 25' front yard; 20' rear yard; 5' for one side yard with a 15'aggregate for both side 36 yards; and 10' for street side yards. Although the parcel sizes exceed the minimum parcel size of 37 the R1-6,500 zoning district, the building envelopes on the proposed Unit Development plan 38 include the following setbacks that are less than the setbacks required in the R1-6,500 zoning 39 district: 40 41 • Parcel 1 front setback of 20' 42 • Parcel 2 front setback of 20' 43 • Parcel 3 front setback of 15' 44 • Parcel 4 front (Private Street) setback of 20'; rear setback of 10' 45 • Parcel 5 front setback of 20' Page 4 �/ i� 1 Due to the size of the parcels, staff has recommended to the applicant that the building envelopes 2 for Lots 4 and 5 be revised to, at a minimum, provide setbacks that are consistent with the Rl- 3 6,500 zoning district. This would provide consistency with surrounding properties. For Lot 5, 4 which is currently developed and has frontage on Sixth Street, this would provide consistency of 5 front setbacks along Sixth Street where all properties are zoned RI -6,500. For Parcels 1-3, staff 6 has suggested to the applicant that the setbacks be consistent with the R1-20,000 zoning district 7 in order to reduce the size of the building envelope, create development on a scale that is more 8 compatible with the surrounding properties, and to reduce the amount of grading and 9 modification to the site. The RI -20,000 zoning district requires the following minimum setbacks: io 30' front, 30'rear, and 10' minimum for one side yard with an aggregate side yard setback of 25'. 11 12 Hillside Residential Development Combininiz District 13 14 The Hillside Residential Development Combining District (HRD) District allows the minimum 15 parcel size to be flexible in residential PUD's in order to respond to site conditions and the 16 proposed site plan (See Attachment N). The lot yield, however, is to remain the same. Based on 17 an average slope of 17% for the gross acreage of the property, nine units would be allowed on 18 the site with a required minimum parcel size of 12,894 square feet. Parcels 4 and 5 are not 19 consistent with this minimum parcel size. The average slope of Parcels 4 and 5 is 12.5% which 20 would require a minimum lot size of 9,453 square feet. Both Parcels 4 and 5 are consistent with 21 this minimum lot size. As part of the PUD, the applicant is requesting approval of a reduced lot 22 size for Parcels 4 and 5. Staff requests that the Planning Commission determine if the reduced 23 lots sizes are consistent with the provisions of the HRD District. 24 25 Traffic and Circulation: 26 Site Access and Circulation 27 The project site has frontage on Sixth Street and Olive Street, Parcel 5 would retain its existing 28 access from Sixth Street. An existing driveway that provides access to the project site, as well as 29 101 Olive Street and 121 Olive Street, would be extended and improved to be a private street. 30 Parcels 1-4 would have, access via the new private street. 101 and 121 Olive Street would also 31 use the new private street to continue to access their property; however, these properties are not 32 part of this subdivision and rezoning project. 33 Some fire trucks cannot access the site using the existing driveway from Olive Street. The 34 project includes a design of the private street that has been reviewed by the City Engineer and 35 the Fire Marshal's office and would provide adequate access for fire trucks. 36 The Subdivision Ordinance allows private streets only in Planned Unit Districts. In order to 37 approve a private street, the Planning Commission must make the following finding with a 38 recommendation to City Council to approve the private street: 39 1. The most logical development of the land requires that lots be created which are 40 served by a private street. 41 Parkin 42 The project provides nine guest parking spaces located along the private street (Parcel A). In 43 addition, the PUD Guidelines require that development of Lots 1-4 provide 2 covered and 2 Page 5 I uncovered onsite parking spaces. The proposed parking requirement for Lot 5, which is already 2 developed, would be one covered and 2 uncovered as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Alan 3 Tilton of W -Trans reviewed the parking provided as part of the project and has indicated that the 4 parking is adequate (Attachment I). 5 6 Landscaping 7 8 In order to construct the private street and install the improvements required for the project, 16 9 trees would be removed. The project arborist, John Meserve of Horticultural Assoicates, has 10 recommended removal of 4 of these trees due to poor health. John Meserve has recommended 11 removal of 4 additional trees that would not be impacted by development of the project due to 12 poor health (See Attachment H). The proposed landscaping plan for the project includes 36 new 13 trees. In addition to these plantings, John Meserve recommends a replacement ratio of 3 trees per 14 interior lot (Lots 2-4) and 4 trees per corner lot (Lot 1). Staff has included a condition of 15 approval that these mitigation trees be included on plans submitted for administrative site plan 16 and architectural review of the development of each lot (Attachment E). 17 18 Future Development: 19 20 Since, the project does not include the future development of the Lots 1-4, the applicant has not 21 included architectural or lot grading plans as part of the project. This makes it impossible to 22 assess the topographical modifications that may occur as a result of future development of 23 single-family residences. Due to the change in grade of Lots 1-3, staff is concerned about the 24 amount of cut and fill that may occur as a result of the development of these lots. In response to 25 this concern, the applicant has provided an exhibit that indicates that the cut and fill for Lots 1-4 26 could range from 3' to 10'. The actual grading could be more or less than the exhibit provided 27 depending on the house plans submitted for the development of each lot. Due to the change of 28 grade for each lot: 1) Lot 1, 26 feet 2) Lot 2, 26 feet 3) Lot 3, 34 feet and) Lot 4, 15 feet, the 29 grading- could be substantial. Staff believes that any impacts related to the future development of 30 Lots 1-4 could be further mitigated by requiring Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 31 review and approval of the development of each of these lots. As such, staff has included a 32 condition that the PUD Guidelines be revised to require SPARC approval of the development plans 33 for Lots 1-4. 34 35 Proposed PUD Guidelines -- 36 37 The applicant has proposed PUD Guidelines as part of the project (See Attachment M). The 38 proposed Guidelines require administrative site plan and architectural review of the development 39 of Lots 1-4. However, due to the language used in the guidelines, staff is concerned that there is 40 limited ability to restrict grading, limit height to address the concerns of neighbors, and to ensure 41 compatible design. The majority of the guidelines include language such as "should", 42 "encourage", "discourage" and the like which limit staff's ability to require modifications of the 43 project. Staff has requested that the applicant modify the guidelines to include language such as 44 "shall", "require", etc. and more restrictive language related to grading, site design, and 45 compatibility with neighboring properties. Planning Commission could further mitigate any 46 impacts related to individual lot development by providing specific direction to SPARC related Page 6 oz -5— I to modifications to the PUD Guidelines and individual lot development. The final version of the 2 PUD Guidelines will be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural Review 3 Committee (SPARC). 4 5 Zoning Ordinance Section 19A-300 requires that the Planning Commission/City Council make 6 the following findings to approve a Unit Development Plan. The suggested basis for making 7 each finding follows. 8 1. The PUD District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one or more 9 thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic 10 generated by the development. 11 Parcels 1-4 will have access via the existing driveway that would be extended and improved 12 - to be a private street. The private street will connect to Olive Street, a public street. Parcel 5 13 would continue to use the existing access from Sixth Street. The project provides the 14 minimum density allowable under the General Plan land use designation as determined by 15 the Planning Commission's interpretation of the gross developable square footage of the site, 16 as such the project is not anticipated generate traffic in excess of what was anticipated as part 17 of the General Plan. 18 2. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of 19 buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby 20 properties and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessary to insure 21 compatibility. 22 The project includes the construction of a private street and installation of the utilities to 23 serve the development. As part of the project, landscaping along the private street would be 24 installed. The development of the individual lots is not included as part of the application. 25 However, the development of the individual lots, including landscaping, would be subject to 26 administrative site plan and architectural review and the Unit Development plan includes 27 building envelopes. The PUD Guidelines and the Unit Development Plan are also subject to 28 SPARC review and approval. 29 3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and 30 private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. 31 The project is not required to provide public open space and none has been included in the 32 project. Each parcel has a building envelope identified on the Unit Development Plan. The 33 areas outside of the building envelope allow for private yard areas. The majority of the trees are 34 being retained as part of the project. . 35 4. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not 36 be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in 37 keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, 38 with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable plans adopted by the City. 39 An Initial Study that evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with the project 40 determined that no significant environmental effects would result from this proposal. The 41 project is consistent with several General Plan policies and objectives related to providing 42 housing. Page 7 6* The following findings are also required to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: 2 1. The proposed amendment is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and any 3 applicable plans. 4 The project is consistent with the intent of the Urban Standard land use designation and will 5 help the City achieve its goals of providing a range of housing types, providing housing 6 within the Urban Growth Boundary and on underutilized land. 7 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare require or clearly permit the 8 adoption of the proposed amendment. 9 The project will be compatible with surrounding uses, it will have a negligible impact on 10 traffic and the street network, and the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review process will 11 ensure a superior project design. 12 13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Recommendations: 14 In March of 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan 15 and Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that 16 the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 17 Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed 18 the proposed project and had no recommendations for this project (See Attachment K). 19 20 PUBLIC COMMENTS 21 22 On September 8, 2004, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier and notices 23 were mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. As of the 24 writing of this report, three letters had been received regarding the project (See Attachment L). 25 The letters express concerns related to grading, drainage, preservation of views, landscaping and 26 fencing, traffic and the provision of utilities. Several of the concerns expressed in the letters have 27 been previously addressed in this staff report. The City requires new utilities to be placed 28 underground and no lot to lot drainage is permitted. The project includes onsite storm water 29 detention storage. 3o ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 31 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study of 32 potential environmental impacts was prepared (Attachment F). The potential for the following 33 significant impacts were identified biological resources, noise, visual quality and aesthetics, 34 hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and traffic. Mitigation measures have been 35 proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 36 In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as 37 mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that 38 a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been 39 prepared (Attachment F). 40 41 Page 8 0 ATTACHMENTS: 2 Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District 4 Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and 5 Planned Unit District Development Standards 6 Attachment D: Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map 7 Attachment E: Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval 8 Attachment F: Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan 9 Attachment G: Context Map, General Plan Map, Zoning Map 10 Attachment H: Arborist's report date stamped 2/4/04, 4/19/04, 7/12/04, 9/10/04 11 Attachment I: Letter from W -Trans date stamped 12/9/03 12 Attachment J: Letters/Memos from City Departments 13 Attachment K: Email from PPBAC dated 2/26/04 14 Attachment L: Public Comment 15 Attachment M: Proposed PUD Guidelines date stamped 7/12/2004 16 Attachment N: Zoning Ordinance, Article 19. 1, Hillside Residential Development District 17 Attachment O: Reduced Plans (Tentative Subdivision Map/Unit Development Plan, 18 Landscaping Plan, and Cross Sections date stamped 9/20/2004) 19 Attachment P: Full Size Plans (Tentative Subdivision Map/Unit Development Plan, 20 Landscaping Plan, and Cross Sections date stamped 9/20/2004) 21 22 23 24 25 26 sApIan ning\pc\reports\woodridge Page 9 0 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 37 38 39 40 41 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 804 6'h Street, 008-232-054 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an small site surrounded by development with none of the resources as defined in the Code. 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. Mitigation Measures All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map proposal, are herein incorporated (Attachment F, Initial Study). I ATTACHMENT B 2 3 I DRAFT FINDINGS 4 5 Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 6 8046 1h Street, 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 Findings for Approval of a Rezoning from One Familv Residential District (111- 10 6,500) to Planned Unit District (PUD): 11 12 1. The proposed Amendment to- Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and 13 rezone the subject parcel from One -Family Residential District (R1-6,500) to 14 Planned Unit District (PUD), will result in a more desirable use of land and a 15 better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning 16 district or combination of zoning districts. 17 18 The proposed uses comply with the Planned Unit District designation, which 19 allows inclusion within its boundaries of a mixture of uses, or unusual density, 20 building intensity, or design characteristics, which would not normally be 21 permitted in a single use district, and to govern the development of residential 22 projects. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of 23 the PUD -Planned Unit District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance. 24 25 2. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be 26 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and 27 rezoning the Woodridge site. 28 29 The Planned Unit District Development Guidelines describe permitted, 30 conditional and accessory uses as well as those which would not be allowed to be 31 established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any 32 nuisance to the existing surrounding uses. 33 34 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been 35 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated 36 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential 37 impacts generated by the proposed Woodridge Planned Unit District. 38 39 In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 40 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from One Family 41 Residential District (R1-6,500) to Planned Unit District (PUD). Based upon the 42 Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant enviromnental impacts 43 would result. A copy of this notice was published in the Areus Courier and 44 provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with 45 CEQA requirements. 46 3v I ATTACHMENT C 2 3 I DRAFT FINDINGS 4 5 Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 6 8046 1b Street, 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 Findings for Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Planned Unit 10 District Development Guidelines): 11 12 L. The proposed text amendment, the adoption of the PUD Development Guidelines, 13 as conditioned, is in general -conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and 14 zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report. 15 Additionally, the Fire Marshal and Engineering Division have prepared conditions 16 of approval to address safety issues and design criteria for the construction of the 17 buildings and design of the site. 18 19 2. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the 20 adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in 21 residential uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing 22 surroundings uses. The density standard under the proposed Development 23 Guidelines will be 2.6 units per acre, which is compatible with the surrounding 24 neighborhood and the General Plan. The guidelines for the proposed development 25 would present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities, 26 which are appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby properties, and adequate 27 landscaping is included to ensure compatibility. The proposal also requires 28 review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 29 30 31 3( I ATTACHMENT D 2 3 DRAFT FINDINGS 4 5 Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 6 8046 1h Street, APN 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 Findines of Auproval for the Tentative Subdivision Mau: 10 I 1 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the 12 provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions,—of the Municipal Code (Subdivision 13 Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 14 15 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and 16 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to 17 the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will 18 be installed, including sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other 19 infrastructure. 20 21 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development 22 proposed. 23 24 4. The most logical development of the land requires that lots be created which are 25 served by a private street. 26 5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause 27 substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will 28 occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating 29 that there would be no significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts. 30 N I ATTACHMENT E 2 3 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 5 Woodrid.Ee Tentative Subdivision Map 6 804 6t, Street, APN 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 From the Planning Division (778-4301) 10 11 1. Prior to approval of improvement or building permit plans, the applicant shall 12 revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the 13 Improvement and Building Permit plans to --list these Conditions of Approval as 14 notes. 15 16 2. The plans submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 17 shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit 18 Development Plan, and Landscaping and Fencing Plan date stamped September 19 20, 2004, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 20 21 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative 22 Declaration for the Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map project 23 are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 24 25 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of 26 Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to 27 the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the 28 County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 29 30 5. Prior to final map approval, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 31 shall review the site plan design, the final PUD Guidelines, and landscaping, 32 fencing, and lighting plan. 33 34 6. Prior to SPARC review of the project, the PUD Guidelines shall be revised to 35 require SPARC review of the development of Lots 1-4. 36 37 7. All of the General Tree Preservation Guidelines and the recommendations for 38 individual trees included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004 and 39 the supplemental letters date stamped July 12, 2004 and September 10, 2004 are 40 included as conditions and mitigations measures for the project. 41 42 8. On the improvements plans, the utilities (storm drain, sanitary sewer, etc.) and 43 concrete ditch on Lot 4 shall be relocated so that they do not encroach into the 44 dripline of Tree #20. The location'of the utilities and ditch is subject to staff review 45 and approval. 46 33 1 9. On the improvements plans, the water main shall be relocated so that encroachment 2 into the driplines of Trees #1 through #15 is limited. The location of the water main 3 is subject to staff review and approval. 4 5 10. On the improvement plans, the existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced 6 portion of the dripline of the trees as recommended in the arborist's report. 7 8 11. On the improvement plans, the location and numbering of trees #14 and #15 shall 9 be consistent with the location and numbering of trees as shown on the site plan 10 included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004. 11 12 12. Improvements plans shall include the location of all protective tree fencing. The 13'' fencing shall be cyclone and 5' in height. The location of the fencing shall be 14 consistent with the location recommended in the arborist's report from Horticultural 15 Associates date stamped February 4, 2004. All fencing is subject to staff review and 16 approval. 17 18 13. Prior to approval of final map and improvements plans, the CC & R's for the 19 project shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 20 21 14. The approved fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any grading 22 or construction and shall remain in place until the completion of the subdivision 23 improvements. 24 25 15. Any tree pruning required in order to install the improvements required for the 26 subdivision shall be reviewed by the project arborist and reviewed and approved by 27 staff. The work shall be done by or under the supervision of the project arborist. 28 29 16. Trees shown as "to be removed" on the approved plans shall be replaced at a ratio 30 of three (3) trees per interior lot and four (4) trees per corner lot. These mitigation 31 trees are in addition to the trees shown on the landscaping plan and shall be 32 installed as part of the development of Lots 1-4. 33 34 17. Removal of any trees not identified as "to be removed" is subject to staff review 35 and approval. The replacement ratio -and species shall be recommended by the 36 project arborist and reviewed and approved by staff. 37 38 18. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 39 6:OOp.m. Construction activities that generate little or no exterior noise, such as 40 painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., are permitted on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. 41 to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by 42 the City of Petaluma. 43 44 19. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction .related 45 machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 46 EVE 1 20. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non - 2 holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 3 4 21. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 6:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday 5 through Friday. 6 7 22. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be 8 properly mufflered and maintained. 9 10 23. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal 11 combustion is prohibited. 12 _ 13 24. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as 14 practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All 15 such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 16 17 25. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever 18 possible. 19 20 26. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the 21 contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any 22 local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall 23 determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) 24 and take measures to correct the problem. 25 26 27. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously 27 posted at the construction site and shall be included on the improvement plans and 28 building permit plans. 29 30 28. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding 31 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management 32 techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be 33 required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and 34 bicyclists. 35 36 29. Construction and demolition debris- shall be recycled to the maximum extent 37 feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill. 38 39 30. Lots 1-4 shall have Olive Street addresses. The applicant shall apply for the 40 individual lot addresses prior to final map approval. 41 42 31. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma's Municipal Code, the applicant 43 shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at the time of building permit 44 o application, including, but not limited to sewer connection, water connection, 45 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities and 46 traffic mitigation fees. 3S 1 32. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its 2 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or 3 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or 4 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project 5 when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in 6 applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the 7 applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall 8 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the 9 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the 10 City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City. 11 12 From the Enizineerinq Division (707)_7.78-4301 13 14 Prior to improvement plan and final map approval, the following Engineering conditions 15 shall be met: 16 17 33. Site grading shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical 18 Investigation report. Prepare and submit the required documents for erosion 19 control and surface water quality during and following construction. 20 21 34. Off-site street and gutter repair shall be constructed as indicated on the tentative 22 map. 23 24 35. The proposed water main system shall be public and have the capacity to deliver a 25 continuous fire flow as designated by the Fire Marshal. 26 27 36. New water services shall be 1.5-inches in diameter with a 1-inch meter. 28 29 37. All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to, electrical, 30 communication and television shall be placed underground. 31 32 38. Maintenance documents shall be prepared and recorded for the private road, 33 private sanitary sewer system and private storm drains. 34 35 39. Improvement plans and final map shall be prepared according to the latest City 36 policies, codes, ordinances, resolutions and standards. 37 38 From the Fire Marshal (707) 778-4389 39 40 40. The design of the private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road 41 reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. Any modifications to these plans require 42 approval from the Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. 43 44 41. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the 45 hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 121 Olive Street. 46 The language for the signs is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal. 47 30 1 42. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA-13D are 2 required in residential structures; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 3 square feet or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. These systems shall be 4 calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. 5 6 43. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure shall be in excess of 150 feet 7 from a fire hydrant. 8 9 44. The minimum fire flow for this project is 1,OOOgallons per minute at a minimum of 10 26.9 psi. 11 12 45. Article 9 of the California Fire Code requires the height clearance to be a minimum 13 of 13' 6". Compliance with this requirement may require pruning of onsite trees. 14 --- 15 From the Police Department 16 17 46. An address monument for Lots 1-4 shall be placed at the Olive Street entrance to 18 the private street and shall list the addresses for lots 1-4. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3� ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 A L tr City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street A Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E -Mail DianninLi6ki.Detaluma.ca.us Web Page httt)://www.ci.Detalunia.ca.us 2 Planning Commission Minutes EXCERPT 3 September 28, 2004 - 7:00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie*, McAllister, Rose 6 Absent: Harris, von Raesfeld 7 * Chair 8 9 Staff: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development 10 Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner 11 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary 12 13 14 Public hearing began: @ 8:00 15 16 17 PUBLIC HEARING: 18 NEW BUSINESS: 19 20 II. WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION, 804 6t" Street 21 APN: 008-232-054 22 Project File No(s).: 03 -TSM -0010 23 Planner: Kim Gordon 24 25 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezone the project site to the Woodridge 27 Planned Unit District, Adopt the Unit Development Plan, Adopt the 28 Development Standards, and Approve the Woodridge Tentative Subdivision 29 Map for the Woodridge Planned Unit District. 30 31 Kim Gordon presented the staff report. 32 33 Steven Lafranchi, Engineer: Provided background for the project and addressed the 34 project issues. 35 36 Shawn Montoya, Architect: Stated that the PUD guidelines were flexible. 99 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 2 Sandy Reed, ZAK Landscape Architects: Presented the landscape plan. 3 4 Chris Wood, Applicant: Gave some history of the property and his intention to build a 5 home for his family. 6 7 Steven Lafranchi: Addressed the grading on the site to construct the roadway. 8 9 Public hearing opened: 10 11 Bob Miller, 875 Olive Street: Our property would border on lot 3. I believe the project 12 fits the neighborhood and I support the project. 13 14 Christyne Davidian, 43 Raymond Heights: I am directly behind Parcel A and have 15 concerns about the barriers from the private street that are being proposed. I installed a 16 wire fence that would need to be filled in. This is an expense. I am also concerned about 17 the traffic noise. Is there a way that we can be assured that these will be single family 18 , homes. Do not want Victoria style development. Raymond Heights has drainage 19 problems, I have mitigated my problems, however, at 6th Street and Raymond Heights 20 there are flooding problems. Read a letter from Ellen Bicheler who were not able to 21 attend the meeting 22 23 Rod Scaccalosi, 125 Olive Street: I am concerned about the access to the proposed 24 subdivision. Existing access serves one home. It is now a driveway but will become an 25 intersection due to Melanie Court. Assume that the intersection does not need a stop 26 sign. It is an angled entry. Emergency vehicles cannot access site if coming from I Street. 27 Drainage swale makes fire truck bottom out. Unclear if improvements can be made 28 without encroaching on private property. The retaining wall impairs vision when exiting 29 the site. Due to 26' width there are no accommodations for pedestrian, bicycles, and 30 handicapped. Gradient of the roadway is 21% which in exceeds what the fire marshal 31 requires. Curb radius seems inadequate. There will be additional traffic to all the streets. 32 The access should be at 804 — 6th Street. This would allow pedestrian, bike and ADA 33 access, less of a slope, and 3way intersection. It makes more sense for the project to be 34 accessed from there. We do not want more trash cans and mail boxes on Olive Street. 35 This is a safety concern for my family. I would like the commission to consider 36 alternatives. 37 38 Cindy Scaccalosi: Have safety concerns about a blind spot when you are exiting the site 39 caused by retaining wall and light pole. Worse on Thursday when there are trash and yard 40 waste containers on Olive Street. Access is only adequate for one home. There will be 41 additional noise and traffic. 42 43 Anne & Bob Gilbert, 101 Olive Street: Submitted a letter for the record and distributed 44 to the Commissioners. We will be the neighbors most affected by the project. We are 45 immediately adjacent to the driveway. Read their letter expressing concerns regarding 46 fire safety, traffic, noise, water run-off and compliance with zoning in the area. Currently 47 have to back out and down the driveway to Olive Street. 3J Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 1 2 Tom Lewes, 821 — 6th Street: Encourage the commission to take a full impact study of 3 the proposal before you. I am concerned because my house faces the new development. I 4 want to know if the storm drain be adequate. There is already flooding at 6th and I Streets 5 during the winter. I believe there will be an impact on the homes on 6th Street. How does 6 the proposal fit with the existing zoning requirements? Does the private street create 7 additional development potential in the neighborhood? 8' 9 Judith Mooney, 860 -6th Street: I object to the project because I believe it's important to 10 keep some open space. Have concerns about noise, traffic, drainage, and driveway. Do 11 not see how the community will benefit from the project. 12 13 Barbara London, 802 - 6th Street: I do not oppose the project. Access from 6th Street 14 does not seem possible- not a practical solution. Would transfer traffic from one part of 15 the neighborhood to another. I believe it would create more noise. 16 17 Eve O'Rourke, 300 - 6th Street: Parcels 4 and 5 are not consistent with the Hillside 18 Residential Development Combining District. If only one lot develops at a time how are 19 the PUD guidelines followed? 20 21 Steven Lafranchi: Responded to comments: 22 23 • Access: There is not adequate unobstructed access from 6th Street. Regarding the 24 access on Olive we have worked with the fire marshal, had it evaluated by a 25 traffic engineer, and are providing a 20 foot unobstructed clearance. Have done 26 everything to address the City's needs. 27 • Drainage: We are proposing a hill side detention system contained in an 28 underground system and minimizing the impact on 6th Street. System designed to 29 mimic predevelopment runoff. 30 • Noise: The biggest noise factor will be during construction and the hours will be 31 restricted. 32 • Hillside Residential Development Combining District: PUD allows flexibility in 33 lot size. 34 35 Commissioner McAllister: Asked if the driveway on Olive could be widened. 36 37 Steve Lafranchi: He would try to accommodate that. 38 39 Commissioner Asselmeier: Work with Olive Street neighbors to address safety issues, 40 including retain wall and site distance. What would the retain wall look like when 41 reconstructed? 42 43 Steve Lafranchi: Could terrace the retaining wall. This would need to have the okay of 44 the property owner since this is an off site improvement. We could work with a traffic 45 engineer to do signage. 46 47 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if each lot could have a granny unit. 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 2 Shawn Montoya: It is a permitted use per the zoning ordinance. 3 4 George White: The way the guidelines are written, granny unit would not be prohibited. 5 6 Jim Rose: Would 121 Olive Street be part of the HOA? 7 8 Steve Lafranchi: No 9 10 Bill Tomrose, 121 Olive Street: The excavation, cut and fill, and the traffic would impact 11 my property — did not think that was the intent of the developer. Have concerns about 12 water runoff and building height. Do not want mail boxes in front of my house. Want 13 closed fencing as part of project. 14 15 Public hearing closed: 16 17 Commission Comments: 18 19 Commissioner Asselemeier: Asked Craig Spaulding to comment on safety issues, for 20 example the Gilbert's backing down the private drive. 21 22 Craig Spaulding: This is an existing condition and the applicant is willing to help 23 alleviate this situation, however, it is an existing condition which is not the responsibility 24 of the developer. Part of the driveway for 101 Olive appears to be on the private street. 25 Referred to the Fire Marshal's email in response to adequate emergency vehicle access. 26 Mr. Spaulding also addressed the storm drain system and runoff from the property. We 27 hope to provide adequate sight distance when the road is reconfigured. 28 29 Commissioner Asselmeier: Could any other mitigations be provided? 30 31 Craig Spaulding: SPARC review would allow another opportunity to fine tune review of 32 the project. Could improve Olive Street by widening access. 33 34 Commissioner Barrett: Is it a City standard to require mirrors? 35 36 Craig Spaulding: No since this is a private street. Could look at site distance, widening 37 drive. Could be evaluated by a traffic engineer. 38 39 Commissioner Rose: Want to focus the discussion on Parcel A and determine if the 40 access is appropriate. There is a potential hazard to have cars or trucks going up with 41 some speed to make the grade and meeting ongoing traffic coming down. Slope 42 approaches 20%. Do not think the design for the roadway as proposed is adequate. Need 43 to widen at Olive Street. Needs to be redesigned and not just for the Gilbert's. Lots 1-3 44 are the primary lots. Lot 4 is subsidiary. SPARC review of the homes provides some 45 comfort and determine consistency with the spirit of the PUD. Do not know if we can do 46 much about the noise. Not sure that noise from 4 lots would be a problem. Could extend 4 +1 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 1 and provide denser landscaping to help reduce noise. If we do not consider Parcel A, the 2 project conforms to the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance and General Plan density. 3 4 Commissioner Asselmeier: I certainly agree that each home would go before full 5 SPARC. Can we suggest no granny units? 6 7 Commissioner McAllister: Concur with Commissioner Rose's comments on the 8 driveway. My inclination is to go with staff's recommendation to increase the setbacks. 9 Want a requirement or language for stepped house plans that work with the grading of the 10 site. Do not feel a need to make a statement about house design or materials. There is a 11 lot of variety in the houses out there. Am more interested in how they fit into the grade 12 and the massing. Do not want these houses to overwhelm the neighboring houses. 13 14 Commissioner Rose: If density is increased, the scale of the homes would be reduced. 15 Allowing lower density, will allow larger homes. Could mitigate by reducing the 16 buildable area. 4500 square foot footprint with a 26' height limit could be a gigantic 17 structure. Reducing the buildable area would reduce the scale. 18 19 Commissioner Barrett: Need infill to reduce sprawl. Has to be done sensitively. The 20 development needs to fit into the neighborhood. The driveway negatively impacts the 21 neighbors at 101, 121 and 125 Olive Street. Parcel A needs to be very sensitively done — 22 need to work with the neighbors. The guidelines from the planner, Kim Gordon, are 23 important. Do not want to support granny units here. No auxiliary units or detached 24 garages or structures. Agree with other commissioners about shrinking the footprint. 25 Architecture needs to be step up or step down, height and massing should be under 26 SPARC's purview — this is more important than the materials. SPARC should have 27 review of the Homeowner's Association Guidelines and the CC&R's. 101, 121, and 125 28 Olive Street neighbors should review as well to get buy in. Like layout of Parcel A, 29 except between 121 and 125 Olive Street. 30 31 Chair Dargie: There is no project unless we find that the General Plan density and 32 Hillside Ordinance have been satisfied. Since the houses are not designed, cannot 33 visualize the project. We change the PUD guidelines to minimize the impact, however, I 34 can't get past the General Plan and do not feel like project complies. Can rationalize 35 consistency with Hillside Ordinance since the 2 lots are down the hill. It is difficult to 36 approve something that I cannot visualize. Do not want to burden SPARC with an 37 approved tentative map, setbacks, grading. Most of the surrounding lots are smaller. 38 Project is not consistent with its surroundings. 39 40 Commissioner Barrett: I am willing to allow for less dense development here because 41 more density would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. Increasing setbacks, 42 decreasing the massing, not allowing granny units and detached structures would further 43 reduce impacts to neighbors and make more compatible development. 44 45 Commissioner McAllister: Agree with Commissioner Barrett on this. If we increase the 46 density I do not think it fits in the neighborhood. Increasing density creates additional 47 issues. Agree with reducing the mass. Understand Chair Dargie's density comment. P1 Planning Commission Minutes - 5eptember 28, 2004 2 Commissioner Asselmeier: Making an exception is probably better for the neighborhood. 3 In order to address what we cannot see yet, we can place requirements on the project to 4 make it a better project for the neighborhood- decrease mass, increase setbacks, no 5 granny units or detached structures. Do not want to leave the approval with too much 6 room to maneuver. Based on the access, safety and neighborhood issues, making an 7 exception for the density is better. 9 Commissioner Rose: The current General Plan would allow 13 units on the site, but io cannot provide infrastructure. This is inconceivable to me. It is inconsistent with the 11 General Plan. Infill is not an easy prospect. I think a compromise with the General Plan 12 is the right solution here. In this area, General Plan should be considered general. The 13 density does not address the site issues very well. I know we need predictable and 14 consistent zoning, however, this is the best we can do. Believe the review by SPARC is 15 essential to the project. Need to give clear guidance to SPARC. Our commentary tonight 16 is our recommendation. 17 18 Commissioner Asselmeier: There is no comprehensive understanding of grading since 19 there are no house plans and the houses will be individually developed. Is there any 20 specific direction we should provide to SPARC? 21 22 Commissioner McAllister: Can the applicant come up with some elevations and grading 23 criteria for certain lots. Possibly develop site sections a little more precisely. 24 25 George White: Could have graphic grading guideline. Section of Lots 1-4. Show how 26 might step with private drive and existing house on Lot 5. 27 28 Commissioner McAllister: Would be helpful to see lot 1 and 4 to see the relationship of 29 the uphill lot to the downhill lot. 30 31 Commissioner Barrett: Is it premature to have story poles? 32 33 George White: Do not know what the height would be or where the buildings would be 34 located. Could be misleading if done now. Could require story poles as part of SPARC 35 review. 36 37 Shawn Montoya: We have provided cut throughs. I am confident that SPARC will deal 38 with the issues - that is their purview. 39 40 Commissioner Barrett: Do not think we should be shy about putting restrictions on the 41 project because that is our job. SPARC can change. Would like safeguards built in as part 42 of Planning Commission review of the project. 43 44 Commissioner McAllister: The level of detail that I am talking about is shown in the 45 sections provided. It would be nice to see the height of the existing residences. Asked if 46 there is consensus on setbacks recommended in staff report, revise PUD standards, 47 require SPARC review, no granny units, no further subdivision. 43 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 2004 2 Planning Commission consensus on setbacks recommended in staff report, revise PUD 3 standards, require SPARC review, no granny units, no further subdivision. 4 5 M/S Barrett/McAllister to continue to October 26, 2004 5-0. Harris and von Raesfeld 6 absent. 7 8 9 Adjournment: 10:45 10 11 12 13 14 CADocuments and Settings\awindsor\Desktop\Minutes\092804.doc ME ATTACHMENT 5 I CITY. OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail. planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us 6 7 DATE: November 23, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO. I 8 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 11 FROM: Kim Gordon—,Associate Planner 12 13 SUBJECT: WOODRIDGE REZONING AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 14 REZONE TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (FILE #03 -TSM -0010) 15 5 -LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WITH COMMON AREA PARCEL 16 804 6TH STREET, APN 008-232-054 Continued from September 28`h and 17 October 26th 18 19 20 At the September 28, 2004 hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed tentative 21 subdivision map, PUD Plan, and application for rezoning. The Planning Commission provided 22 the following comments to the applicant and continued the project to October 26`h (See 23 Attachment F): 24 25 Olive Street Access 26 • Consider widening the access at Olive Street 27 • Look into improving site distance and safety 28 • Consider reducing the height of the existing retaining wall 29 30 PUD Guidelines 31 • Prohibit accessory dwellings and detached structures 32 • Require SPARC review of all homes 33 • Increase the setbacks for Lots 1-4 34, - • Decrease the buildable footprint for each lot 35 • Require houses to be stepped and to work with the topography 36 • Provide guidelines that reduce the mass of the homes 37 38 Miscellaneous 39 • Provide more developed site sections 40 41 At the October 26`h meeting, the applicant requested that the project be continued to the 42 November 91h or 23`d meeting in order to allow more time to address the comments provided by 43 Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the project to the November 23"d 44 meeting. 45 Page l I ( RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 2 3 The revised plans include the following modifications to the project in response to the comments 4 from the Planning Commission (See Attachment G, Applicant's Narrative): 5 6 Olive Street Access 7 • The access from Olive Street has been widened by 10' to 35' (See Attachment O, Civil 8 Plans) 9 • Site distance has been improved by reducing the height of the retaining wall 10 • The retaining wall height has been reduced to 1.5' as it approaches the sidewalk 11 12 -PUD Guidelines & Unit Development Plan 13 • Revised to prohibit accessory dwelling and structures -- 14 • Revised to require SPARC review for Lots 1-4 15 • Increased the setbacks for Lots 1-4 16 • Reduced buildable footprint for each lot from 4,500 to 4,000 square feet 17 18 Miscellaneous 19 More detailed site sections have been provided (See Attachment O, SheetsA1.0 and 20 A1.1) 21 22 I STAFF ANALYSIS 23 24 Access 25 The access at Olive Street has been widened to 35' and the retaining wall has been relocated and 26 reduced in height in order to provide better access and improved site distance (See Attachments 27 G and O, Narrative from Applicant and Full Size Civil Plans). These modifications were 28 reviewed by Alan Tilton, the applicant's traffic engineer (See Attachment H). Mr. Tilton 29 indicated in his letter that the site distance to the east now meets the American Association of 30 State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines. 31 32 The access to the Gilbert's parking area at 101 Olive Street, identified as APN 008-232-049 on 33 the plans, is located partially on and adjacent to Parcel A (See Attachment O, Full Size Civil 34 Plans). The access has been modified by increasing the radius of the wood header and widening 35 the driveway (See Attachment L, Turning Movement Exhibit). This work would be done on the 36 subject property. The applicant has indicated that additional space could be made if the Gilbert's 37 wish to cooperate, since this additional space would require work to be done on the Gilbert's 38 property (See Attachments G and L, Narrative from Applicant and Turning Movement Exhibit). 39 The letter from Mr. Tilton indicated that the proposed modifications to the radius would make 40 backing out easier. The applicant has submitted turning movement exhibits that include the 41 proposed modifications (See Attachment L). 42 43 The revised plans 'were reviewed by the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer. The City Engineer 44 and Fire Marshal had no new comments related to the Olive Street access (See Attachments I and 45 1). IN Page 2 PUD Guideline Revisions 2 • The guidelines list items to consider when reviewing development applications (Page 2, 3 Item A). However, massing and specific limitations on grading are not addressed. 4 • The guidelines require "significant grading" to occur within the approved building 5 envelope (Page 2, Item B). However, "significant grading" is undefined. 6 • The guidelines allow retaining walls to be a maximum of 6' in height (Page 2, Item B). 7 This could allow retaining walls outside of the building envelope in order to create flat 8 yard areas. 9 a Most of the language contained in Architectural Design is not mandatory (Page 3, Item 10 D, E, F, G, H, J, N) and, therefore, not enforceable. This language should be made 11 mandatory or removed from the guidelines. 12 • The height limit is not clearly defined (Page 5, Item E). The guidelines allow the building 13 height to be 26' or 30'._In addition, the height is measured from "ground level." Ground 14 level should be identified as either natural grade or finish grade. 15 16 Since the guidelines do not include specific and mandatory language related to grading and the 17 height limit is not clearly defined, it is not possible to know the actual building height or grading 18 that could occur for each lot (See Site Sections below). 19 20 Unit Development Plan 21 The Unit Development Plan for the project has been revised to increase the setbacks for Lots 1-3 22 to be more consistent with the setbacks required for the R1-20,000 zoning district (See 23 Attachment O). The setbacks for Lot 4 were revised to reflect setbacks that were more consistent 24 with the R1-6,500 zoning district. The front setback (6`h Street) for Lot 5 was not increased to the 25 25' front setback required in the R1-6,500 zoning district. This would allow additions to the front 26 of the existing house on Lot 5 to be closer to the front property line than would be allowed for 27 other parcels in this area that are zoned R1-6,500. 28 29 Site Sections 30 The site sections provided depict one possible development scenario for each lot (See 31 Attachment P, Sheets A 1.0 and Al. 1). However, the sections provided for Lots 2 and 3 due not 32 represent a house built to the maximum height limit of 26' or 30'. In addition, the section for Lot 33 2 appears to indicate that with a 9' cut, a 3 story house would be possible. The figures depicted 34 for Lots 1 and 4 appear to slightly exceed the 26' height limit 35 36 Landscaping Plan 37 The landscaping plan includes a note indicating that 4' terrace walls could be constructed within 38 the lot without SPARC review (See Attachment O, Landscaping Plan, Sheet L1, Lot 1). This 39 could allow grading and construction of retaining walls outside of the building envelope. 40 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS 42 43 One correspondence has been recieved since the September 28`h Planning Commission meeting. 44 The email from Christyne Davidian requests that the existing open fencing between her property 45 at 43 Raymond Heights and Parcel A be a closed fence in order to reduce noise and provide 46 screening (See Attachment K). Page 3 i ATTACHMENTS 2 3 Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District 5 Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and 6 Guidelines Development Standards 7 Attachment D: Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map 8 Attachment E: Revised Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval 9 Attachment F: Planning Commission Minutes, September 28, 2004 10 Attachment G: Applicant's Response to Planning Commission dated October 26, 2004 11 Attachment H: Letter from Alan Tilton, W -Trans dated October 28, 2004 12 Attachment 1: Memo from Mike Ginn, Fire Marshal dated November 3, 2004 13 Attachment J: Email from Craig Spaulding, City Engineer dated November 15, 2004 14 Affikhment K: Neighborhood Correspondence dated November 14, 2004 15 16 Attachment L: Turning Movement Exhibit (Gilbert's Parking Area, 101 Olive Street) 17 Attachment M: Revised PUD Guidelines 18 Attachment N: Reduced Plans- Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit Development Plan, 19 Landscaping Plan, Site Sections 20 Attachment 0: Full Size Plans- Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit Development Plan, 21 Landscaping Plan, Site Sections (Planning Commissioners Only) 22 ME Page 4 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 37 38 39 40 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 804 6'h Street, 008-232-054 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an small site surrounded by development with none of the resources as defined in the Code, 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, I I English Street, Petaluma, California. Mitigation Measures All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map proposal, are herein incorporated. 11 I ATTACHMENT B 2 3 I DRAFT FINDINGS 4 5 Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 6 8046 1h Street, 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 Findines for ADuroval of a Rezonine from One Familv Residential District (R1- 10 6,500) to Planned Unit District (PUD): 11 12 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and 13 rezone the subject parcel from One -Family Residential District (R1-6,500) to 14 Planned Unit District (PUD), will result in a more desirable use of land and a 15 better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning 16 district or combination of zoning districts. 17 18 The proposed uses comply with the Planned Unit District designation, which 19 allows inclusion within its boundaries of a mixture of uses, or unusual density, 20 building intensity, or design characteristics, which would not - normally be 21 permitted in a single use district, and to govern the development of residential 22 projects. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of 23 the PUD -Planned Unit District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance. 24. 25 2. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be 26 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and 27 rezoning the Woodridge site. 28 29 The Planned Unit District Development Guidelines describe permitted, 30 conditional and accessory uses as well as those which would not be allowed to be 31 established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any 32 nuisance to the existing surrounding uses. 33 34 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been 35 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated 36 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential 37 impacts generated by the proposed Woodridge Planned Unit District. 38 39 In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 40 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from One Family 41 Residential District (R1-6,500) to Planned Unit District (PUD). Based upon the 42 Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental impacts 43 would result. A copy of this notice was published in the Amus Courier and 44 provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with 45 CEQA requirements. 46 50 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 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT FINDINGS Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 8046 th Street, 008-232-054 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Findings for Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Planned Unit_ District Development Guidelines): 1. The proposed text amendment, the adoption of -the PUD Development Guidelines, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally, the Fire Marshal and Engineering Division have prepared conditions of approval to address safety issues and design criteria for the construction of the buildings and design of the site. 2. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in residential uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing surroundings uses. The density standard under the proposed Development Guidelines will be 2.6 units per acre, which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the General Plan. The guidelines for the proposed development would present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities, which are appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby properties, and adequate landscaping is included to ensure compatibility. The proposal also requires review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. '5-1 I ATTACHMENT D 2 3 I DRAFT FINDINGS 4 5 Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map 6 804 6th Street, APN 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 Findings of Annroval for the Tentative Subdivision Map: 10 11 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the 12 provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision 13 Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. -- 14 15 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and 16 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to 17 the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will 18 be installed, including sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other 19 infrastructure. 20 21 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development 22 proposed. 23 24 4. The most logical development of the land requires that lots be created which are 25 served by a private street. 26 5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause 27 substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will 28 occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating 29 that there would be no significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts. 30 5A I ATTACHMENT E 2 3 I REVISED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 5 Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map 6 8046 th Street, APN 008-232-054 7 Project File No. 03 -TSM -0010 8 9 From the Planning Division (778-4301) 10 11 1. Prior to approval of improvement or building permit plans, the applicant shall 12 revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job -site copies of the 13 Improvement and Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval as 14 notes. 15 16 2. The plans submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 17 shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit 18 Development Plan, and Landscaping and Fencing Plan date stamped October 26, 19 2004, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 20 21 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative 22 Declaration for the Woodridge Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map project 23 are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 24 25 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of 26 Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to 27 the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the 28 County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 29 30 5. Prior to final map approval, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 31 shall review the site plan design, the final PUD Guidelines, and landscaping, 32 fencing, and lighting plan. 33 34 6. All of the General Tree Preservation Guidelines and the recommendations for 35 individual trees included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004 and 36 the supplemental letters date stamped July 12, 2004 and September 10, 2004 are 37 included as conditions and mitigations measures for the project. 38 39 7. On the improvements plans, the utilities (storm drain, sanitary sewer, etc.) and 40 concrete ditch on Lot 4 shall be relocated so that they do not encroach into the 41 dripline of Tree #20. The location of the utilities and ditch is subject to staff review 42 and approval. 43 44 8. On the improvements plans, the water main shall be relocated so that encroachment 45 into the driplines of Trees #1 through #15 is limited. The location of the water main 46 is subject to staff review and approval. 53 I 2 9. On the improvement plans, the existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced 3 portion of the dripline of the trees as recommended in the arborist's report. 4 5 10. On the improvement plans, the location and numbering of trees #14 and #15 shall 6 be consistent with the location and numbering of trees as shown on the site plan 7 included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004. 8 9 11. Improvements plans shall include the location of all protective tree fencing. The 10 fencing shall be cyclone and 5' in height. The location of the fencing shall be 11 consistent with the location recommended in the arborist's report from Horticultural 12 Associates date stamped, February 4, 2004. All fencing is subject to staff review and 13 approval. 14 15 12. Prior to approval of final map and improvements plans, the CC & R's for the 16 project shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 17 18 13. The approved fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any grading 19 or construction and shall remain in place until the completion of the subdivision 20 improvements. 21 22 14. Any tree pruning required in order to install the improvements required for the 23 subdivision shall be reviewed by the project arborist and reviewed and approved by 24 staff. The work shall be done by or under the supervision of the project arborist. 25 26 15. Trees shown as "to be removed" on the approved plans shall be replaced at a ratio 27 of three (3) trees per interior lot and four (4) trees per corner lot. These mitigation 28 trees are in addition to the trees shown on the landscaping plan and shall be 29 installed as part of the development of Lots 1-4. 30 31 16. Removal of any trees not identified as "to be removed" is subject to staff review 32 and approval. The replacement ratio and species shall be recommended by the 33 project arborist and reviewed and approved by staff. 34 35 17. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 36 6:OOp.m. Construction activities that generate little or no exterior noise, such as 37 painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., are permitted on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. 38 to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by 39 the City of Petaluma. 40 41 18. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related 42 machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 43 44 19. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non - 45 holiday) between 7:30 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. 46 54- 1 20. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 6:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday 2 through Friday. 3 4 21. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be 5 properly mufflered and maintained. 6 7 22. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal 8 combustion is prohibited. 9 10 23. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as 11 practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All 12 such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 13 14 24. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever 15 possible. 16 17 25. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the 18 contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any 19 local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall 20 determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) 21 and take measures to correct the problem. 22 23 26. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously 24 posted at the construction site and shall be included on the improvement plans and 25 building permit plans. 26 27 27. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding 28 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management 29 techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be 30 required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and 31 bicyclists. 32 33 28. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent 34 feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill. 35 36 29. Lots 1-4 shall have Olive Street addresses. The applicant shall apply for the 37 individual lot addresses prior to final map approval. 38 39 30. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma's Municipal Code, the applicant 40 shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at the time of building permit 41 application, including, but not limited to sewer connection, water connection, 42 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities, in -lieu 43 housing, and traffic mitigation fees. 44 31. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its 45 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or 46 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or 0 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City. From the Enizineerina Division (707) 778-4301 Prior to improvement plan and final map approval, the following Engineering conditions shall be met: 32. Site grading shall conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report. Prepare and submit the required documents for erosion control and surface water quality during and following construction. 33. Off-site street and gutter repair shall be constructed as indicated on the tentative map. 34. The proposed water main system shall be public and have the capacity to deliver a continuous fire flow as designated by the Fire Marshal. 35. New water services shall be 1.5 -inches in diameter with a 1 -inch meter. 36. All utility distribution facilities, including but not limited to, electrical, communication and television shall be placed underground. 37. Maintenance documents shall be prepared and recorded for the private road, private sanitary sewer system and private storm drains. 38. Improvement plans and final map shall be prepared according to the latest City policies, codes, ordinances, resolutions and standards. From the Fire Marshal (707) 778-4389 39. The design of the private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. Any modifications to these plans require approval from the Fire Marshal and Community Development Department. 40. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 121 Olive Street. The language for the signs is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal. 41. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA-13D are required in residential structures; bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 Jro I square feet or 3 feet deep, and other attached structures. These systems shall be 2 calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. 3 4 42. Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure shall be in excess of 150 feet 5 from a fire hydrant. The last fire hydrant on the main shall be relocated from the 6 east end of the hammerhead to the west end closer to Lot 4. The location of fire 7 hydrants is subject to staff review and approval. 8 9 43. The minimum fire flow for this project is 1,OOOgallons per minute at a minimum of 10 26.9 psi. 11 12 44. Article 9 of the California Fire Code requires the height clearance to be a minimum 13 of 13' 6". Compliance with this requirement may require pruning of onsite trees. 14 15 From the Police Department 16 17 45. An address monument for Lots 1-4 shall be placed at the Olive Street entrance to 18 the private street and shall list the addresses for lots 1-4. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5� Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT 5 City ofPetaluina, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E -Mail t)laniiiiiL,(ii?ei.t)etalunia.ca.us Web Page htt-o://www.ei.t)etaltima.ca,us 2 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt 3 November 23, 2004 - 7:00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie*, Harris, McAllister, Rose 6 von Raesfeld 7 Chair 8 9 Staff. George White, Assistant Director, Community Development 10 Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner 11 Jayni Allsep, Project Planner 12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary 13 14 15 ROLL CALL: 16 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None 17 PUBLIC COMMENT: None 18 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None 19 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None 20 CORRESPONDENCE: None 21 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 22 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 23 24 25 Public began at 7:00 p.m. 26 27 PUBLIC HEARING: 28 NEW BUSINESS: 29 30 11. WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION, 804 6th Street 31 APN: 008-232-054 32 Project File No(s). : 03 -TSM -0010 33 Planner: Kim Gordon 34 35 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a 36 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezone the project site to the Woodridge M Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 1 Planned Unit District, Adopt the Unit Development Plan, Adopt the 2 Development Standards, and Approve the Woodridge Tentative Subdivision 3 Map for the Woodridge Planned Unit District. 4 5 Continued from October 26, 2004. 6 7 Kim Gordon presented the staff report. 8 9 Steven Lafranchi, 775 Baywood: Reviewed the changes to the project since the 10 Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 2004. 11 12 Commissioner Barrett: Asked Mr. Lafranchi if he would address some of the points 13 brought up by Ms. Gordon such as the height of the retaining walls and grading outside 14 of the building envelope. 15 16 Steven Lafranchi: I can address some of those issues and then I will have Shawn 17 Montoya address the rest. 18 19 Steven Lafranchi: There does need to be some grading outside of the building envelope 20 to have access for driveways. Allowing grading outside of the building envelope could 21 minimize grading, the need for retaining walls, and allow a more natural grade. We did 22 not want to limit ourselves by saying there is no grading outside the building envelope. 23 We were hoping to have some flexibility and have formal SPARC address this issue. 24 25 Shawn Montoya: We are trying to have as much flexibility as possible and still work 26 with the SPARC process. 27 28 Commissioner Barrett: Some of the other issues brought up in the staff report were the 29 height of the buildings and where the height is measured from the ground level. Can you 30 address that? 31 32 Shawn Montoya: I believe it is spelled out in the Development Standards under 33 Paragraph V, Lot Layouts, E "maximum permitted height for all primary structures shall 34 be twenty-six feet". I just want to point out in the design guidelines it states that SPARC 35 review will include a view analysis prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. I think 36 that is the proper time to do the view analysis. 37 38 Commissioner Asselmeier: What is your response to the height not being clearly defined 39 in the PUD guidelines and the potential of a 3 -story home? Could you address those 40 points? 41 42 Shawn Montoya: I don't see a 3 -story home being possible on this property. I think 2 %2 43 stories would be the maximum. 44 45 Commissioner Asselmeier: In an effort to address staff's concern, it would be useful if 46 we could have a discussion for a potential revision to the PUD Guidelines that would be 47 consistent with staff's concern and consistent with what you envision there. 2 51 Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 1 2 Shawn Montoya: I have had this discussion with Kim Gordon and we are willing to use 3 the City's guidelines. Staff does not like the guidelines so this was our attempt to come 4 up with something. 5 6 Commissioner Asselmeier: You do not have a concern about working with staff to work 7 this out so that it is more clearly defined. 9 Shawn Montoya: Absolutely not. 10 11 Commissioner Asselmeier: Another statement has to do with the language in the 12 Architectural Design section being permissive and not mandatory. Do you have concerns 13 about staff going through here and in situations saying something like "shall" instead of 14 "should" to make it mandatory and give direction? 15 16 Shawn Montoya: I am willing to work with staff on this. Would like some flexibility in 17 guidelines to allow the designer flexibility and address concerns through the SPARC 18 process. 19 20 Commissioner Asselmeier: Suggested a compromise such as "strongly encouraged" and 21 something is preferred as opposed to should. 22 23 Commissioner Barrett: The Planning Commission has suggested story poles in the past. 24 Would you be opposed to a condition of approval to install story poles as part of the 25 SPARC process? This would be a benefit to the neighbors. 26 27 Shawn Montoya: No, I believe story poles are helpful. 28 29 M/S Asselmeier//Rose to reopen the public hearing. 7-0 30 31 Public hearing opened: 32 33 Rod Scaccalosi, 125 Olive Street: Discussed the Olive Street access for the project. I 34 met with the applicant at the site. The owners put the fence 20 years ago and by doing so 35 they implied dedication of use to our lot. We are not willing to give that up without a 36 fight. Regarding function, the wall relocation makes some sense because it opens up the 37 driveway. It does not solve the problem of an angled entry. The fence issue is not 38 sensible in any way. If you are talking about screening, it would not make a big 39 difference if moved a foot and a half. The real issue is noise and that has not been 4o addressed. Our bedroom is 18 feet from the proposed driveway. Service vehicles 41 coming up this grade and accelerating is not a pleasing sound. I suggest putting up an 8' 42 masonry wall from the driveway entrance to the rear corner of my property to alleviate 43 noise. In addition to noise, there are issues such as: safety, excessive grade, access for 44 emergency vehicles, pedestrian and bike access. We are not opposed to the project. We 45 are looking for a better project. I have enclosed an alternative plan which you received in 46 ,your packet. I hope you have had a chance to look at it. I believe it solves all of the 47 issues. I have a petition signed by 41 neighbors and hopefully you have it in front of you. Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 2 Eric Koenigshofer, 703-2°a Street, Santa Rosa: Representing Bob and Ann Gilbert. 3 Believe Mr. Scaccalosi's request is constructive. Asked the Commission to make a 4 consider the findings they are required to make as required by the Zoning Ordinance. I 5 wanted to emphasis the strain of the access proposed due to steepness, awkwardness of 6 the turning movements onto Olive Street and the effect on Gilbert's and Scaccalosi's. Is 7 there a superior alternative? I believe Mr. Scaccalosi's proposal is far superior. The 8 neighborhood is not objecting to the density and the project, just asking for better ingress 9 and egress. The alternative provides bike, pedestrian and disabled access. That is most 10 noticeably illustrated. Want the Commission to look at the fundamental point in the 11 findings where you are asked that to determine that the project is not detrimental to the 12 public welfare. Asked the Commission to call for an amendment to the proposal. 13 14 Steven Lafranchi: This alternative is a different project. They are proposing to move a 15 house with out buildings. They are moving an access issue from one neighborhood to 16 another. The petition was not signed by anyone on 6th Street. There are numerous things 17 that need to be balanced in a project like this. Cannot create a condition that requires the 18 sale of property to neighbors. Cannot guarantee that an agreement could be reached. 19 Attempted to improve the situation for the Scacallosi's by moving the fence. If they don't 20 want it moved, we don't need to. The project in front of you has been well thought out 21 and reviewed by staff. You cannot just amend this project with Mr. Scaccalosi's proposal 22 which has had no staff or environmental review. This is the project. 23 24 Public hearing closed: 25 26 Committee Comments: 27 28 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about excessive noise brought up by the neighbor. 29 Are there any other mitigation measures other than a masonry wall? 30 31 George White: We could ask for a noise study. A masonry wall could possibly provide 32 some noise attenuation. 33 34 Commissioner McAllister: If wall is built to accommodate the driveway, does it 35 necessitate moving the fence? 36 37 Steven Lafranchi: Fence does not need to be moved. Fence may need to be removed to 38 construct the retaining wall and then could be put back. Proposed moving the fence in 39 order to provide additional landscaping. 40 41 Commissioner von Raesfeld: The original home on the large parcel that is being 42 subdivided - were there any preexisting conditions of approval that staff could resurrect? 43 44 George White: No, not that we are aware of. 45 46 Commissioner Asselmeier: Based on the boundary lines, are there structures on 125 47 Olive that the potential relocation of the fence will go through. 4 &i Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 2 Kim Gordon: There are no structures that relocating the fence would encroach upon. I 3 wanted to be clear about the residence Commissioner von Raesfeld was referring to. It is 4 the house in the center of the large parcel. There were restrictions on further subdivision. 5 Those restrictions expired in 1995 and no longer exist for the property as it exists today. 6 7 Council Member Harris: Are you advocating a potential condition regarding noise 8 mitigation and providing a list of options to the council. 10 Commissioner Asselmeier: I wanted us to examine possibilities that may turn into a 11 condition. I heard Mr. White say that he would be willing to look into that. 12 13 Issues: 14 15 Olive Street Access: 16 17 Commissioner Rose: The commission asked the applicant to widen the access and make 18 it safer and I believe the applicant has done this. The turning radius has been mitigated to 19 some degree. Don't believe this is as much of a traffic and safety concern as it is a noise 20 issue. Mr. Scaccalosi's proposal creates more problems with a mid block intersection on 21 a busier street that would be offset with J Street. It is a nice perpendicular intersection. I 22 do not think 6th street is an improvement. 23 24 Commissioner Asselmeier: I believe the main concern is to see if we can do something 25 to mitigate the impact on the two neighbors mostly affected. Don't think we have the 26 purview to ask the applicant to redo their project and ask for 6th Street access unless staff 27 feels Olive Street access is inadequate. The safety concerns seem to have been 28 addressed. I believe the issues of fire access have been thought through. Appears that 29 the Fire Marshal and City Engineer have reviewed the project. Biggest issue is to make 30 the project work for the neighbors. Want to see what we can do to make this project fit as 31 well as possible in the neighborhood. 32 33 Commissioner von Raesfeld: I too assume that staff looked at the challenge of the access 34 at 6th Street. It does have better grading but it is a different project. Involves the 35 neighbors buying the driveway. Olive Street is an awkward driveway; however, within 36 the constraints that they have, the applicant has done everything to improve as much as 37 they can. The 6th Street access is a different project with enough of its own questions that 38 cannot be addressed. However, it does appear that it may have some merits. 39 40 Commissioner Barrett: The new driveway offers the Gilbert's a better solution for the 41 ingress and egress if they take advantage of what is being offered. Appears to be the 42 Gilbert's main problem. I believe the Scaccalosi's are more negatively impacted due to 43 noise. Do not think there will be that much traffic though. The garbage trucks or trucks 44 with a backup beeper will be noisy. What Mr. Scaccalosi is proposing is not the project 45 before us. Modifications have been made on Olive Street to address the concerns of staff 46 and the planning commission. 47 l�� Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 1 Commissioner McAllister: Agree with the other Commissioners comments. I believe the 2 Gilbert's will be just as impacted by noise as the Scaccalosi's. I don't want to condition 3 the project with a sound barrier because it could reflect noise over to the Gilbert's 4 property. Perhaps a study could be done that would consider both neighbors. Gilbert's 5 can see the driveway from their residence. 6 7 Council Member Harris: I will defer to the Commission because I was not at the prior 8 meeting. 9 10 Chair Dargie: I am in agreement with the rest of the Commission on the specific points 11 that were raised. The alternative did have a simplistic elegance. However, it is not the 12 project before us. It is unclear what issues the 6`" Street access would present. Regarding 13 the legal issues regarding the fence and the property line are civil issues between the two 14 property owners and not for Planning Commission. 15 16 PUD guidelines/language: 17 18 Commissioner Barrett: Asked if story poles would solve some of the issues that were 19 brought up? 20 21 George White: I believe story poles would help. I want to work with the applicant to 22 have a clearly defined way of measuring building heights. We need both a clearly 23 defined way of measuring building heights and story poles. 24 25 Commissioner McAllister: I want to talk about grading and the height limit. I was 26 trying to interpret your sections. Is the existing 26' height taken from the existing grade 27 line? 28 29 Shawn Montoya: Ys. We are not intending to put massive structures on this site. We 30 want to work with staff to come up with a formula that works for everyone. We do want 31 some flexibility for the design professionals. 32 33 Commissioner McAllister: If you are stepping up the hill, you can get a taller structure. 34 I would like to propose an average proposed grade between floor levels. Want to impose 35 some boundary so that it does not negatively impact the neighbors. 36 37 Shawn Montoya: We can state that nothing can be over 21/2 stories high. We will work 38 with staff to find a balance that everyone is happy with. 39 40 Commissioner McAllister: I don't have an issue with some grading outside the building 41 ' envelope; however, I do not want to encourage major grading outside the building 42 envelope. 43 44 Commissioner Barrett: If the applicant wants to work with staff on further refining the 45 definitions in question, specifically the height of the buildings, how do we approve this 46 with these issues unresolved? 47 6 k3 Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 I George White: It is a definition issue, we want to work it out and make it clear before 2 going to City Council. 3 4 Commissioner Barrett: There was a comment in the staff report about concern regarding 5 the undefined nature of the term "significant" grading. What are the implications of that? 6 7 8 George White: Significant can mean different things to different people. We don't like 9 undefined terms. SPARC will use their discretion. It would be helpful to know going 10 into the design process what the expectation is. Again, it's a definitional issue. 11 12 Commissioner Asselmeier: I feel comfortable asking staff to work this out with the 13 applicant. 14 15 Commissioner von Raesfeld: I believe it can be clarified between staff and the applicant. 16 Believe SPARC can ultimately deal with the height issue. 17 18 The Commission identified the following issues in the PUD Development Standards 19 which will be worked out between staff and the applicant before going to the City 20 Council: 21 22 Definition of. - 23 f:23 ■ , "Significant" grading 24 ■ Height of houses 25 ■ Grading outside the building envelope 26 ■ Use, height, and location of retaining walls 27 ■ Revamping some architectural design language to be more enforceable in some 28 way 29 ■ Requirement for story poles prior to SPARC 30 31 Setback on Lot 5: 32 33 Commissioner Barrett: Would like to see Lot 5 maintain a setback that is similar to the 34 existing neighborhood. 35 36 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Usually the intent is to use the average. It is more of an 37 issue to provide what is consistent with the neighborhood. 38 39 Commissioner Asselmeier: I think consistency is the issue. If an averaging is more 4o appropriate, I would defer to staff. 41 42 George White: There has to be some absolute setback that we can use because it will be 43 the zoning ordinance for these lots. 44 45 Commissioner Asselmeier: Would prefer to see it at 25 feet and make it clear. 46 47 Chair Dargie: I agree with Commissioner Asselmeier on 25 feet. 7 b4-- Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 1 2 Other commissioners concurred with the 25 foot setback. 3 4 George White: I want to revisit the noise issue. Is the Commission in agreement to have 5 a noise study conducted before going to council? Staff will analyze and make a 6 recommendation to the council. 7 8 Commissioner von Raesfeld: I think at the very least we need to define the impact. 9 10 Commissioner Barrett: Procedurally can we move it along before the study? 11 12 George White: I would not be comfortable with it as a condition after City Council 13 action. 14 15 Commissioner Barrett: So perhaps we would be sending a recommendation to approve 16 this project based on the outcome of the noise study? 17 18 George White: Partly. This may result in amending the Initial Study once the impact is 19 understood. 20 21 Commissioner von Raesfeld: So our recommendation would be that the City not act until 22 the study is done and we know how any potential noise impacts can be mitigated. 23 24 George White: That is correct. 25 26 Commissioner Asselmeier: If there is a mitigation measure, I want staff to analyze and 27 incorporate it into the staff report. 28 29 Commissioner Barrett: Are you going to address the neighbor that wants closed fencing? 30 31 Chair Dargie: How will construction equipment access the site? 32 33 Steve Lafranchi: Only access will be from Olive Street. Will address request for closed 34 fencing. 35 36 Commissioner Asselmeier: Should revise the initial study and conditions for construction 37 hours to be 8 am to 5 pm. 38 39 Commissioner Barrett: Section II in the PUD Guidelines under prohibited uses 40 references public and private swimming pools. Does this mean you can't have a 41 swimming pool? 42 43 George White: Believe it refers to public swimming pools. It needs to be clarified. 44 45 Commissioner Asslemeier: The same section refers to horses, cattle, sheep, goats, etc. - 46 does it really apply here? 47 8 4J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Planning Commission Minutes - November 23, 2004 George White: We may default to the existing zoning code, Commissioner Barrett: Section IV discusses roofing materials — could someone put in a green roof? Can we add that? Shawn Montoya: Yes. M/S Asselmeier/Barrett to forward a recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezone the project site to the Woodridge Planned Unit District, Adopt the Unit Development Plan, Adopt the Development Standards, and Approve the Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map for the Woodridge Planned Unit per the revisions to the PUD Guidelines above. Ended at 8:40 9 91, Gity of Petaluma Comn ATTACHMENT 6 Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 7071778-4301 Initial Study of Environmental Significance ■ 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: Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Site Address: 804 6`" Street Posting Date: September 9, 2004 Lead Agency Contact: Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner Applicant: Property Owners: Steven Lafranchi 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 Chris & Kelly Wood Andree Wood 804-6`" Street 987 Hogwarts Circle Petaluma, CA 94952 Petaluma, CA 94954 File No: 03 -TSM -0010 APN: 008-232-054 Comments Due: September 28, 2004 Phone: (707) 778-4301 Phone: (707) 762-3122 Creed Wood 815 Diablo Avenue, #9 Novato, CA 94949 Project Description: The applicant, Steven Lafranchi and Associates, is seeking City Council approval of a rezoning from R1-6,500 to Planned Unit District (PUD) and a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the existing 2.77 acre parcel into five parcels ranging in size from 9,573 square feet to 22,873 square feet and a private street (Parcel A). The existing driveway from Olive Street would be extended and improved to be a private street. Access to Parcels 1-4 would be from the new private street that has access from Olive Street (a public street). Parcel 5 would continue to have access from 6`h Street. Parcels 1-4 would be vacant. Parcel 5 would include the existing single-family residence and detached garage and outbuilding. Sixteen trees would be removed in order to install the private street and improvements for the subdivision. Several trees would be removed due to declining health. The landscaping plan for the project includes 36 new trees. The project includes a Unit Development Plan and PUD Guidelines for the future development of Parcels 1-4. Development of the new parcels is not part of the project. Two parcels, 101 Olive Street and 121 Olive Street, utilize the existing driveway from Olive Street to access their properties. Both parcels would use the new private street to access their properties. These parcels are not part of the proposed rezoning or subdivision project. Environmental Setting: The project would be located on a 2.77 acre in -fill parcel. The project has frontage on 6`" Street. and Olive Street with the majority of the site located in the center of the block bounded by Olive Street, Raymond Heights, 6'h Street, and Branching Way. The project site is surrounded by single-family residences. The subject property has an average slope of 17 %. The undeveloped part of the site is covered with trees, weeds and grasses. Fifty-one native and non-native trees are located on the site, including oak, cypress, cedar, redwood and eucalyptus. q - Page 1 Project Name: Woodbridge tative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 'SM -0010 Page 2 Potentially Less than Less Than I No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures Responsible/Trustee Agencies: (Discuss other permits, financing or participation required): The project requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Rezoning, and Planned Unit District Guidelines and Unit Development Map. Following approval from the City Council the project will go before the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. The project requires Community Development Department approval of final map and improvement plans. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ 1. Land Use & Planning 7. Noisc ^ 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 11, Public Services 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 6. Biological Resources 12, Recreation Page 2 69 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 3 ■ Determination I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a x significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. A Notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of September 9 through September 28, 2004. Prepared by: Kim Gordon. Assistant Planner Name CITY OF PETALUMA Title Signature Page 3 Date Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 4 ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the 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 a project -specific screening analysis. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off-site as well as on-site cumulative, project - level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR 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). S) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify.which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Page 4 JO Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 5 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation impact Incorporated ■ Environmental Analysis 1. Land Use and Plannina. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? I C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The subject parcel is located primarily in the center of the block with limited street frontage and is surrounded by single-family residences. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and a detached outbuilding and garage. The proposed project would not divide an established community but would infill an existing neighborhood; therefore, no impact is anticipated. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). Based on the gross square footage of 2.77 acres (including the proposed private street), the range of units allowed for the subject property is 5.8 to 13.8. Based on the net square footage 1.92 acres of the project site (without the private street), the range of units allowed for the subject property is 4.0 to 9.6. The project proposes to subdivide the property into 5 parcels which appears to be consistent with the number of units anticipated for the site by the General Plan. The current zoning designation of the subject property is RI -6,500 which allows single-family residences with a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet. All 5 parcels are consistent with the minimum lot size and meet the minimum lot width and lot depth requirements, 50 feet and 70 feet respectively, except for Parcel 5 which is 47.5 feet wide. However, the project includes rezoning of the property from R1-6,500 to Planned Unit District in order to allow a private street, a reduction in the minimum Jot width, and a reduction of the minimum parcel size based on the minimum parcel size required by the City's Hillside Residential Development Combining District. Due to the slope of the property, the project is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential Development Combining District (Zoning Ordinance, Article 19.1). Based on an average slope of 17% for the gross site acreage, the minimum parcel size is 12,894 square feet. Parcels. -4 and 5 do not meet this minimum lot size. However, the Hillside Residential Development Combining District allows for the minimum parcel size in a PUD to be flexible in order to respond to site conditions. The average slope of Parcels 4 and 5 is 12.5%, resulting in a minimum parcel size of 9,453 square feet. Both parcels are consistent with this minimum lot size. The project appears to be generally consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; therefore any impact associated with the project would be less than significant. The project site is not within the boundaries of a Specific Plan or local coastal program. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that applies to the subject property; therefore no impact would result from this project. Nj&ation Measares/Monitoring: N/A Page 5 Im Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 6 PotentialLess Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation impact Incorporated 2. Pooulation. Emolovment and Housinq. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X 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, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? - — C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating theI X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: The project proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into 5 parcels, one parcel that would include the existing single- family residence and detached garage and outbuilding and four parcels that could be developed with single-family residences. Due to the number of lots proposed and the project's general consistency with the General Plan land use designation, the project would not induce substantial population growth. Since the existing single-family residence on the site would remain, no housing or people would be displaced as part of the project. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 3. Geoloav and Soils. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X 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? ( I X iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including I I I X liquefaction? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? I I X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Page 6 OM V" Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 7 PotentialLess Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic X substructures? f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovcring of the soil? g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? + I X h. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique X geologic or physical features? L Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on X ( or off site? j. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or X changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? k. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such X as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? Discussion: The Bay Area is a seismically active region with faults characterized by right -lateral, strike -slip movements (movement is predominately horizontal). The major active faults in this area are the San Andreas (approximately 14 miles west) and the Rodgers Creek faults (approximately 6 miles cast). Other faults in the vicinity include the Tolay fault, however, recent studies indicate this is not an active fault. The site is not located within a presently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential for earthquake -induced ground failure from soil liquefaction at the site is considered tow. The project is an in -fill development. The project will not result in unstable earth or geologic conditions. The project will result in minor changes in topography or ground surface relief features in order to install the private road and subdivision improvements. However, these changes are not considered to be significant in scope and will not adversely impact the environment. The project will not result in destruction or covering of any geologic features, result in changes or erosion to water channels or water bodies, or expose people to any geologic hazards not typically associated with this region. Existing drainage patterns may be altered with grading, but any modifications are subject to review by the City and Sonoma County Water Agency. The review of grading, public improvements and erosion control plans by the Engineering Division will mitigate any impacts to soil erosion that may result from the proposed construction. When the individual lots are developed, the applicant will be required to submit foundation and structural designs for the proposed structures to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. With the application of the City's standard requirements such as those that follow, these impacts would be short-term. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for: site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. Final project improvement and grading plans shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer (P.E.), and accepted by City staff prior to Final Map approval. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. A comprehensive erosion control Page 7 13 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 8 Potential Less ThanLess Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact w/Mitigation impact Incorporated plan shall be prepared, paying special attention to prevention of increased discharge control plan required above shall include measures such as: a) restricting grading to the non -rainy season; b) protecting storm drainage outlets from erosion and siltations; c) use of silt fencing, and straw wattles to retain sediment on the project site or Best Management Practices (BMPs) as recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Required improvements shall be reflected on plans submitted in conjunction with the project's improvement drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Prior to City acceptance, all public improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Public Improvement Plans, construction permits and project mitigation measures/conditions of approval. All public and/or private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance. ■ All construction activities shall comply with the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 4. Air. Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the I I X I applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant I I X I concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number I I I X of people? Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site and, therefore, is consistent with the current Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Temporary short-term increases in exhaust emissions and dust would result from the use of construction equipment. However, with the application of the City's standard mitigation measures (such as watering graded surfaces to reduce dust and shutting down vehicles when not in use), these impacts would be short-term. Per City requirement, the project would incorporate only gas - burning fireplaces or approved wood -burning fireplaces with a low particulate per hour rating as described in Ordinance 1881 effective on April 2, 1992. The increase in vehicle trips that would result from the future development of 4 single-family residences would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. The proposed rezoning and subdivision of land would result in the future development of 4 single-family residences which would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Page 8 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 9 Potential - Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Per City requirement, the applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and shall clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. ■ Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. ■ Exposed soils shall be watered a minimum of twice daily during construction. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. ■ The construction site shall provide a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. ■ During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. ■ Post -construction re -vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. • Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 5. Hvdroloav and Water Qualltv. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X 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 of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off-site? Page 9 X 4'6� Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 10 e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 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 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation impact Incorporated X IX X X I X Discussion: The subject property is not located in within a 100 -year flood hazard area and, therefore, will not place structures within a 100 - year flood hazard area. The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss associated with flooding. The project will not expose people to the risk of flooding or tsunami. The project includes on site storm water detention; therefore, the impact to the capacity to the existing storm drainage system would be less than significant. No stream, river, or other water course is located on the project site. The project may change existing drainage patterns. However, these will not be significant alterations as all hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design shall be subject to review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City Engineer. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted unless private storm drain easements are created to collect rear yard surface water runoff. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain system. In accordance with requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board, the applicant would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout project construction and operation. The Applicant shall complete and submit an NOI and appropriate filing fee to the SWCB. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval as well as on with SWPPP by the Engineering Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall comply with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutant 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. The applicant shall designate on the improvement pians construction staging areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction staging areas shall be located away from any 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 contamination from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak. Page 10 1� Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page I I Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated No debris, soil, sand, cement, or washing thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas during the rainy season (October Ist-April 15th). The applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. The Applicant shall be subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Miti ation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 6. Bloloaical 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 Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of 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? 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 X 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? Page 1 I X 94 R M X 1`l Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 12 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Discussion: The project site is located primarily in the center of the block and is surrounded by properties developed with single- family residences. The project site is not known to provide habitat for any special status species or to be a wildlife corridor. The project site contains no wetlands, riparian habitat, or other water sources. No conservation plans apply to the project site. The City does not currently have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. However, based on City Council, Planning Commission, and Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) review of previous projects, preservation of existing trees is often required as part of project review and approval. Zoning Ordinance Section 23-400 states that trees measuring over 6" in diameter measured three feet above the base of the trunk shall be retained whenever possible. Subdivision Ordinance Section 20.32.320 requires subdivisions to be d&tied so as to preserve the greatest number of existing trees measuring 4" in diameter and vegetation. The General Plan contains policies related to preserving major groves of trees. The trees to be retained are determined as part of review of the project by the decision making body. The project site includes more than 50 trees, including oaks, eucalyptus, cypress, cedars, and pines. The arbois report prepared by Horticultural Associates and date stamped February 4, 2004 and the supplemental letters date stampe July 12, 2004 and September 3, 2004 evaluated 51 on-site and off-site trees based on their size (over 4" in diameter) and their location in an area that would likely be affected by construction. The project proposes to remove 16 trees in order to install the improvements for the project, including the private road. Of these 16 trees, four trees (#21, 22, 24, and 30) have also been recommended for removal due to poor health. Four additional trees (#35, 36, 38, and 41) that would not be impacted by development of the site have been recommended for removal due to poor health. The arborist's report indicates: 1) leylandii cypress are a weak and short lived species often used as a fast short-term screening tree 2) the leylandii cypress located on the project site would be expected to die regardless of the project proposed and 3) the trees along the north and east property lines are not being irrigated which explains the decline in many of these trees. The arborist's report recommends that the underground storm drain, water main, etc. be relocated so that they are not located within the dripline of specific trees. In order to mitigate the removal of existing trees, the landscaping plans include the planting of 36 trees. The arborist's report indicates that a typical replacement ratio of 2 or 3 trees for each tree removed would be too many trees for 4 residential lots and has recommended a tree replacement ratio of four trees per corner lot and 3 trees per interior lot. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: I. All of the General Tree Preservation Guidelines and the recommendations for individual trees included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004 and the supplemental letters date stamped April 19, 2004, July 12, 2004 and September 3, 2004 are included as mitigations measures for the project. 2. As indicated in the arborist's report, the utilities (storm drain, sanitary sewer, etc.) and concrete ditch on Lot 4 shall be relocated so that they do not encroach into the dripline of Tree #20. 3. As indicated in the arborist's report, the water main shall be relocated so that encroachment into the driplines of Trees #1 through #15 is limited. 4. As indicated in the arborist's report, the existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced portion of the dripline of the trees. As indicated in the letter from John Meserve of Horticultural Associates date stamped September 3, 2004, the replacement ratio for the trees to be removed as part of the project shall be: three (3) trees per interior lot and four (4) trees per corner lot. Use of larger trees (24" box) may be appropriate. Noise. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other Page 12 �� Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 13 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundbomc noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CL A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above.levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X 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 excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The construction of the improvements required for the subdivision would result in a temporary and periodic increase in the noise level in the vicinity of the project. In order to reduce the impact to less than significant, the standard mitigation measures related to construction hours and the operation of equipment have been included. The addition of 4 new housing units will not increase the ambient noise level in the vicinity to levels that exceed the standards established in the City's General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards or Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards. The project will result in some additional noise associated with typical residential uses; however, it is expected that the noise levels would remain below the maximum levels considered acceptable for residential development stated in the City's general pian and all future uses are required to comply with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards related to noise. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airport. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m. Interior work only may be performed on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. 2. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 3. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non -holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 4. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 7:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be properly mufflered and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion is prohibited. 7. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. Page 13 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 14 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact w/Mitigation impact Incorporated 8. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. 9. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and take measures to correct the problem. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and the location shall be included on improvements plans and building permit plans submitted to the City for review. _ 8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The project is not located within a scenic highway. The project site is located primarily in the center of the block with limited public street frontage and is surrounded by single-family residences. Due to the slope of the property and the new lots being located in the center of the block, the development of 4 new single-family residences would be visible from several public locations, including 60' Street, Raymond Heights, and Branching Way. The new residences would also be visible from the existing residences surrounding the site. In order to address concerns related to changes to the visual character of the site, the applicant has proposed PUD Development Standards that require administrative site plan and architectural review approval of the development of each lot, including site, architectural and landscaping plans. The applicant has submitted an exhibit indicating that the cut and fill for the various lots could range from 3 feet to 10 feet. The actual grading could be more or less than the exhibit provided depending on the house pians submitted for the development of each lot. Due to the change of grade for each lot: 1) Lot 1, 26 feet 2) Lot 2, 26 feet 3) Lot 3, 34 feet and) Lot 4, 15 feet, this has the potential to alter the visual character of the site. The applicant has proposed PUD Guidelines that require administrative site plan and architectural review of the development of each lot and include architectural and development standards in order to minimize these impacts. The project includes a 3' high retaining wall along the private street Parcel A). It is likely that the retaining wall would be visible from e Street and from several of the adjacent parcels located on 6 Street. The project, including the retaining wall, is required to be reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC). In addition, the landscaping plan for the project includes plantings in front of the retaining wall which should help to screen the retaining wall. Therefore, the impact should be less than significant. The subdivision of the property will not create a new source of substantial light and glare. The development of the new parcels with single-family residences would increase the light and glare in the immediate area; however, the lighting would be consistent with that typically associated with single-family residences and is required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards for light and glare. In addition, the project applicant has proposed PUD Development Standards that require administrative site plan and architectural review approval of the development of Lots 1-4. Exterior lighting would be reviewed as part of the administrative review of each parcel. Any new light and glare associated with the project is expected to be less than significant. Page 14 I, Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 15 Potential Less'rhan Less Than I No Significant Significant Significant I impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Mi fi ation Measures/Monitoring: 1. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the project is required. This review includes, but is not limited to, the landscaping plan, proposed retaining wall, and PUD Guidelines. 2, Administrative site plan and architectural review is required for the development of Lots 14. 3, The PUD Guidelines shall include requirements to reduce site grading. 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 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 conditions involving 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 list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in afsafety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f, For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1;3 14 X Pq X EN X X Discussion: The site is developed with a single-family residence and detached garage and outbuilding from the 1950's. The site is not listed on the Sonoma County Hazardous Waste Site List. The project is not located within two miles of an airport and within an airport land use plan. The project site is not located within '1< mile of an existing or proposed school. Page 15 ffl Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 16 Potential Less ThanLess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated The proposed project would not create a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, smoky chemicals, or radiation, in the event of an accident. The project will not create potential health hazards or result in an increase in fire hazards due to flammable brush, grass or trees. No storage of chemical or hazardous materials is anticipated with the use of this site, except during construction when equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel, the project does not involve hazardous substances. During construction, 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. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to hazardous materials will be implemented during construction. For construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site, the applicant shall file a declaration form with the Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit, If hazardous materials are to be used or stored on-site, the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for approval by the Fire Marshal. The project site is not located within an airport land use zone, is not within 2 miles of an airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the center of the city and does not have the potential to expose people or structures to loss due to wildfires. The project was reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office and the Police Department and is not expected to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. However, currently some fire trucks cannot access the site from Olive Street due to the slope of the driveway. The improvements for the subdivision include the reconfiguration of the proposed private street (Parcel A), so that emergency vehicles are able to access the four new parcels as well as the two existing residences that would have access from Parcel A. The reconfiguration and design of the private street have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office and the City Engineer and have been determined to be adequate. The project includes parking for guests and the Fire Marshal is requiring the project to provide "No Parking" signs at the hammerheads in order to keep access to the site open for emergency vehicles. With these provisions, emergency access would be adequate. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: IM L The private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. 2. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 101 Olive Street. The language for the sign is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal, Transoortafion/Traf c. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X 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)? Page 16 M X Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 17 e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated X /4 g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The project would create five new parcels, four of which could be developed with single-family residences. Due to the small number of residences that could be built, the number of vehicles trips generated and any change to the level of service at intersections would be less than significant. -- The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project frontage does not include any hazardous design features in that the project is not located at a dangerous intersection and the project frontage and access is not located adjacent to sharp curves. The project is a residential infill project in a residential area; therefore, no impacts related to incompatible uses are anticipated. Currently, some fire trucks cannot access the site from Olive Street due to the slope of the driveway. The improvements for the subdivision include the reconfiguration of the proposed private street (Parcel A), so that emergency vehicles are able to access the four new parcels as well as the two existing residences that would have access from Parcel A. The reconfiguration and design of the private street have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office and the City Engineer and have been determined to be adequate. The project includes parking for guests and the Fire Marshal is requiring the project to provide "No Parking" signs at the hammerheads in order to keep access to the site open for emergency vehicles. With these provisions, emergency access would be adequate. The proposed PUD Guidelines for the project require the development of each single-family residence on Lots 1-4 to provide a minimum of 2 covered and 2 uncovered onsite parking spaces. The improvements for the subdivision include 9 guest parking spaces located along the private street. The parking provided by the project exceeds the parking required by the City's Zoning Ordinance of one covered parking space and 2 additional parking spaces that may be covered or uncovered. The applicant's traffic engineer reviewed the proposed parking and indicated that the project provides 1.5 guest parking spaces for each lot, which is adequate. Therefore, no impact related to inadequate parking capacity is anticipated. In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed the proposed project and had no recommendations and the Bike Plan does not include any proposed bike paths along the project frontage; therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted polices regarding alternative transportation. M, itieation Measures/Monitoring: 1. The private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. 2. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 101 Olive Street. The language for the sign is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal. 11. Public Services. 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 Page 17 S3 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Potential Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Page 18 No Impact environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ( I X I Police protection? I I X I Schools? I I X I Parks? I I ( X I I -- Other public facilities? I I I X I I Discussion: The development is proposed to occur in an area that is urbanized, developed, and served by a variety of public services. Additional fire and police service calls may occur as a result of this proposal, but no more so than would be expected based on the General Plan designation. Since the project would result in the future construction of a maximum of four single- family dwellings, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on services. The impact to other governmental services and public facilities would be less than significant as a result of this proposal. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable development fees that are assigned to all projects prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in order to address the incremental impact that the proposal presents to all public services. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 12. Recreation. a. Would the project increase the use of existing X 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 X the construction or expansion on recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The impact of four lots that could be developed with single-family dwellings is expected to have a less than significant increase on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable park fees that are assigned to all projects prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in order to address the incremental impact to park usage. The project does not include any recreational facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of facilities that would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 13. Utilities Infrastructure. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the I X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause Page 18 Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 19 Potentia! Less Than Less' Chan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements needed? Es e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment — X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 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 X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Discussion: Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the RWQCB. The site is already served by Pacific Gas & Electric and will have adequate water and sewer service. The City's treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow anticipated from the proposed development. The proposed project is an infill site and would require extensions of existing service lines to provide water, sewer, natural gas, electric, and storm drain utilities to the new residences. This extension is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the General Plan. The proposed development will comply with all federal, state, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Empire Waste Management, Inc. will provide solid waste disposal services to the proposed project site. Solid waste from the general area is transported to the Sonoma County Central Landfill. All new development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The applicant or subsequent owner/builder shall be responsible for the payment of Sewer and Water Connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities. Water and sewer connections fees are calculated at time of building permit issuance, and are due and payable prior to final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 14. Mineral Resources. Would the project: a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mineral X resource that would be or value to the region and the residents or the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important X mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: There is no information about this site from the General Plan or additional studies, which indicates that this site has ever been known to be a mineral resource. The proposed project would not create a significant impact to known mineral resources. Miti ation Measures/Monitoring: N/A Page 19 1,16� Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 20 15. Cultural Resources. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly -destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact "/Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X X X Discussion: The existing residence located on the site was built in 1950. The residence and detached garage and outbuilding will remain as part of the project. The 1987 General Plan map of potential archeological resources indicates that there is a low probability of archeological resources on the project site. The project was routed to Northwest Information Center for review. Their response indicates that there is a low possibility of archeological resources on the site. No unique geological feature is located on the site. A standard condition of approval states that should any archeological/historical remains be encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action. The project will not cause changes, which would affect ethnic or cultural values, affect religious uses, or result in adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a historic archaeological resource. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 16. Aaricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a I I X Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The project site is designated as Urban and Built Up land on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and does not have an agricultural zoning designation. The project involves the rezoning and subdivision of property with residential General Plan and zoning designations into 5 parcels. No impact to agricultural resources would occur as a result of this project. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A Page 20 Am Project Name: Woodbridge Tentative Subdivision Map & Rezoning File No. 03 -TSM -0010 Page 21 17. Mandatory Findinas of Significance. PotentialLess Than Less' an No Significant Significant significant impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Yes No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, X 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 the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: The project would not have a significant effect on the environment, achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A I, 41VAJ -J . � , the project applicant, have reviewed this Initial Study and hereby agree orporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project. 0) jell o4. Signatu Ap,�nt Date Page 21 MI aw2ALU City ofPetalunia, California Community Development Department Planning Division r8sa 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: Woodridge Subdivision File Number: 03 -TSM -0010 Address/Location: 804 6" Street 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. Biological Resources. Mitigation Measures All of the General Tree Preservation Guidelines and the recommendations for individual trees included in the arborist's report date stamped February 4, 2004 and the supplemental letters date stamped July 12, 2004 and September 3, 2004 are included as mitigations measures for the project. 2. As indicated in the arborist's report, the utilities (storm drain, sanitary sewer, etc.) and concrete ditch on Lot 4 shall be relocated so that they do not encroach into the dripline of Tree #20. 3. As indicated in the arborist's report, the water main shall be relocated so that encroachment into the'driplines of Trees #1 through #15 is limited. 4. As indicated in the arborist's report, the existing grade shall be maintained within the fenced portion of the dripline of the trees. 5. As indicated in the letter from John Meserve of Horticultural Associates date stamped September 3, 2004, the replacement ratio for the trees to be removed as part of the project shall be: three (3) trees per interior lot and four (4) trees per corner lot. Use of larger trees (24" box) may be appropriate. Noise Mitigation Measures 1. Construction hours.are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Interior work only may be performed on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. Department Reauested 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 C LTM Long -Term Monitorin o Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning City Qf Petaluma, California Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division 2. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 3. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non -holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 4. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 7:00 p,m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday through Friday. 5. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be properly mufflercd and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion is prohibited. 7. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 8. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. 9. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and take measures to correct the problem. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction, site and the location shall be included on improvements plans and building permit plans submitted to the City for review. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Mitigation Measures I. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the project is required. This review includes, but is not limited to, the landscaping plan, proposed retaining wall, and PUD Guidelines. 2. Administrative site plan and architectural review is required for the development of Lots 1-4. 3. The PUD Guidelines shall include requirements to reduce site grading. Reauested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Page 2 IfI Woodridge Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval MEE S:\monitoi-ing\Woodridge.doc Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division -City .-offetaluina, California-, Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Mitigation Measures I The private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. 2. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 101 Olive Street. The language for the sign is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal. Transportation /Traffic Mitigation Measures I The private road shall be consistent with the plans for the private road reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office. 2. The project shall include signs indicating that parking is prohibited at the hammerhead turnarounds adjacent to Lot 4 and the driveway to 101 Olive Street. The language for the sign is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal, Reauested By or Due Date Page 3 FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee qC) LTM Long -Term Monitoring ATTACHMENT 7 WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT PETAL UMA, CALIFORNIA February 23, 2005 Prepared for: Steven J. Lafranchi Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates, Inc. 775 Baywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94954 Prepared by: Richard B. Rodkin, PE ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. Acoustics • Air Quality 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, CA 94952 - (707) 766-7700 Job No.: 04-205 q1 Introduction This report presents the results of the noise assessment conducted for the proposed Woodridge Subdivision residential development at 804 Sixth Street in Petaluma, California. The Setting Section of the report presents the fundamentals of environmental noise, provides a discussion of policies and standards applicable to the project, and presents the results of a noise monitoring survey conducted at the site. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section provides an evaluation of the potential for noise impacts resulting from the project and presents mitigation measures for all identified significant impacts.' Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Acoustics Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is amplitude of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Amplitude may be compared with the height of an ocean wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten -fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its level. Each 10 decibel,increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A -weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. This energy -equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but L�q can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet -time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ld,,, is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. 4 Table 1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where I Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of I Newton exerted over an area of I square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A -Weighted Sound Level, The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the dBA A -weighting filter network. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A -weighted noise level during the measurement period. I., L,,,;,, The maximum and minimum A -weighted noise level during the measurement period. Loi, LIo, LSa, L90 The A -weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 40% of the time during the measurement period. Day/Night Noise Level, L,n The average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition or DNL of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Community Noise The average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition Equivalent Level, CNEL of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Table 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment Noise Level Common Outdoor Noise Source (dBA) Common Indoor Noise Source 120 dBA Jet fly -over at 300 meters Pile driver at 20 meters Large truck pass by at 15 meters Gas lawn mower at 30 meters Commercial/Urban area daytime Suburban expressway at 90 meters Suburban daytime Urban area nighttime Suburban nighttime Quiet rural areas Wilderness area Threshold of human hearing 110 dBA :1 o ,.1 a :. 50 dBA 40 dBA 30 dBA 20 dBA 10 dBA 0 dBA 3 Rock concert Night club with live music Noisy restaurant Garbage disposal at 1 meter Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters Normal speech at 1 meter Active office environment Quiet office environment Library Quiet bedroom at night Threshold of human hearing Regulatory and Significance Criteria Regulatory criteria that would be applicable to the proposed project would include guidelines, goals, policies, and standards established by the State of California and the City of Petaluma. The City of Petaluma has established quantifiable noise levels deemed acceptable for a specified land use. The State CEQA guidelines pose questions to assist decision -makers in assessing the potential for significant impacts resulting from planned projects. A summary of the regulatory criteria applicable to the proposed project is presented below. State CEOA Guidelines The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. CEQA asks whether the proposed project would result in: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project - generated noise level increases of 3 dBA Ldn or greater at a noise sensitive use would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (e.g., 60 dBA Ld„ ). Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard, noise level increases of 5 dBA Ld„ or greater would be considered significant. Citv of Petaluma General Plan Within the City of Petaluma's Community Health and Safety Element are objectives and policies applicable to the proposed residential project. The City's objective is to, "...minimize the amount of noise that future development creates and the amount of noise to which the community is exposed." The following policies support the City's goal. Policy 25: Strictly enforce local noise standards. Policy 26: The overlapping noise levels for acceptability in Figure 11-1 shall be interpreted to require application of the quieter standard unless it can be shown that the circumstances of the project allow for a less conservative interpretation based on the specific type of use, the benefits of the project, and the ability to mitigate noise impacts. Policy 27: Require sound buffers (particularly landscaped buffers), open space, or other mitigation measures between residential areas producing higher noise levels, such as freeways, commercial sites, and industrial developments to achieve the sound level reduction necessary to produce noise -compatible land uses. 4 q5 Figure 11-1 in the Petaluma General Plan, Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards, indicates that single- family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable in noise environments of 60 dBA L& or less. Noise environments ranging from 60 dBA Ld, to 70 dBA L& are considered conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. Between 70 dBA L& to 75 dBA L&„ residential land uses would be considered normally unacceptable. In noise environments exceeding 75 dBA L&, these land uses would be considered clearly unacceptable. Existing Noise Environment The project site is an infill parcel which has a frontage on 6`s Street and Olive Street with the majority of the site located in the center of the block bounded by Olive Street, Raymond Heights, 6`b Street, and Branching Way. The project site is surrounded by single-family residences. The project proposes the subdivision of the site into five parcels, including the existing residence fronting on 6's Street. The noise environment on the project site and at the surrounding residences results from vehicular traffic on the street network. Access to Parcels 14 would be from a new private street that has access from Olive Street. Parcel 5 would continue to have access from 60' Street. A noise monitoring survey was conducted to quantify existing baseline noise levels in the area. Noise levels were monitored over a 24-hour period at two locations. Location LT -1 was on Olive Street east of the proposed access street. Location LT -2 was also along the access street just behind the residences on Olive Street that adjoin the access street. These locations were chosen to bracket the sensitive receivers and thereby establish the range of noise levels these parcels are exposed to. The measurement locations are shown on Figure 1. The measured data are shown on Figures 2 and 3. The data show the hourly equivalent sound level and the representative statistical descriptors for each hour. The measured 24-hour day/night average noise level was 56 dBA at LT -1 along Olive Street and 54 dBA at LT -2 behind the homes which front on Olive. 4d All' Awl Noise Levels along Olive Street at LT -I January 12-13, 2005 90 tt 85 j 80 F �. A A. 75"-5-�-..I - _ �• •�.•• •y.. 70 • 1 A �` •. . "*"L ,v a+ 60 r — 0 L(i) d 0 —P -L(10) 65 o �0 �/ — 8 L(50) z 50 —X— L(90) 45 • . * - c Lmin 40 * tAn=56dBA 35 i_ 30 25 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 TM&RgD104Jw. Hour Beginning Figure 2 /10 Acoustics • Air Qualitylli Noise Levels at LT -2 Behind Olive St. Residences on Residential Property Line of Homes along Raymond Heights January 12-13, 2005 60 76 A,I 70 A ise Le vel (ds6 B 50 A) 46/ 40 3s�"'��: 30 26 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1I 1 14:00 1600 16.00 20-0 22-0 0,00 2:00 4:00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 %1JVGW0RTN&R0DK/i ft //M Acoustics • Air Quality Ali Hour Beginning • L04 Ar .. Lmax --0 LM —0 L(10) -$-u50) —�— Lmin IAn = 54 dBA Figure 3 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility. The exterior noise environment would be less than 60 dBA Ldo and, therefore, compatible for the proposed residential development. This is a less -than -significant impact. The noise environment at the project site is clearly compatible with the proposed residential development. Mitigation Measure 1: None required. Impact 2: Traffic Noise. Project traffic would not substantially increase noise levels at properties adjacent to the access driveway or along the local street network. This is a less -than -significant impact. The project's access driveway would be located between the residences at 101 Olive Street and 121 Olive Street and would run adjacent to the rear yards of several homes in Raymond Heights. A detailed traffic study with traffic projections was not completed for the project. However, normally residences generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day with a maximum of 10 percent occurring in any hour of the day. Four new parcels would utilize the access driveway in addition to an existing residence (Tomrose) and the two Olive Street residences. It is, therefore, possible that up to 4 or 5 new vehicle trips per hour could be expected during the peak periods. The maximum noise levels generated by individual vehicles driving up or down the driveway between the two residences fronting Olive Street and adjacent to those in Raymond Heights would generate maximum instantaneous sound levels of 55 to 65 dBA at a distance of approximately 25 feet. The occasional delivery truck or garbage truck would generate noise levels about 10-15 dBA higher than automobiles (65-80 dBA L,,.). Such maximum noise levels, while clearly noticeable above the background ambient noise, would be in the same range as measured maximum noise levels generated by neighborhood activities and other vehicular traffic on the street network. It is assumed that the same trucks that collect garbage along Olive Street would service the new homes, so there would be no change in the time of pickups. There would essentially be one or two more truck trips per week. This level of increased activity would not cause a substantial increase in noise. Traffic from these houses would be expected to follow the diurnal pattern of other residences in the area. On an hourly average and daily average basis, the vehicle trips generated by the new subdivision would cause no change in measured noise levels. This low volume of traffic does not generate enough acoustical energy to affect an Ld„ of 54 dBA. Vehicular traffic noise would cause a less -than -significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 3: Construction Noise. Noise generating activities associated with the construction of the project would temporarily elevate noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptors. This is a potentially significant impact. Project construction activities would include grading of the site, paving of roadways, construction of project infrastructure, and construction of individual buildings. The highest noise levels would be generated during grading of the site, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Large pieces of earth -moving equipment, such as graders, scrapers, and bulldozers, generate maximum noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Typical hourly average construction -generated noise levels are about 75 to 85 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the site during busy construction periods. These noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor. 99 Residential land uses border the project site. During the grading of access roads and foundation construction the noise generated by construction activity would be the greatest to the nearest noise - sensitive land uses. For brief times, construction activity could move within 50 feet of the residential land uses. Noise levels at adjacent residences would intermittently exceed 60 dBA L�q and existing ambient levels by more than 5 dBA when construction occurred on the site. Noise levels produced by heavy equipment may interfere with normal residential activities during busy construction periods when construction occurs in areas adjacent to residences. Mitigation Measures: The inclusion of the following measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: • Limit construction to daytime hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) with no construction activities on Sundays or holidays. • Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud construction equipment. • Avoid staging of construction equipment and unnecessary idling of equipment. • Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. 6 106 ATTACHMENT 8 Office Of Bill Tomrose AC 10 • 121 Olive Street • Petaluma Ca. 94952 • TELEPHONE (707) 769-8928 • FAX (415) 898-1497 • E-MAIL TOMROSELIPPS@,hotmail.com November 29, 2004 Kim Gordan, Associate Planner City of Petaluma Reference: Woodridge Subdivision Dear Kim, I would like to offer you mine and Renee's concerns and comments after reviewing the Woodridge Subdivision Plans and Development Standards, which have been submitted by Steven J. LaFranchi & Associates. 1. Plans show type and style of new fences, but do not show their locations. Development Standards do not denote who is to pay for these fences and who will pay to survey these. We would like the fence at our property line to be installed prior to any grading and construction of the lots below for our privacy. 2. Plans and Standards now show that the driveway entrance has been widened and been adjusted to lower the percentage of grade. Once the plans for the PUD are approved, when is the construction to begin on the drive way improvements? The work that will be done on the driveway also affect the utilities our service. What will be our access during this time? How long will these improvements take? I am sure the Gilberts have similar concerns. 3. At present we are watering the remainder area as noted on the plans. The sprinkler piping needs to be re -worked so that it does not affect our watering scheme and are irrigation lines. If possible we would like this in writing form the Woods or noted on the construction documents. 4. The hedges at the property line at our front yard could be damaged or need to be removed to make room for the road improvements. Prior to purchasing 121 Olive Street, we were assured that these would be saved, replaced like new or not damaged. We would like to get this confirmed since this an important aspect to our front yard esthetics. S. Our most important issue is the height of the new homes. One of the obvious reasons we purchased 121 Olive Street is the view, though knowing that homes would be built below, the Woods assured us that they would not block our view with the new homes. I do not believe that the plans that Steve LaFranchi and Montoyo Associates submitted are clear enough to make us comfortable that this is still intended. These plans only show existing elevation not the finish or roof height elevation. With these plans we cannot determine the finish height from our deck and if we will be blocked from our view. 6. We would like you and the commission to have the plans and standards indicate a maximum height elevation point of the rooflines established for reference from our exterior deck. We would also like the mathematical computations from our exterior deck. We also would like a Story Pole to be installed or a Photo Mosaic shown prior to the commission's approval on the Subdivision so Renee, Myself, you and the City Commission can review for approval. 10( Kim, if necessary, upon having the mathematical computations I could calc the view angle with my own licensed surveyor. Attached are some exterior photos from our deck. If Steven Lafranchi is able to show the view angles on these pictures and give us the maximum height limits on the roofs I'm sure we would be able to come to terms on our view issues. Sincerely Bill and Renee Tomrose cc. Mark Freed Esq. 16A fb3 dos ATTACHMENT 9 WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES (Revised 3-19-05) I. PURPOSE The Planned Unit District (PUD) Standards and Design Guidelines for the Woodridge Subdivision are intended to provide supplemental standards and objectives for the design, construction and maintenance of those pending single-family lots, dwellings and landscaping subject to Resolution 2005 -XX approving the Woodridge Vesting Tentative Map. The matters herein are intended to augment those conditions subject to the approval of the Woodridge Vesting Tentative Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning and PUD, and all other applicable ordinances and policies of the City of Petaluma and related public agencies. II. PROCEDURES The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval for the house, site and landscaping plans is required for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 prior to building permit issuance. All buyers shall be given a copy of these PUD Development Standards and Design Guidelines by the seller/developer prior to time of purchase of the property. Any future modifications, alterations, or other changes to these PUD Development Standards shall be considered a zoning map amendment per Section 19A-700 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. III. PERMITTED, ACCESSORY, and PROHIBITED USES PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: One -family dwelling units with attached garages Small family day care facilities PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Swimming pools, hot tubs and decks One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet. Temporary sales or construction trailers by builders or developers are allowed during the sales of any lots or construction and/or sales of homes subject to the applicable Planning and Building Permit. PROHIBITED USES: All detached buildings and other uses not specifically described herein shall not be allowed. IV. ARCHITECTURAL and SITE DESIGN A. New home construction shall be subject to SPARC approval on Lots 1-4, and building permit review for lot 5, pursuant to the adopted PUD Development Standards. Additional lot specific analysis may be conducted and/or more restrictive grading, height, floor area, lot coverage, exterior design, landscaping or other standards may be imposed through the SPARC/building permit processes as necessary to ensure appropriate architectural and site design for the individual setting under consideration. Any future expansion and/or alteration of SPARC approved designs shall be subject to SPARC review. Plans submitted for building permits shall include all existing trees, whether or not they are to PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc 1 �o � be preserved or removed, and detailed grading plans in conformance with the SPARC approved subdivision plans and project mitigation measures and conditions. B. Excavation, fill, grading, and paving for lot -specific development shall be limited to the approved building envelope, except for necessary driveway pedestrian access, required utilities, and construction associated with subdivision improvement plans, and minor grading which reduces the need for retaining walls. Swimming pools, hot tubs or spas, may be permitted outside the approved building envelope with building permit approval. C. Graded slopes in excess of 3:1 shall not be permitted for all proposed private landscape areas, except where steeper slopes have been approved for street grading transitions, and as approved by a geotechnical engineer. The height of exposed retaining walls and under floor areas for buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 6'. Measurements for development of individual lots shall be based upon the existing grading conditions established in the PUD site development grading plan. D. All grading and excavation shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report prepared for this project by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, dated September 28, 2003. The project's geotechnical engineer shall approve the grading plans. All subsurface drains required for filled areas shall be within appropriate easements if not within the public right-of-way. Plans submitted for approval of individual lot development permits shall also reflect compliance with the report recommendations as it relates to the specific site and structural improvements proposed. D. Solar equipment, panels, or other collectors shall give the appearance of being built-in to the structure. Exposed supports, excessive lengths of exposed piping, etc., are not acceptable. F. The architectural treatments established on the front facades of each of the approved house designs shall be carried around to the sides and rear elevations of the buildings, except that masonry veneer treatments need be carried only partly around the side elevations where visible. This requirement includes, for example, special gable end sidings such as shingles, custom gable end vents, wood or stucco siding, special gable end stick -work and window and door trims. The window and door trim, color schemes and special gable end treatments shall be installed on all elevation. Siding shall be uniform on all elevation. G. 2,500 square feet of living space excluding the garage shall be the minimum allowed for lots 1-4. V. LOT LAYOUTS A. Lots—See "Individual Site/Unit Data" (Section X). No further subdivision of these lots shall be permitted without approval of Amendment to the PUD. B. The primary structure and all permitted accessory structures in excess of 6' height shall be located within the building envelope shown on the approved PUD Map. C. Except where specified under these PUD Standards, all properties and uses within the PUD shall be regulated in a manner consistent with the R-1 One -Family Residential Districts. D. All setback requirements are as shown on the PUD Plan. The maximum building footprint coverage for all lots, including all accessory structures, covered decks and patios and carports, shall not exceed 4,000 sq ft for lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Coverage shall not include roof overhangs, open wood decks or patios, and paved areas. Maximum lot PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc -2- a 2- coverage for lot 5 shall be consistent with provisions of the R-1 6500 One -Family Residential Districts. E. The maximum permitted height for all primary structures shall be twenty-six feet (26') as measured from existing grade. However, a structure may exceed this height if the structure is constructed within a height envelope that begins at twenty-two feet (22') in height at the front setback line and increases toward the rear of the site at a thirty-three degree (33°) slope to a maximum height of thirty feet (30'). For purposes of this section, measurement of the height of the building or structure to be constructed shall mean the vertical distance between that point and the point below it on a plane defined by existing grade. Plans submitted for lots 1-4 shall include story poles, as well as, a view analysis prepared by a licensed architect or engineer, indicating visibility of proposed structures from primary viewpoints on Olive Street, Branching Way, 6 1 Street, and Raymond Heights. Excluded from the maximum permitted height elevation are the following: chimneys, kitchen range hood, bathroom ventilator hoods and housings, clothes dryer vents, venting pipes for plumbing, and other architectural features as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Director. VI. LANDSCAPE DESIGN A. Landscaping and irrigation systems within the Private Landscape shall be approved by SPARC as part of the design review process. B. Landscaping within the Private Landscape shall soften and enhance the improvements, tying them to the land. The landscaping shall serve as a transition between structures and natural terrain. A minimum of five large shade trees shall be required within the Private Landscape areas of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and shall be included on plans submitted for SPARC review and approval. Fire resistant landscaping is encouraged. Irrigation to serve all landscaping in the Common Landscape areas adjacent to private residences shall be designed to connect in the future with the private lot irrigation systems of the adjoining lots. C. Owner(s) of Parcel A is/are responsible for installing irrigation, landscaping and perpetual maintenance of areas between street -side fencing, referred to on the plans as Common Landscape. D. Any tree with a base of 4" in diameter, or larger, removed pursuant to the subdivision improvements and /or subsequent house/lot development shall be replaced with a native tree variety (including but not limited to Live Oak, Valley Oak, California Bay tree) at a ratio of two -to -one (2:1). E. All trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size, unless otherwise specified, smaller (5 gallon) may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian access, in naturalized plantings, or based on site specific and design purposes. All trees shall be installed to City of Petaluma planting and staking standards. All shrubs in the Common Landscape areas shall be a minimum five -gallon size, unless used in naturalized plantings. All planted areas not improved with seeding, lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with a two-inch deep bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. F. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation system. PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc - 3 - G 1 0 G. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and the health and vitality of landscape materials. H. A master landscape plan of the Common Landscape areas shall be provided as part of the PUD approval. The plan shall include street trees with planting design and species for SPARC review and approval. Landscaping shall be installed to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a bond guaranteeing the installation of the landscaping at a more weather permitting time. I. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees within 5 feet of public streets or walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval. J. All turf, groundcovers and shrubs shall be a minimum of 2' from the base of all newly planted trees. Construction plans shall contain specifications to this effect. K. Landscape construction drawings shall contain detailed planting and irrigation plans for all Common Landscape areas, subject to the review and approval of Planning, Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff. Plans shall identify all proposed species, plant spacing, and shall include planting details consistent with City standards. Future additional plantings in the Common Landscape area shall be limited to the planting legend approved as a part of this document. Plant quality specifications shall be provided to the landscape contractor for all Common Landscape areas and submitted for staff review prior to approval of construction permitslpublic improvements. All street trees and other plant materials within the Common Landscape areas shall be subject to inspection by the project landscape architect or designer prior to installation and by City staff prior to acceptance by the City, for conformance with the approved quality, specifications. L. Plant species within the Private Landscape areas shall not be restricted. Landscape construction drawings for all Private Landscape areas shall be subject to the review and approval of City staff. Private Landscape areas subject to review are identified on the PUD Landscape Plan. M. All tree stakes and ties shall be removed with 1 year following installation or as soon as trees are able to stand erect with support. N. Underground utilities such as water meters, and sewer laterals shall be placed under paving or as close as possible to private driveways, to avoid conflict with street tree planting locations within the street right-of-way. Transformer vaults, fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project without compromising public safety. VII. FENCES A. Fencing setbacks, heights, and detailing shall comply with the PUD Master Fencing Plan and Detail Drawings. B. Optional use of lattice or trellising to provide additional screening above a 6' solid fence, not to exceed 8' in height, are allowed in certain locations as shown in the plans. Additional overhead arbor structures above side and back fencing shall be subject to City of Petaluma Staff review and approval at time of fence permit application. PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc -4- 10 4- ID C. All fencing not shown on the PUD Master Fencing Plan shall default to the City Of Petaluma zoning ordinance. VIII. CONSTRUCTION A. All grading and major dust generating activities shall be conducted in a manner that contains dust with the immediate boundaries of the construction site. B. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.) and applicable State and Federal water quality codes. D. Prior to any construction activity on the site, protective fencing shall be installed 5' outside the drip line of existing trees located within the immediate vicinity of proposed construction activity as approved by a Certified Arborist. City staff shall be notified by the project proponents prior to commencement of any work proposed closer than 5' outside the drip lines of trees recommended for preservation. All such activity, including excavation, pruning and root work shall be conducted under the supervision of the Project Certified Arborist, approved by the City of Petaluma. E. High or moderate value trees in good condition (as identified under the Certified Arborist report for the subdivision) proposed for retention but subsequently damaged or removed during the course of construction, shall be replaced by the developer at the rate of three 15 gallon sized trees for each six inches of trunk diameter removed or damaged, as recommended by the consulting arborist. Species and location of the replacement trees shall be subject to City staff approval. F. All City -authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday, except that indoor work may be conducted on Saturdays provided noise levels generated are acceptable to nearby residents. No construction work shall be permitted on City recognized holidays and Sundays. The developer shall designate a construction management person responsible for responding to any complaints generated regarding excessive noise during construction. A telephone number for contacting the designated individual shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The responsible authority shall determine the cause of noise complaints received and implement reasonable measure to resolve the issues. City staff shall monitor complaints received and take reasonable steps to resolve issues in a timely manner as they arise, including enforcement of abatement procedures to bring violations into conformance with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance standards. IX. PARKING A. Two (2) covered and two (2) uncovered parking spaces are required for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. One (1) covered and two (2) uncovered parking spaces are required for Lot 5. B. No parking shall be allowed in any non -designated parking space within Parcel "A" unless the approved parking plan is amended by the City of Petaluma. X. INDIVIDUAL SITE/UNIT DATA A. Established Lot Areas: Lot 1 (20,000 S.F.) Lot 2 (17,500 S.F.) Lot 3 (22, 500 S.F.) Lot 4 (12, 200 S.F.) Lot 5 (9000 S.F.) PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc -5- 10 5- 10 B. Lot Dimensions: All lot dimensions shown on the PUD plan cannot be increased or decreased by more than 5% for Lots 1, 2 and 3 and 10% for Lots 4 and 5 without approval of an amendment to the PUD. C. Setbacks: All minimum setback distances shall be as shown on the PUD Plan. PUD WoodRidgeREV3 19 05.doc - 6 - RAYMOND HEIGHTS I T; APN 08-232-0.. APN 08-237-036 A'N 08-232-020 \ \ "k9 PARCEL 'A' _ _ APN 08-232-021 e PP�o 102IDg \ 8 \ R•20 `----------0 R=18ID' / I r 132.4' ---- -- -i r31b ------ 199 •325' _ ILI \ \ U R•60ID'� I I ///i 9573, \ I `� �` / / \ I �� I I _ — (:022 ACRES) — — /� \ 1D I LOT I m' -m //��,� I 12 O0 F. 199k' // i �1� I (:029 ACRES) T (t9.41 ACRES) � /�", I i---®� X -----\ �—__---_� � , , 1 j---------- __Jt0 ® APN 08-2 J2 -D53 a ALI N 131..1 _ J- �� 133.9' --- ,n A / ° / \ — Ir APN 08-232-024 4-1— LOT b'LOT 2 I lw� —' I- APN 08-2a2-025 '30.40 ACRES) I SN / 1 0 F AI.I L•313' v w —J \ \< / 4jti'0 / \ � i 9 �5O�� o I o I o I OZ la — / J A \ / \ R=20ID1 / \ 22,03 SF. 400 ACRE6) i AI.I / PP / \ I NCE SCALE \ \ \ I 0 20: 40' SITE PLAN I SCALE, 1'.40'-0' i ■ ■ ■ ■ MONTOYA AND I S 1 0 ( I A T I S 30 Fifth Street, Suite 100 Petaluma, Califomia 94952 tel 707 763 8006 fax 707 775 3525 ,y COPTR76HT (C) SHAUN PtOVOTA CONSULTANT(&): PROJECT: .I WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION 804 SIXTH STREET PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN REVISION&: REV. eY DESCRIPTION DATE r� DRAM, SL SHEET rj CHECKED, SLM //�� //�Jj DATE: 2/02)04 f -i L0 i SCALE, SHOUN j JOe NO, 02106 OF 2 SHEETS i hl LEGE ND 2-1 / EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO SIGNIFICANT TREES REIAE��11) 25 IN TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION REPORT) NIOUT 2" AC PROPOSED TREES AC GTf CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE STING V1,000 SHRUB MEDLEY PLANTIN 3 0 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK �5 CAI' 01 PROPOSED SHRUBS MIXED LARGE SHRUBS 0 EVERGREEN GRASSES IRRIGATED FESTUCA MAI GROUNDCOVER GO ZEAS T'E' R, 'R ORMONTAUS 411�11 019 kv 009 ' °m - --7z .~ j / /0&/ r / \ / ' \ EVERGREEN GR SES/ - OUTSIDE rEL CUD VGOD UP TO 4' INTERIOR SIDE & BACK FENCIr4bl, a / / \ / x- \ ` POOL ` . ``. ` �7 ` \ «�^ �w- 31 `` / a°� °mu� ~�,~ -o AC� 045 AFN 0 AC r�' �-^ / AC / WWW/1 � wonn/ o 30, m/ WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION Landscape Architects, Inc. 145 Keller Street Petaluma, California 94952 (707) 778-7642 FAX (707) ?78-7689 DRAWN BY: SR PLOT DATE: 3-20-0" CHECKED BYtm APPROVED FOR THE OWNER BY: APPROVED FOR THE ARCHITECT BY: PROJECT NUMBER: LANDSCAPE ' SITE PLAN `.` L1 , / WOODRTDGE SUBDIVISION FENCING ~~~~~ , SOLID WOOD FENCE OPTION or " or 6' RURAL WIRE FENCE / ~~ ~~" SCUD WOOD FENCE --- -- 1. TALLER FENCES SHALL TRANSI ON 1NTO SHORTER NOTES: 4�7 '~~~~~~~~~~^~-~'~ 2- SEE SHEET L-3 FOR FENCING DETAIL OPTIONS+ LANDSCAPE TYPES COI.IMON LANDSCAPEi PRIVATE LANDSCAPE 1.0 SEE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR� TYPE ~ PLANTING ~�~~~~^/ 'w Inc. 145 Keller Street California �� /(rvr/ 778-7642/ FAX **n��m o^�1 w*�mw" o \ / / ~ �*m~ o�WNm^� PLOT DATE:3-28-06 CHECKED xem � | < APPROVED FOR THE OWNER BY: m,��nmm"mwom�v m^ � ' omm "== � � PROJECT w�uER. o~ � \ ---- ~_---- ^�= - - \ -- - / , �_--- _---- - FENCING & LAmosoxPs r,ps pLxw wnxm � a�' �u' L 2 V%IDTN OF 17 OVERLAPPING BOARDS s,o` Posis �z e• rGP � Boma ' I , �/�tx2 NAllFR lOP k 8oiral OY 1' EACH s# & nl - CIXKAEIE FCOrulG - AOPE � NOIE PIE %000 —I LEDAA TOP TO DAaSY 1' } OWOOD FENCE — GOOD NEIGHBOR 4' — OPTION A 1/2' = I' - O, 6.6' P 15 \ WIDTH OF 17 OVERLAPPING BOARDS �aA6' TOP k OOnW �Ixz• NADA TGP n eoTTtte IIIIINI @ I I F I nuc• sGAAos GIEAUP BY I' EACH 9# 1111i 1i Hill 111 11111 .o e A-L1_I I, L1 -i 1-L I-LLU OIICAEIE FOOTrilG - 3C9=E NOIE ALL YA00 l0 <K BEOP.9 2 OWOOD FENCE -- GOOD NEIGHBOR 6' I/Y=1' -D' i WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION C i 4 X 4' PRESSURE TREATED POSTS ® 6 TO 8' O.C. �I I I/8" AIRLINE CABLES _ 7 "'4" POSTS m I STAPLE TO POSTS TOP & BOTTOM RAILS m _—"NO CUTAB" \AIRF MESH FENCING -_ 1X1' NAILER TOP & BOTTOM —1X6" BOARDS i + v i a 1 t fit f n 1 COflCRETE FOO NO - SLOPE ONCRETE FOOTING - SLOPE NOTE: ALLVYOOD TO BE CEDAR 4 TOP TO DRAN roP TO DRAIN Landscape Architects, Inc. Y IT'._ * I= 145 Keller Street I--1 Petaluma, California 94952 (707) 778-7642 WOOD FENCE — 4' — OPTION B O RURAL WIRE MESH FENCE — 6' FAX (707) 778-7889 J 1/2"= r-0' i/2"= I'-0' WDTH OF 17 OVERLAPPPIG BOARDS / i 'a6' POSiS - Ix2' fIAYfA iGP h AOnaA ,•s- T� � BOTrw ixa' IIA.0.£R TQP k BOrtW IY6' BOAAOS OrfltLPP AT 1• EACH 5'OE i 1 .1--:.�CAEfr FOOPNG - AGPE NotE ALL rAm TG o£ cEpgA F� CWOOD FENCE — GOOD NEIGHBOR W/OPEN TRELLIS — OPTION A 5 1/2, = 1' - 0, — ---- 7, 4X4' POSTS '0' TOP At BOTTO`.1 RAILS / 1%3` DIAGONAL BRACES NAILER TOP BOT T O M 1X6' BOARDS .1 T nI i - FONCRETE FOOTING -SLOPE NOTE: ALL WOOD TO BE CEDAR TOP TO DRAIN OWOOD FENCE W/DIAGONAL CROSS TRELLIS — OPTION B 1/2'= V-0" DRAWN BY:SR PLOT DATE: 3-28-06 CHECKED BY:SR APPROVED FOR THE OWNER BY: APPROVED FOR THE ARCHITECT BY: — De9CA .N: oA— SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: FENCING DETAILS L 3 III PROJECT DATA SITE DMASIXTH qa SAW Z m 0015-232-0150 t 006-232-104 LOU) R-1-151500 LAID usE LmM( srApARD TOTAL ACREAGE 1}92 ACRES (844 V.) TOTAL LATS 6 LATS *ALLM LOT am LOT 6 0,1573 sx. LARmT LOT sos LOT 1 2QIAW SX. AwtME Lor mm 15.1567 SF. OWNERS/APPLICANTS 30 04 W W7 M.= 31) 77077 -, CELL CHRIS 1Aq& KKOTL�YACASSL MA4-*GOD Z_76�2-1706 �OFCE 04062 UTILITIES SA A �1r OOFF PET A►Lrt MOM u� uTLrfY PUBLIC ILM FUBW UT GRAPHIC SCALE o }90 WAM r- 2W 1500 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR WOODRIDGE SUBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PET.ALVIt A CALIFORNIA SITE DIAGRAM SCALE: 1"-200' VICINITY MAP N.T.S. REVISIONS BY PLOT DATE 03-28-05 SCALE ESSIp `5l DESIGN: AOF J..C. �.S' 5. EA��'p f DRAWN: HSN CHECK: SX `" Na 8768 h i No. 49302 'S wood JOB No: 98229 �I*. i2-31-06 c * EXP. 09-30-08 * };\p4�\.151515\98}}9prET.Op ,lFOF CA`LfCIVIL Q��< SHEET f Of Opt.\ - C-1 '� n _ 1 OF 6 SHEETS U SHEET INDEX Z C-1 covet SHIT LOU) C-2 T PLA1( W 0-3 P.U.D. Km CONSULTANTS Cr4 PROA04ARY 97E DEyitOP*ljr GRADIIIO PLAT( d O C�yIL AWL 776 mm 3,2A312 � � T C -6e Moss sEc rrTWAsEA J PET.W 4 QW m m N 7bw76762j--32:Ai Ww ARa•7ECTs V*WA & ASSDOA70 61515604052 F- = Z _M* < �ha�nOmontoyo-alloot71—Im W Z w LL0 �_ J� G7 Q a S UD�GWx°152A7 64� Q X Q n�idti Q htl� mt W1 (n no 7RA!(sPORTAno�, W. O V Z It J COat- -642-9150o A 96401 W 0. aptalgj-4anaoom zmtlgk vSGROUEP120 { yp W 0 441 -1316 FAX cc 0 ARBORIST M.ASSOCIATM HORTICL71JRA1. S ON 128 11CAyLgF�OCR��A 96442 x jEWWI1; FAX O PLOT DATE 03-28-05 SCALE ESSIp `5l DESIGN: AOF J..C. �.S' 5. EA��'p f DRAWN: HSN CHECK: SX `" Na 8768 h i No. 49302 'S wood JOB No: 98229 �I*. i2-31-06 c * EXP. 09-30-08 * };\p4�\.151515\98}}9prET.Op ,lFOF CA`LfCIVIL Q��< SHEET f Of Opt.\ - C-1 '� n _ 1 OF 6 SHEETS U SHEET INDEX z C-1 covet SHIT LOU) C-2 T PLA1( w M N 0-3 P.U.D. Km m Cr4 PROA04ARY 97E DEyitOP*ljr GRADIIIO PLAT( Ui U W 0-6 PRELIIMjARY 917E DEyEIAPIIjT UIKYTY PLM ¢ Z T C -6e Moss sEc rrTWAsEA �_ -' m o ° LL m OmN �3E QW m m N mnan Z cc WLL Q Z -a o J W a n LU F- F - 0 PLOT DATE 03-28-05 SCALE ESSIp `5l DESIGN: AOF J..C. �.S' 5. EA��'p f DRAWN: HSN CHECK: SX `" Na 8768 h i No. 49302 'S wood JOB No: 98229 �I*. i2-31-06 c * EXP. 09-30-08 * };\p4�\.151515\98}}9prET.Op ,lFOF CA`LfCIVIL Q��< SHEET f Of Opt.\ - C-1 '� n _ 1 OF 6 SHEETS THIS PLAN IS FOR EXHIBIT PURPOSES ONLY. THE BOUNDARY AND PARCEL LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REFERENCE. GRAPHIC SCALE u 10° .m WAR N 10d REVISIONS BY F- Q ~ OZZ CCC aF-Q a=U aX� Z J 55O W > w 0 m D 0) U Z W� U W�M13T t.m 0 « cc my-�n cl)N' VNmn "„met Qc �«n Z 'I nt �< J 00 QUL O = � e IS (.5 'qm.V a W �m«N LCLC Uj Ena� Q 0 $ -� W a J W U W I- U) U) PLOT DATE: 03-28-05 ESSIO 'Y SCALD I*-Iov DESIGN: ADf ,\4N`� J• Lgcp F•�S DRAWN: HSN CHECK: SA v y S No. 40302 JOB N. 8229 EXP. 09-30-08 * �\p.\.me\sa:nwaiaay Sr 9lf CMI \� SHEET OF CALTEOQ� /'� n C — 2 OF 6 SHEETS GRAPHIC SCALE \\ ti 0 \ LAS \ \ z \ xol Ir `Z`VV ,'� '�* ` `\ Qc+ 6 / LOT 9,573 s. (0.221 ocres)O 6A / /\ LOT 4` \ / 0• '\ f. (0.29t0oc es) 0. / \ 0 `'r3 \ E0p / \ if `, ff�t�tt` i�jt`f VO LOT 1 \ ' y © ` 20,307 s.f. (0.471 acres) \ X. , - 419�: 0 : 3: S �J LOT 2 17,974 S. f. ©© ?o. (0.401 acres) I / OD ' F / O 4 h S 4 J "Ito, / / r \ \ °4. I' 41& LOT LOT 3 ` 22,873 s.f. Bs` \ \ (0.521 acres) BSL,_ j $ 1 °�' Y ! I � A ' J � I '-•�Y so.o• f Ir � 1 �xi 1 J 22oa• 1 e I f � t K1 1 D$ 1 4y REVISIONS BY KEY NOTES PLOT DATE 03-28-05 PROPOSEO ACCESS 050 SCALE: 1'.30' (PORTIONO-A'�APNFDOB 1-0 9 AND 003-23322--0.& DESIGN: ADF 80 COSTING ACCESS FOR LOT 5 IS FROM MM STREET. DRAWN: HSM CHECK: SA © PROPOSED HAMMERHEADS PER CO.P. STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES NO PARKING SHALL BE ALLOWED. APPROPRIATE JOB: Wood SIGNAGE AND/OR SURFACE MARKINGS SHALL BE REOURED. JOB No: 98229 Q COSTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY FMINIMUM BE WIDENED TO A MIN Or TWENTY FEET. PROPOSED WOENNG WILLTO TO BE COORDINATED =\P61\•eecL96xx9Aw:e ay WITH AN MOORIST TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE OR OF EMSTING OAK TREES SHEET O PROPOSED 20' WADE PRIVATE STREET. SEE FEET C-3 FOR T CAL SECTIONS AND CROSS-SECTIONS C-3 © PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND PUBLIC WATER MAIN EASEMENT LOCATED WIMIN PARCEL *A*. PUBLIC WATER MAN TO BE OF 6 SHEETS MAINTAINED BY ME CITY OF PETALWA. © PARCEL 'A' SHALL BE OWNED IN COMMON BY LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4. THE PRIVATE STREET, PRIVATE STORY GRAIN. PRIVATE SANITARY $EWER AND APPURTENANTANCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED N COMMON BY SAIDLOTS QH P.U.D.. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAL£ BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION AND ARE SUBMITTED N CONDUCTION YAM THE P.U.D.. PLAN. LOT SPECIFIC ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED N THIS DOCUMENT. O PROP OfSTORMLOTS DRAIN AND y.�ITARY SEWER EASEMENT BPRIIV T (2) ENSTNC PRIVATE STORM GRAN, PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER ANO WC PUBLIC UTKUTY EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ME LANDS OF CHRIS WOOD. ET UK AND CREED WOOD. ET UX SAD EASEMENT TO G BE UTAUZED FOR SUBDIVISION AS NEEDED FOR UTILITIES KQ EMSTNG ACCESS EASEMENT FOR ME BENEFIT OF ME LANDS OF ^ 4• O CKDaWOOD. T UX SND EASEMENT TO BE USED FOR ME USEO PRIVATE ACCESSEASMCNT AND SANITARY FOR TE B BEOF APH 008-232-OSO(PORTION 'AVER PARCEL -A- BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. W Q4 PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AND PRIVATE &VOTARY SEWER EASEMENT Q OVER PARCEL 'A' FOR THE BENEFIT K APH 008-232-049 AND APN 008-232-045 BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Q EMSSMGPUBLIC UTILITY CASEMENT AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAY PER 251 MAPS 2 Z =3 Q QO PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM GRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 2. z © PROPOSED 9' . 22' GUEST PARKING SPACE Z W W Ir 0 PROPOSED 10' z 19' GUEST PARKING SPACE Z W 0 Z ® PROPGSEO 9' s 19' WEST PARKING SPACE I'.^., J Q5 PROPOSED 9' z 19' GUEST PARKING SPACE (COMPACT). ^ J V/ Q Lim o. = U Q Q X< Z J PARCEL WAW a 55-' < 37,045 S.F. W (0.851 ACRES) > d O m D W CSI 9 cc 0 O O GENERAL NOTES 1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY STEVEN A LAFRANCHI 6 ASSOCIATES, NC. N MARCH 2001 2- BOUNDARY IN MAIKN SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORD NFORMAIKN AND FIELD TIES IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF MS MAP 70 SH OYI A BOUNDARY RESOLUTION FOR ME SVBIECT PROPERTY. 3. UM MS SHOWN ME BASED ON SURFACE NWATORS AND DRAWINGS AND ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION. 4. ME DEORYATION SHOWN ON MDS MM 1S CONCEPTUAL N NATURE AN IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. MS IS NOT A CON MCI" DOCUMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SUCH (U S BENCNMMK: NORM RM OF SSUH AT INVERSE TION OF ? 61W STREET AND RAYMOND HEKNTS AVENUE PER CITY OF PETALUMA SEWER BASE SHELF GATED AUGUST 27, 1996. (n ELEVATION . 21.92' W W S TH$ DOCUMENT AND ME INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ME Q O N THE PROPERTY OF STEVEN 1 LMRANCO AND ASSOCIATES, NC UN UMCRIZED USE, COPYING, DISCLOSURE OR PUBLICATION BY iV M <N W I IS ME TTEN VAN «`p pUp,AN p 0 yaNm. OF SMETHOD TEVEN L LAFRANCHREAND ASST OCIATES. ESW.00lt STEVEN TOES RESPONSIBILITY CC m U f0 J. LMRANCIW AND ASSOCIATES. INC. NO FOR MY UNAUTHORIZED OUPLICA OF INFORYATON THAT (n E%! N m O WY APPEAR ON ANOMER M AER PLOR MAR. Q c `otr Z X •� J m DULL 0 �U a;EN Zam-- W �MwH W Z �nan aZ o J W a 7 W V w W PLOT DATE 03-28-05 SCALE: 1'.30' DESIGN: ADF � 4,N •BF ` DRAWN: HSM CHECK: SA N ' JOB: Wood iD. 6768 - JOB No: 98229 SEM 12-31-G6 * =\P61\•eecL96xx9Aw:e ay SHEET 'lf OF' CA\-WF� C-3 OF 6 SHEETS TREE LIST TREE N0. TREE DESCRIPTION TRUNK SIZES CANOPY RADIUS 1 PIN OAK 8' 12' 2 PIN OAK 7' 12' 3 PIN OAK 6' f0' 4 COAST UVE OAK 6' 12' 5 COAST UVE OAK 14' 12' 6 VALLEY OAK 8' 12' 7 PIN OAK 10' 12' 8PIN OAK 11' 12' 9 PIN OAK 9.5' 12' 10 PIN OAK 6.5' 12' 11 PIN OAK 6' 12' 12 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 10' 10' 13 PIN OAK 8" 12' 14 PIN OAK 11' 12' 75 PIN OAK I0.S 12' • 16 COAST REDWOOD 4' to •17 OEODAR CEDAR 5' 8' • 18 APPLE 4' 8' • 19 COAST LIVE OAK 4', 3', 3' 8' 20 COAST LIVE OAK 9.5'. 9.5. 5' 14' • 21 CYPRESS 7' 10' • 22 CYPRESS 8' 10' • 23 SILVER DOLLAR GUM 10' 14' • 24 CYPRESS 8' 70' •25 SILVER DOLLAR GUM 6' t0' • 26 COAST UVE OAK 6', 6', 6', 5' 12' •27 DEOOAR CEOAR 6" 12' •28 OEODAR CEDAR 5' 10' • 29 COAST LIVE OAK 10.5' /2' • 30 CYPRESS 12' 12' • 31 SILVER DOLLAR GUM 9.5' 12' 32 COAST REDWOOD B. 12' • 33 CYPRESS 12' 12' 34 SILVER DOLLAR GUM 5' 10' • 35 CYPRESS 12' 12' 36 COASTREDWOOD 6' 8' 37 SILVER DOLLAR GUM 10" 14' • 38 CYPRESS 12 14' 39 COAST LIVE OAK 6' If 40 COAST LIVE OAK 7' 10' • 41CYPRESS 12' 12' 42 COAST LIVE OAK 5' 10' 43 COAST REDWOOD 9' to' 44 COAST REDWOOD 12 12' 45 COAST LIVE OAK 7' t0' 46 COAST UVE OAK 13.5', 12', 9' 15' 47 COAST REDWOOD 87 12' 48 COAST REDWOOD 6.5" 10' 49 COAST LIVE OAK 4' 8' 50 COAST LIVE OAK i6' 16' 52 COAST LIVE OAK 14, 11' 15' 53 BUCK WALNUT 16' 15' SEE NOTE TREE T( • TREE IN DRAIN INLET O MANHOLE l� r � � I r� 04, G o w / r / • /V r r . / r NOTES 1. ON-SITE GRADING FOR SUBDIVISION PHASE IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PRELIMINARY PLAN. 2. SEE P.U.O. DESIGN GUIDEUNES FOR ADDITIONAL ON-SITE GRADING CRITERIA FOR EACH LOT. 3. SEE SHEET C-5 FOR CROSS-SECTIONS, TYPICAL SECTION AND ENTRANCE PROFILE. 4. SEE SHEET C-2 FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED BOUNDARY AND EASEMENT INFORMATION. S. SEE SHEETS Lt, L2, & L3 FOR LANDSCAPE AND FENCING. 6. REFER TO TREE PRESERVATION ANO MITIGATION REPORT FOR TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATION& 7. SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED STATING 'FIRE LANE -NO PARKING' AT LOCATIONS DESIGNED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL'S OFFICE. & ALL CURBS (EXCEPT IN PARKING AREAS) SHALL BE PAINTED RED. 9. TREE ORIPUNE IS DEFINED AS THE PERIMETER OF EACH TREE CANOPY AT THE WIDEST POINT FROM THE MAIN TRUNK. REFER TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. �y0FE5Slpl,. y No. 49302 a + EXP. 09-30-00 + civil. �e 9lf OF CALYfO�� REVISIONS BY (1) W CC Q O N N O> «yaN m (Q C1ym^ �Yn 'c0 Q zm? p^ QhD•`-bX -JM.0 H O N V O p (n r a v Zw gym;. LLZ ELIJar Qz S -1 W as IV � J W U W F - PLOT DATE: 03-28-05 SCALE: 1'30' DESIGN: ADF DRAWN: HSM CHECK: SJL .: Wood JOB No: 98229 tYp4•\.e•a\94319puaYl4.q SHEET C-4 OF 6 SHEETS J KEY NOTES UITY EXISTING (SHEET CF -10) TO BE R MAIN REPL REPLACED WIR CITY OF TH AAN 8" MAIN ® PROPOSED 6- PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER FOR LOTS 1-4. CONNECT TO EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IN SIXTH STREET. PROPOSED PRIVATE SifIRU GRATIN SYSTEM. ON-SITE OR"DtAGE SHALT. BE COLLECTED AND OEPOSIIEb VIA ENERGY OIS4PA70R AND UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN AT SIXTH STREET. GUTTER FLOW ON SIXTH STREET SHALL BE REOUIRED TO MEET SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY FLOW CRITERIA. OFF-SITE CURB ANO OR REPAIR MAY BE RECUWED ALONG SIXTH STREET PER COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF PETALUMA RELATING TO A PRELIMINARY RENEW OATCO 2-3-99 TLE PRE98022). AREAS OF REPAIR ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY TLC CITY ENGINEER. D THE PROJECT STTE IS LOCATED IN A ORAATAGE AREA MAT 1R.TIMAIEIY ENTERS A PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT THE CORNER OF 'I' STREET AND PETALIriW BOIR.EVARO SWM. A DRAINAGE SITE MAP IS ATTACHED TO ME SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. WE TO ME SIZE OF ME fROJECT, IYS SMALL CONTRffiUnOK TO ME TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA AHO ME CREAT DISTANCE TO ME PUBLIC TORMTDRAISASYSTEM IO PUBLIC ISYS (� CT DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY NOTES t SEE P.U.D. PLAN FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS 2, SEE Lt AND L2 FOR LANDSCAPE AND FENCING, 1 TREE DRIPUNE IS DEFINED AS THE PERIMETER OF EACH TREE CANOPY AT THE WIDEST POINT FROM THE MAIN TRUNK. REFER TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4, SEE SHEET C-4 FOR TREE UST. 0 I »T FN l ,n �\ �A r � l r >Jo��I TF'...�...,✓r STs'.: ,„r/ Pp � r / A L07.4 ,OT 4 LI r \ LOT 2 \ h r' r D' 6e, IN LOT 3 GRAPHIC SCALE ...``� i j // sr.�u 1•..ad ESSTpy¢ U y No. 49302 z EXP, OB -30-06 + s>` CtViL 9rf OF CAL\F��� REVISIONS BY Q 0- z CL J w w Z = W p I.- Z Z �.' IY u- < Q N J Q_j `> `� X w z6 W W > a r� 0 A o 20 O W Ir 0. b Z w N d>0 N C.)> tA� nm4o zx d �¢ '^aim J m 0 _' e - °3 'EN Z ¢ � cx ccZ Eti dz �~ o J W n n w U uiui 1 - PLOT PATE 03-28-05 SCALE: 1* -30' DESIGN: ADF DRAWN: HSU CHECK: SJL JOB:Wu d JOB No: 98229 SHEET C-5 OF 6 SHEETS LEGEND W WATER MAIN },..�.�-. SANITARY SEWER PRIVATE STORM DRAM / ORAIN INLET Uj MANHOLE Tt- WATER METER FIRE HYDRANT H CATE VALVE DA DROP INLET C.L CURB INLET �- CLEAN OUT SS SANITARY SEWER W WATER W.S. WATER SERVICE LAY LATERAL SSUH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SOMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE F,µ FIRE HYDRANT SF. SQUARE FEET EX. EXISTING x TREE TO BE REMOVED i ARBORISTS TREE CANOPY J KEY NOTES UITY EXISTING (SHEET CF -10) TO BE R MAIN REPL REPLACED WIR CITY OF TH AAN 8" MAIN ® PROPOSED 6- PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER FOR LOTS 1-4. CONNECT TO EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IN SIXTH STREET. PROPOSED PRIVATE SifIRU GRATIN SYSTEM. ON-SITE OR"DtAGE SHALT. BE COLLECTED AND OEPOSIIEb VIA ENERGY OIS4PA70R AND UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN AT SIXTH STREET. GUTTER FLOW ON SIXTH STREET SHALL BE REOUIRED TO MEET SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY FLOW CRITERIA. OFF-SITE CURB ANO OR REPAIR MAY BE RECUWED ALONG SIXTH STREET PER COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF PETALUMA RELATING TO A PRELIMINARY RENEW OATCO 2-3-99 TLE PRE98022). AREAS OF REPAIR ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY TLC CITY ENGINEER. D THE PROJECT STTE IS LOCATED IN A ORAATAGE AREA MAT 1R.TIMAIEIY ENTERS A PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT THE CORNER OF 'I' STREET AND PETALIriW BOIR.EVARO SWM. A DRAINAGE SITE MAP IS ATTACHED TO ME SUBMITTAL PACKAGE. WE TO ME SIZE OF ME fROJECT, IYS SMALL CONTRffiUnOK TO ME TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA AHO ME CREAT DISTANCE TO ME PUBLIC TORMTDRAISASYSTEM IO PUBLIC ISYS (� CT DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY NOTES t SEE P.U.D. PLAN FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS 2, SEE Lt AND L2 FOR LANDSCAPE AND FENCING, 1 TREE DRIPUNE IS DEFINED AS THE PERIMETER OF EACH TREE CANOPY AT THE WIDEST POINT FROM THE MAIN TRUNK. REFER TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND TREE REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS 4, SEE SHEET C-4 FOR TREE UST. 0 I »T FN l ,n �\ �A r � l r >Jo��I TF'...�...,✓r STs'.: ,„r/ Pp � r / A L07.4 ,OT 4 LI r \ LOT 2 \ h r' r D' 6e, IN LOT 3 GRAPHIC SCALE ...``� i j // sr.�u 1•..ad ESSTpy¢ U y No. 49302 z EXP, OB -30-06 + s>` CtViL 9rf OF CAL\F��� REVISIONS BY Q 0- z CL J w w Z = W p I.- Z Z �.' IY u- < Q N J Q_j `> `� X w z6 W W > a r� 0 A o 20 O W Ir 0. b Z w N d>0 N C.)> tA� nm4o zx d �¢ '^aim J m 0 _' e - °3 'EN Z ¢ � cx ccZ Eti dz �~ o J W n n w U uiui 1 - PLOT PATE 03-28-05 SCALE: 1* -30' DESIGN: ADF DRAWN: HSU CHECK: SJL JOB:Wu d JOB No: 98229 SHEET C-5 OF 6 SHEETS PA p PARCEL 'A' Sf LOT'. I I EX GRADE -V `PROPOSED CRADE PA LOT 2 .�„ _ I EX CAADE '2YAa~~�. SECTION SGLE: 1'=8' H h V /L p LOT i PI PARCEL *A" T LOT 4 EX GRADE 2LLLUL I PROPOSED MADE C SECTION PA PA PA LOTS 2 AND 3 PARCEL 'A' PARCEL 'A' 1 1 ��PPROPOSED I 1 ti - `"- EX GNADE / GIUDE TAHNG WALL ROPoSED TAHHG WALL ` GRADE _M - YAX © SECTION C SECTION SCALE i =8' N $ V PA PARCEL 'A' PA PA 30' YH. VARCS a PRIVATE STREET, SANITARY SEVER, DRAINAGE A PUBLIC UIIUtt EASEMENT PRWATE DRIMAY, DR -BE d PUBLIC UTUTY EASEMENT 28' ( 5' 20' S' EARTH SWAIE I I SIRUCNRAL SECTION SWAIE 0.25—AEY Cl A I GRAE Ex CAE _B�J_EMTH ROPOSED -RTCACUB CUB k GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION - PRIVATE 20' ROAD NTS_ P' PARCEL 'A' PA a PRIVATE STREET, SANITARY SEVER, DRAINAGE A PUBLIC UIIUtt EASEMENT 1.5 I 28' 10.5 jI -<f l00' i I I 1 TRAVELED WAY PARRHG I ROPOSED URAL SECTKk! (URL) 2' GRADE 25' A 0.25' AC OVER 0.Y Cl 2 A8. 1aC iw,l I I I I I I 1 1:a 1'Ea i 1:�3 71 I I I I VERNGL*�ADE 73 I I I 2x CURBCURB k GUTTER a 0 I Z TYPICAL SECTION - PRIVATE 28' ROAD N.TS 111 DIE: V 5€E sL>eMrrAL oo wwrs Foa li,:.-:BIfAk-B ND-PIiBT06RAWF1 I 905 I 184 20.w -se \ '11+11 � 1 jI -<f l00' i IsoD• 1, I 1so'� I '-dTY FIR i TRUCK '') I I I I I I �Lx FNADE I I l I I I In 0 J I 1aC iw,l I I I I I I 1 1:a 1'Ea i 1:�3 71 I I I I I I I I 73 I I I I I I I I 1 OFF-SITE STREET REPAIR SCALE: V-50' NOTE: ALL PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ENTRY PROFILE SCALE: I'=10' N k V KEY NOTES 0 REPLACE 15 FEET OF CURB AND GUTTER. ® REPLACE VALLEY GUTTER © REMOVE EAISTING AC DRIVEWAY. REVISIONS BY �— V MADE I I `O_ 1"- 33e U Z W W In 0 J ''^^ VJ OW Im IS 0 02 a 0 I Z fu Z F- LL a ami O <Xd J W c� Z W � DDo w 0 - UJ W (r '^ VJ ui V `}) I 0 cc0 Q 0 Z 0 J W cc 0- (3 Z W 0) Q 0 N N 0> m=ate a>> UNW D) N m0 Q C) O p .a< J mDUL<L, 1 m o p (� N 3E QLU LU � 0 n R 2 o -T W -j J 7 W U W E- PLOT DATE 03-28-05 SS! pEEDESIGN: SCALE: AS NOTED ADF 1•�9 H 'X DRAWN: HSM CHECK: SJL `Y 'O Wood No. 48302 JOB No: 98229 EXP. 09-30-08 • cVlb.\...\1$22 U0.., cim�P 9tf SHEET OF CAITFOP� '1 C - [� V C-6 OF 6 SLEETS