HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 12/01/2008 Part 1CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIAAAGENDA BILL
Agenda Title: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision.
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a Recommendation from the
Planning Commission to the City Council to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Approve a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment to the
Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District (PUD) and Approve a
Tentative Subdivision Map for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Consisting of
11 Residential Units Located at 2762 "F' Street, APN 019-401-019, File No
#05-ZOA-0029-CR.
5.A
December 1, 2008
Meeting Date: December 1, 2008
Meeting Time: ® 7:00 PM
Cateeorv: n Presentation ❑ Consent Calendar X Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business X New Business
Department: I Director:
Community
Development
Cost of Prouosal: N/A
Mike Moor
Contact Person:
Irene T. Bor 1, see to
Planner
Phone Number:
(707)778-4301
Name of Fund: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A Account Number: N/A
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:
1.) Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2.) Introduce an Ordinance to Approve a Planned Unit District (PUD) Amendment to Westridge Units 4
& 5 and
3.) Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 Residential Units.
Summary Statement:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on September 9 and October 28, 2008. After
deliberating and taking public testimony the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to
approve with conditions the request to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Introduce an Ordinance to
Amend Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District and to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for 11
residential traits for the Pinnacle Ridge property located at 2762 "F' Street, APN 019-401-019, File # 05-ZOA-
0029-CR.
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. "Draft' Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. "Draft' Ordinance Authorizing an Amendment to the Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District.
3. "Draft' Resolution Approving a Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 Residential Units
4. Planning Commission staff reports dated September 9 and October 28, 2008 and associated
attachments and plans.
5. Miscellaneous Correspondence
R viewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir:
0
at1 i 25 wn
Rev. # l5ate Lasa Revised:
2 111/24/08
Reviewed by City Attornev:
Date: 0
Ai)Drov -by:eliV'Manager:
c
Date:
File:
s:/planning/city counciVreports/pinnacle ridge council report dec
20083 d revision
F�
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 1, 2008
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision.
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a Recommendation from the Planning Commission to
the City Council to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision,
Located at 2762 "1" Street, APN 019-401-019, File No #05-ZOA-0029-CR; Approve a Planned
Unit District (PUD) Amendment to the Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District (PUD) and
Tentative Subdivision Map for the Pinnacle ridge Subdivision Consisting of 11 Residential Units
Located at 2762 "F' Street, APN 019-401-019, File No #05-ZOA-0029-CR.
1. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Council Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Introduce an Ordinance to Approve a Planned Unit District
(PUD) Amendment to Westridge Units 4 &5 and Adopt a Resolution to Approve a
Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 Residential Units (see Attachment 1 for Draft
Resolutions and Ordinance).
2. BACKGROUND:
The subject property was annexed to the City of Petaluma in 1989 as part of the
Westridge Subdivision Units 4 and 5. An Environmental Impact Report (E.LR.) was
prepared for that development. As part of the Westridge Subdivision, the subject
property was zoned PUD -Planned Unit District. The 2025 General Plan land use
designation for the subject property is divided into three separate land use
designations; Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres) and Very
Low Density Residential (1.89 acres). As part of the Westridge Subdivision, the
subject property was zoned PUD -Planned Unit District. Resolution No. 89-10
approved the unit development plan for the Westridge Units 4 & 5, including a
condition that: "the Remainder of the Hash property (16.5 acres of AP No. 019-401-
02) shall be prezoned PUD with the following development/operating standards: a)
Existing agricultural operations and uses are consistent with the PUD prezoning
designation and may continue at current levels; b) Development Standards shall be
consistent with the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance "A" Agricultural District; and c) Any
revisions to or increase in the level of development must be the subject of a PUD
amendment.
The project received Preliminary SPARC Review on September 9, 2004. SPARC
appeared to be in favor of the proposed project.
0
In accordance with Resolution No. 2005-198 N.C.S., the applicant obtained approval
from the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee on February 9, 2006 to
demolish the existing residence and all of the outbuildings/accessory structures. The
Committee determined that the structures were not of historically significant.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 9. 2008
The proposed project was heard at the September 9, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting (refer to Attachment 4, September 9, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report
and associated attachments). Some of the issues raised by members of the public
included the following:
• Conformance with Resolution 89-10, which approved the Unit
Development Plan for Westridge Units 4 & 5 (see Attachment 3)
• Density
• Drainage/runoff
• Clustering/feathering
• Appropriateness of proposal with site and surroundings
• Loss of views
• Water pressure
• Hillside slippage
• Hillside/ridgelines
The Commission asked the following be addressed and continued the item to October
28, 2008 (refer to Attachment 4, October 28, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report
and associated attachments):
The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a larger area map
which showed the land uses and densities of the surrounding properties both
within the current City boundaries and properties designated to come into the City
sometime in the future.
2. The Commission requested site sections of the proposed project.
Provide additional visual analysis. Staff and Council Member Rabbitt are to work
with the applicant to determine the appropriate vantage points. Staff has attached
the Hillside Ordinance as a reference for the Commissioners (Attachment 7).
4. Commission requested enhanced visual analysis of the proposed project.
The Commission requested that the applicant consider a private conservation
easement on Lots 8 and 9 to prevent any building in this area by future
homeowners.
The Commission requested that parking be provided at the pump house for the
public to be able to park and access the Urban Separator. It was also requested
that a bench and water fountain be installed as well.
C
7. The commission requested that the applicant look into providing for a pathway in
the Urban Separator.
Planning Commission Meetine of October 28. 2008
At the October 28°i Planning Commission meeting the Commission determined that
the issues/concerns of both the Commission and public had been adequately addressed
and made a motion to forward a unanimous recommendation to the Council in favor of
the proposed project. The Commission requested specific conditions of approval be
included (see Attachment 3, "Draft" Resolution for Approval of the Tentative
Subdivision Map).
3. DISCUSSION:
For further discussion and information staff would refer the Council to the Planning
Commission reports of September 9 and October 28, 2008 and their associated
attachments. The Initial Study analyzing the Project's environmental effects is
attached as Exhibit 5 to the Planning Commission staff report dated September 9,
2008. Additional analysis of the Project's impacts in response to public comments and
requests from the Planning Commission is contained in the October 28, 2008 Planning
Commission staff report.
4. FINANCIAL IM PACTS:
The applicant paid $14,840.00 in Development Review Application fees. The project
is a cost based fee.
1173808.1
0
RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE
SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2762 "I" STREET, APN 019-401-019
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36
acre parcel at 2762 "I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned
Unit District ("PUD") of Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD
Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and pursuant to 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15064(f)(2), and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
required to analyze the potential significant environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the
Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply and traffic
studies, the City relied on the program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified
with appropriate findings of fact on May 19, 2008 with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-084
N.C.S.; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 21, 2008, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a twenty -day public comment
period commencing August 21, 2008 and ending September 9, 2008 and a Notice of Public
Hearing to be held on September 9, 2008, before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission was
published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well
as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 9, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
its supporting technical studies and reports; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission fust
considered the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, received comments from the
public and in response to questions from Planning Commissioners and the public, continued the
public hearing to October 28, 2008 and requested additional information from the applicant and
from staff regarding certain impacts of the Project, including but not limited to impacts on views
and aesthetics and other potential impacts; and
WHEREAS, a further staff report dated October 28, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, summarized and analyzed the supplemental material and responses relating to the
Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in response to comments from members
of the public and from Planning Commissioners; and
E�
WHEREAS, the supplemental information on visual effects of the Project analyzed in
the October 28, 2008 staff report and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at
the continued Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2008, included but was not limited
to three additional cross-sections from several perspectives which depict the relationship
between existing ground, finished grade, the street and the proposed homes; a larger area map
showing land uses and densities of surrounding properties within the City limits and properties
designated for possible annexation into the City at a future time; new photographic simulations
of the Project from seven (7) additional view platforms selected in response to public comments;
enhanced visual analysis of the Project showing trees proposed to be planted in the private open
space easement at the rear of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and trees to be planted along the public open space
at the rear of Lots 4, 5 and 6; agreement of the applicant to add a private conservation easement
on Lots 8 and 9 to prevent building on a part of those lots and preserve the rural character along
"I" Street with conforming map modification to show the easement; and
WHEREAS, supplemental analysis in the October 28, 2008 staff report presented and
discussed the City's Hillside Ordinance and concluded that the Project was not visible from the
specific view platforms identified in the Hillside Ordinance other than at one location at "I"
Street from the City limit to the urban growth boundary; and
WHEREAS, supplemental information as to the Project's effects on parking and access
to the Urban Separator, a supplemental tree preservation and mitigation report with additional
tree mitigation, a correction to earlier -provided information showing that the Project is within the
South Hills Subarea rather than the West Hills Subarea, more information on drainage and
grading including a prohibition on lot -to -lot drainage absent private storm drainage easements,
and supplemental information on water pressure were provided at the Planning Commission
meeting of October 28, and related to the potential effects of the Project, all as described in the
October 28, 2008 staff report and attached materials; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and considered all written and oral
public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the
time of the public hearing on October 28, 2008, including comments submitted after the close of
the public comment period on September 9, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission completed its review of the
Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation measures and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, based in part on its recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of other Project entitlements; and
WHEREAS, an Agenda Bill, dated December 1, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and
responses, and the Project for the City Council; and
N
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all
supporting documents, including but not limited to the Initial Study, the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, staff reports and related materials, public comments and all evidence
presented at a noticed public hearing on December 1, 2007, at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies mitigation measures
applicable to the Project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study, its reports and supporting documents and all information
and documents referred to and incorporated herein by reference constitute the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project and reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on
the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, 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 existing undeveloped site
surrounded by urban development; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Project and environmental
documents, including the Initial Study, its supporting documents and all information and
documents incorporated herein by reference are available for review at Petaluma City Hall,
Cormmmity Development Department, File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR during normal business
hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11
English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, Att'n: Irene Borba.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, its supporting
studies and documents, and all information referred to and/or incorporated herein adequately
describes the impacts of the Project. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the City that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment nor
is there a fair argument that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the
environment.
3
3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
including the Initial Study, its supporting studies and documents, all comments and evidence
relating to environmental effects of the Project and all materials referred to and/or incorporated
herein before approving the Project and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Guidelines.
4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit A hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as conditions of approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Project..
5. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set
forth in Exhibit B hereto as a requirement of approval of the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15` day of December, 2008 by the following vote:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Cleric
1172844.2
a
RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S.
RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE
SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2762 "1" STREET, APN 019-401-019
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36
acre parcel at 2762 "I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned
Unit District ("PUD") of Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD
Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and pursuant to 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15064(f)(2), and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
required to analyze the potential significant environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the
Initial Study, including but not limited to effects of climate change, water supply and traffic
studies, the City relied on the program EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified
with appropriate findings of fact on May 19, 2008 with the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-084
N.C.S.; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 21, 2008, the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study, providing for a thirty -day public comment
period commencing August 21, 2008 and ending September 9, 2008 and a Notice of Public
Hearing to be held on September 9, 2008, before the City of Petaluma Planning Commission was
published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project as well
as all persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 9, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
its supporting teclu-tical studies and reports; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission first
considered the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, received comments from the
public and in response to questions from Planning Commissioners and the public, continued the
public hearing to October 28, 2008 and requested additional information from the applicant and
from staff regarding certain impacts of the Project, including but not limited to impacts on views
and aesthetics and other potential impacts; and
WHEREAS, a further staff report dated October 28, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, summarized and analyzed the supplemental material and responses relating to the
Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in response to comments from members
of the public and from Planning Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the supplemental information on visual effects of the Project analyzed in
the October 28, 2008 staff report and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at
the continued Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2008, included but was not limited
to three additional cross-sections from several perspectives which depict the relationship
between existing ground, finished grade, the street and the proposed homes; a larger area map
showing land uses and densities of surrounding properties within the City limits and properties
designated for possible annexation into the City at a future time; new photographic simulations
of the Project from seven (7) additional view platforms selected in response to public comments;
enhanced visual analysis of the Project showing trees proposed to be planted in the private open
space easement at the rear of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and trees to be planted along the public open space
at the rear of Lots 4, 5 and 6; agreement of the applicant to add a private conservation easement
on Lots 8 and 9 to prevent building on a part of those lots and preserve the rural character along
"I" Street with conforming map modification to show the easement; and
WHEREAS, supplemental analysis in the October 28, 2008 staff report presented and
discussed the City's Hillside Ordinance and concluded that the Project was not visible from the
specific view platforms identified in the Hillside Ordinance other than at one location at "I"
Street from the City limit to the urban growth boundary; and
WHEREAS, supplemental information as to the Project's effects on parking and access
to the Urban Separator, a supplemental tree preservation and mitigation report with additional
tree mitigation, a correction to earlier -provided information showing that the Project is within the
South Hills Subarea rather than the West Hills Subarea, more information on drainage and
grading including a prohibition on lot -to -lot drainage absent private storm drainage easements,
and supplemental information on water pressure were provided at the Planning Commission
meeting of October 28, and related to the potential effects of the Project, all as described in the
October 28, 2008 staff report and attached materials; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and considered all written and oral
public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the
time of the public hearing on October 28, 2008, including comments submitted after the close of
the public comment period on September 9, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission completed its review of the
Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, mitigation measures and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program and recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, based in part on its recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of other Project entitlements; and
WHEREAS, an Agenda Bill, dated December 1, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and
responses, and the Project for the City Council; and
io
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all
supporting documents, including but not limited to the Initial Study, the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, staff reports and related materials, public comments and all evidence
presented at a noticed public hearing on December 1, 2007, at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies mitigation measures
applicable to the Project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study, its reports and supporting documents and all information
and documents referred to and incorporated herein by reference constitute the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Project and reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on
the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, 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 existing undeveloped site
surrounded by urban development; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Project and environmental
documents, including the Initial Study, its supporting documents and all information and
documents incorporated herein by reference are available for review at Petaluma City Hall,
Community Development Department, File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR during normal business
hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 11
English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, Att'n: Irene Borba.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study, its supporting
studies and documents, and all information referred to and/or incorporated herein adequately
describes the impacts of the Project. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the City that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment nor
is there a fair argument that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the
environment.
3 1�
3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
including the Initial Study, its supporting studies and documents, all comments and evidence
relating to environmental effects of the Proj ect and all materials referred to and/or incorporated
herein before approving the Project and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Guidelines.
4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit A hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as conditions of approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the Project..
5. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set
forth in Exhibit B hereto as a requirement of approval of the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ls` day of December, 2008 by the following vote:.
AYES:
f\[III.`1
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1172844.2
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Geoloev and Soils.
1. As deemed appropriate, the recommendations as outlined in the Geotechnical investigation
prepared by Bauer Associates dated January 2005 shall be incorporated.
2. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be
conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title
20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control
Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
3. The project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a
registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of Public Works, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to
be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other
grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the
drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following
measures as applicable:
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be
minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent
possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities,
including short- term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and
field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed.
Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected
from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences,
diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be
mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay
mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate.
C. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures
shall be on-site by October 1st. All grading activity shall be completed by
October 15th, prior to the on -set of the rainy season, with all disturbed
areas stabilized and re -vegetated by October 31st. Upon approval by the
Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short-term grading may be
allowed. The Engineering Section in conjunction with any specially
permitted rainy season grading may require special erosion control
measures.
13
5
4. All constriction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic
safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
5. All public and private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for
compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance.
6. Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans
shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a
building pen -nit. 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.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a
detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable
codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through
construction of the project.
8. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and approve
the landscaping plans, which show how disturbed areas are to be replanted. Any changes
to the landscaping plan as required by SPARC shall be incorporated into plans that are
submitted for building permit issuance.
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan
or Final Map, the project sponsor 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.
10. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and
structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the
geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall
sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The
geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City,
prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the
improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
geotechnical specifications by the Engineering Section of the Community Development
Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building
permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils
information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of
building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
6 I4—
Hvdrologv and Water:
1. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment
and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water.
The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and
specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to
issuance of grading or building permits.
a. The applicant shall designate construction staging area and areas for storage of any
hazardous materials (i.e. motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) used during construction on
the improvement plans. All construction staging areas shall be located away from
any stream and adjacent drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas
from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous
materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contaminants from
entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak.
b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other
construction related materials or wastes, oil or petroleum products or other organic
or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded
material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and
disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall designate appropriate
disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications.
c. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any live creek channel. All in -stream
channel work shall be limited to the dry season (typically defined as May I"
tluough October 15°i and performed in accordance with conditions specified by the
Department of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The
Department of Fish and Game may require a more limited construction period in
stream channels that support anadromous fisheries. Applicant shall provide copy of
the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the
permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading
permits for work within any channel.
2. The applicant shall submit the required Notice of Intent for compliance with the conditions
for a general permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate System (NPDES)
stonn water permit for construction activities administered by the State of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The conditions require development and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which may also
meet the City's requirement for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, noted above.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit or approval of any improvement plans
for earthwork within any creek corridor or identified wetland site, proof of authorization
from all applicable responsible agencies including, but not limited to, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the
California Department of Fish and Game, shall be submitted by the applicant to the
Community Development Department.
7 1�5
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and approval
by the Public Works Department prior to approval of a final map, improvement plan,
grading or building permit. The project grading and all site drainage improvements shall
be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma Community
Development Department's "Standard Specifications" and the Sonoma County Water
Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria". Channel modifications and bank stabilization
improvements within a natural stream channel shall be designed in conformance with the
City's "Restoration Design and Management Guidelines". The drainage plans shall
include supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable
engineering methods. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted. Surface runoff shall be
addressed within each individual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate stone drain
system. All hydrologic, hydraulic and stone drain system design shall be subject to
review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City
Engineer.
Bioloeical:
1. No trees or limbs of the oak trees described in the Wildlife Research Associates report shall
be removed without first having a qualified bat biologist conduct emergence surveys to
determine presence or absence of day roosting bats. No machinery shall be parked or used
beneath the trees, to prevent fumes and noise from impacting bats that may be roosting
inside tree cavities. If no bats are observed emerging from cavities in the oaks, the trees
shall be removed within 48 hours. If no bats are observed, then tree removal shall occur
only between February 15 and April 15, or between August 15 and October 15, in order to
avoid impacts to non-volant young or torpid adult bats that may be roosting in cavities in
the trees.
2. Conduct construction activities during summer months when the roadside drainage ditch is
dry to prevent impacts to water quality.
3. Construction activities may result in erosion and sedimentation of downstream aquatic
habitats. Sediment transport from construction activities to the roadside drainage ditch and
downstream aquatic habitats can have deleterious effects on aquatic organisms in these
aquatic habitats and result in violations of State and Federal water quality regulations.
4. Ensure that best management practices are adopted in order to minimize the amount of
sediment leaving the site during construction activities.
5. Prior to issuance of development permits, obtain a general permit for Strom Water
Discharges from Construction Activities through the SFBRWQCB.
6. Prior to issuance of development permits, prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan for construction activities.
8 16
7. Construction and landscaping activities may result in impacts to valley oak tree.
Construction and landscaping activities at Lot 8 should avoid impacts to the valley oak tree.
Prior to issuance of development permits, protective fencing shall be installed. Fencing
should encompass the entire canopy of the tree to prevent impacts to its roots and drip line.
8. Landscaping and irrigation should be designed to not impact the roots and drip line of the
valley oak tree.
Visual Oualitv and Aesthetics:
1. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to
prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties and natural/undeveloped
areas. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans,
which reflect the location and design of all proposed streetlights, and any other exterior
lighting proposed.
2. Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas
and other light-sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility.
Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light-
sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen
interior living space from headlight glare.
3. No illumination shall be installed within the designated open space area except for low-
level lighting along designated pathways adjacent to public streets. The improvement and
landscape plans prepared for the project shall reflect the location and design details of all
light fixtures proposed. Said locations and details shall be reviewed and approved by the
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of development permits.
4. Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement plans along public streets
and within parking areas in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural
Review Guidelines to reduce glare and to provide shade.
5. All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
placed underground.
6. Architectural details, landscape plans and specifications, and detailed site plans shall be
subject to review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior
to issuance of development permits.
9 11
Exhibit B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and
provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of
improvements plans.
2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation
measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the
project.
3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project
implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall
ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant shall notify all assigns
and transfers of the sante.
4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation
measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements, such as
archaeological resources, etc.
MONITORING:
1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Public Works Department and Fire Departments
shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved
project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit
requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans,
or building permits.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required
pen -nits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the
permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all
improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project
description, perniit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans.
CONSTRUCTION MEASURES:
1. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation
measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the
City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for
construction.
10 ff
2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the
building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans and
conditions of approval.
4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference
with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the
mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and
building permits.
ORDINANCE NO.
Introduced by Councilmember
Seconded by Councilmember
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE
SUBDIVISION PROJECT CONSISTING OF 11 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LOCATED AT 2762 "1" STREET,
APN 019-401- 019, PROJECT FILE NO. 05-ZOA-0029-CR
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36 acre parcel at 2762
"I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned Unit District ("PUD") of
Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment
on September 9 and October 28, 2008 after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and
in the form required by the City's hmplementing Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in
its minutes of September 9 and October 28, 2008 recommending the adoption of an amendment to
Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated changes to the PUD Development Standards to allow for 11 single
family residential units to be constructed on Assessor's Parcel No. 019-401-019; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2008, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008- , N.C.S.,
approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Project; and
NOW THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. PUD Findings
The Cit v Council finds as follows in sunoort of the Amendment of the Unit Development Plan for
Westridve Units 4 & 5 and Develonment Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdvision Proiect consisting_ of
1 I sinele-familv residential units located at 2761 "1" Street (the "Proiect"):
A. The proposed Amendment to of the Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District to allow the Pinnacle
Ridge property to develop as a residential development proposed is consistent with the Petaluma General
Plan. The PUD Amendment will result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment
than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The proposed 11
residences complies with the 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property which are:
Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres) and Very Low Density Residential (1.89 acres).
The Rural Residential (0.1 to 0.6 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential
development located primarily at the western perimeter of the city, along the Urban Growth Boundary. This
designation maintains a rural character and provides a transition to unincorporated rural and agricultural
lands. This density range reflects prevailing lot sizes and development patterns. The Very Low Density
Residential (0.6-2.5 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential development
applied primarily to the southern hillsides, with a minimum lot size of half an acre, and larger lots required
for sloped sites. The Urban Separator includes open space lands within and/or directly adjacent to the
Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development, as
designated by the City of Petaluma. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from urban land,
may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the city's open space system. On lands with
development potential, the Urban Separator allows transferability of development potential to the remaining
portion of the same property. Given the 2025 General Plan land use designations, and the allowance to
transfer density from the Urban Separator, the subject property would be allowed to develop 11 units, which
is what the applicant has proposed. Therefore, the development of the Property in the manner proposed by
the applicant will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be
in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City, with the City of Petaluma
General Plan 2025 and with any applicable plans adopted by the City.
B. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it incorporates the policies and
guidelines of the Planned Unit District Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
development is planned on a property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares ("1"
Street), and said thoroughfares with the improvements required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic
generated by the development.
C. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the
proposed amended PUD zoning in that the amended zoning designation will result in residential uses that
are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project plans present a unified and
organized arrangement of lots and public streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed
landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and
approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
D. As determined in the City's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact,
and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, the natural and
scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the
Unit Development Plan.
Section 2. Severabilitv.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end,
provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each
section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held
unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 3. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City
Council.
Section 4. Publication
The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and
in the manner required by the City Charter.
INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this day of
ADOPTED this day of , 2008, by the following vote:
Al
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1173726.1
ORDINANCE NO.
Introduced by Councilmember
Seconded by Councilmember
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE
SUBDIVISION PROJECT CONSISTING OF 11 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LOCATED AT 2762 "1" STREET,
APN 019-401- 019, PROJECT FILE NO. 05-ZOA-0029-CR
WHEREAS, Pirmacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36 acre parcel at 2762
"I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned Unit District ("PUD") of
Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment
on September 9 and October 28, 2008 after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and
in the form required by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in
its minutes of September 9 and October 28, 2008 recommending the adoption of an amendment to
Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated changes to the PUD Development Standards to allow for 11 single
family residential units to be constructed on Assessor's Parcel No. 019-401-019; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2008, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008- , N.C.S.,
approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for the Project; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. PUD Findings
The Cit v Council finds as follows in suonort of the Amendment of the Unit Develonment Plan for
Westridee Units 4 & 5 and Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridee Subdvision Project consisting of
11 sinele-familv residential units located at 2761 "I" Street (the "Proiect"):
A. The proposed Amendment to of the Westridge Units 4 & 5 Planned Unit District to allow the Pinnacle
Ridge property to develop as a residential development proposed is consistent with the Petaluma General
Plan. The PUD Amendment will result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment
than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The proposed 11
residences complies with the 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property which are:
Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres) and Very Low Density Residential (1.89 acres).
The Rural Residential (0.1 to 0.6 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential
development located primarily at the western perimeter of the city, along the Urban Growth Boundary. This
designation maintains a rural character and provides a transition to unincorporated rural and agricultural
lands. This density range reflects prevailing lot sizes and development patterns. The Very Low Density
Residential (0.6-2.5 hu/ac) land use designation is intended for single-family residential development
applied primarily to the southern hillsides, with a minimum lot size of half an acre, and larger lots required
for sloped sites. The Urban Separator includes open space lands within and/or directly adjacent to the
h/
Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development, as
designated by the City of Petaluma. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from urban land,
may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the city's open space system. On lands with
development potential, the Urban Separator allows transferability of development potential to the remaining
portion of the sante property. Given the 2025 General Plan land use designations, and the allowance to
transfer density from the Urban Separator, the subject property would be allowed to develop 11 units, which
is what the applicant has proposed. Therefore, the development of the Property in the manner proposed by
the applicant will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be
in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City, with the City of Petaluma
General Plan 2025 and with any applicable plans adopted by the City.
B. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance in that it incorporates the policies and
guidelines of the Planned Unit District Chapter 19 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
development is planned on a property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares ("I"
Street), and said thoroughfares with the improvements required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic
generated by the development.
C. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the
proposed amended PUD zoning in that the amended zoning designation will result in residential uses that
are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The project plans present a unified and
organized arrangement of lots and public streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed
landscaping would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and
approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
D. As determined in the City's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact,
and adoption of Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, the natural and
scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the
Unit Development Plan.
Section 2. Severabilitv.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remainder of the ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end,
provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each
section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held
unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 3. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption by the Petaluma City
Council.
Section 4. Publication
The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and
in the manner required by the City Charter.
INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this day of
ADOPTED this day of , 2008, by the following vote:
0
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
1173726.1
®r
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
FOR THE PINNACLE RIDGE PROJECT CONSISTING OF
11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT 2762 "1" Street
APN 019-401- 019, PROJECT FILE NO. 05-ZOA-0029-CR
WHEREAS, Pinnacle Development Number 21, L.P. has applied to subdivide a 16.36 acre
parcel at 2762 "I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision ("the Project"), and amend the Planned Unit
District ("PUD") of Westridge Units 4 & 5 and associated Development Plan and PUD
Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed
amendment on September 9 and October 28, 2008 after giving notice of said hearing, in the
manner, for the period, and in the form required by the City's hnplementing Zoning Ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report
set forth in its minutes of September 9 and October 28, 2008 recommending the approval of the
proposed tentative subdivision map subject to conditions of development for the Project to allow
for 11 single family residential units to be constructed on Assessor's Parcel No. 019-401-019;
and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2008, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines")
and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2008- , N.C.S., approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental effect for
the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings
and approves the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 16.36 acre parcel at 2762
"I" Street into an 11 -unit subdivision for the Pinnacle Ridge Project ("the Project"), subject to the
following conditions of approval:
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP:
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and
the State Subdivision Map Act.
2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is
consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed,
including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure.
3. The site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or
wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no
significant, environmental impacts that could not be mitigated.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
From the Plannine Commission:
• Conditions #27 and 28 in the "draft" Resolution for the Tentative Subdivision Map for 11
Residential Units be modified per the City Engineer (refer to Conditions 927 and #28).
• Plans submitted for Site Plan & Architectural Review shall include on the landscaping
plans two 24" box Coast Live Oaks to replace the removal of the two Coast Live Oaks as
noted in the Horticultural and Associates Report dated October 1, 2008 (tree #'s 6 and
#9). Appropriate location of trees to be determined by SPARC (refer to Condition #7).
• A bike rack to be installed at the pump house location (refer to Condition #8).
• The CC& R's shall include language regarding the maintenance and removal of trees.
Refer to Condition #25 in the "draft" Resolution for the Tentative Subdivision Map (refer
to Condition #25 and 910).
• The proposed fencing plan shall be modified to illustrate that the fencing for Lot 8 and 9
is located at the boundary of the Conservation Easement and not at the property line. The
Commission did suggest that possibly fence height could be used at the property
boundary. Fences are typically reviewed as part of the PUD reviewed by SPARC (refer
to Condition #6).
• It was also noted that the Urban Separator Path did not have to be ADA accessible (refer
to Condition # 13.
From Plannine:
1. Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other
first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures as notes.
2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the
plans dated stamped August 21, 2008.
3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Pinnacle Ridge project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project
approval.
4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee
to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning
staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5)
days of receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has found
that a de minimis determination is not appropriate, and that an environmental filing fee (as
required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4d) must be paid to the Sonoma County
Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (for fee amount, contact them
at 944-5500).
5. The building elevations, site plans, landscape plan, Design Guidelines and Development
Standards and Gateway Improvements are subject to the review and approval of the Site
Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
6. Public access pathways and appropriate landscaping, scenic overlook areas where
appropriate, and fencing along the entire length of the urban separator shall be provided by
the developer through the development review process, in concert with project design at
time of SPARC review. hi addition, the fencing plan shall reflect that the fence location for
Lots 8 & 9 shall be located at the boundary of the Conservation Easement. Fencing at the
property line boundary for Lots 8 & 9 shall be no taller than 42" in height and shall be of
an open wire or a split rail fencing detail.
7. Plans submitted for Site Plan & Architectural Review shall include on the plans the
required trees per the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the IZO) to replace the
removal of the two Coast Live Oaks as noted in the Horticultural and Associates Report
dated October 1, 2008. Appropriate location of trees to be determined by SPARC.
8. Plans submitted for Site Plan & Architectural Review shall include the details of the
parking at the location of the pump -house for public parking. Said plans shall also
illustrate a bench, drinking fountain and bike rack.
9. Plans submitted for SPARC review shall include the Urban Separator Pathway; its location
and details.
10. At time of submittal for SPARC review, the PUD Guidelines shall be revised to include
language regarding the open space easements for Lots 8 & 9. Said PUD Guidelines shall
also include language regarding approval for the removal of trees on each of the lots at the
rear of each property as the trees have been installed for privacy and screening..
11. All work within a public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the
Community Development Department.
12. A reproducible copy of the finalized PUD Development Plan and written PUD Standards
and Design Guidelines incorporating all project conditions of approval shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to Final Map recordation.
13. Plans submitted for Final Map shall include the language pertaining to the dedication to the
City of Petaluma for the Urban Separator and Urban Separator Pathway. Per the General
Plan the urban separator shall be dedicated to the City at no cost for the City for the land or
required interface improvements. Public access pathways and appropriate landscaping,
scenic overlook areas where appropriate, and fencing along the entire length of the urban
separator shall be provided by the developer through the development review process, in
concert with project design. Maintenance of the Urban Separator shall be in perpetuity the
responsibility of the development through a guaranteed funding source, such as a
Landscape Assessment District and/or a funded trust. The Urban Separator Pathway was
not required to be ADA accessible.
14. A reproducible copy of the Tentative Subdivision Map, reflecting all adopted conditions of
approval, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to Final
Map recordation.
15. The applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the
construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during
construction.
a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be
properly muffled and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be
turned off when not in use.
b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of
twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed
15mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this
purpose. Responsibility for watering shall include weekends and holidays when
work is not in progress.
C. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for 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
cleared of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or
other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions.
e. 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 a certificate of occupancy.
07q
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 permit.
16. All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance
1881 N.C.S. for clean -burning fuels.
17. Improvement plans shall indicate that all construction activities shall be limited to 7:00
a.m, to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Constriction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of
Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for
additional hours. There will be no start up of machines or equipment prior to 7:00 a.m.,
Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment prior to 7:00 a.m. or past
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Plans submitted for City permits shall include the language above.
18. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre -wiring for solar facilities for each
dwelling and are subject to staff review and approval.
19. Improvement plans shall indicate that construction and demolition debris shall be
recycled to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
20. Prior to issuance of a building pemiit, temporary protective fencing shall be erected 5 feet
outside the drip line of the remaining oaks. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in
height and shall be secured with in -ground posts subject to staff inspection. Fencing shall
be installed prior to grading permit issuance and any grading/construction activity. Proof
that the temporary fencing has been installed shall be made to the Planning Division by
photographs.
21. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for
the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required to post signs when
pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
22. All project lighting shall be downcast to prevent glare into pedestrians and bicyclists
eyes.
23. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to
prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties and natural/undeveloped
areas. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans,
which reflect the location and design of all proposed streetlights, and any other exterior
lighting proposed.
24. All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
placed underground.
25. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall be required to submit
CC&R's to the City Attorney for review and approval. Said CC&R's shall include
language pertaining to the maintenance and removal of trees on private property.
26. 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.
From Public Works (Eneineerine)
The following conditions shall be addressed at the time of final map and improvement plan
application.
Frontaee Imarovements
27. Match the existing I Street improvements constructed with the adjacent Westridge
Subdivision and extend improvements to the southerly side of Parcel C. The street
configuration shall include a 5 -foot sidewalk, travel lane and bike lane (southbound),
travel lane and bike lane (northbound). The minimum pavement section shall be 5 -inches
of asphalt concrete over 15 -inched of class 2 aggregate base. A standard driveway
approach and driveway shall be provided to the pump station.
28. South of Parcel C, to the City Limits, the street shall be relocated to the center of the
existing 40 -foot right-of-way. The street section on the project side shall include
construction of a 12 -foot vehicle lane and a 6 -foot on -street bike lane. The street section
shall also include construction of a northbound 12 -foot vehicle lane. The minimum
pavement section shall be 5 -inches of asphalt concrete over 15 -inches of class 2
aggregate base. Construct an appropriate transition from the new improvements to the
existing road at the City Limit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
29. Street lights, traffic signs, striping and pavement markers shall be installed. "No parking"
signs shall be installed along the project frontage.
30. The necessary right-of-way and public utility easement shall be dedicated along I Street
to construct the public improvements described in the conditions of approval and shown
on the tentative map.
3(
Grading
31. Grading and slide repairs shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report specific
to this development. Slide repairs shall be completed to protect the new development and
the public right-of-way along I Street.
32. Investigate and address the subsurface water issue along the subdivision boundary at lots
1, 2 & 3. The report and solution shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Private Street
33. The minimum private street pavement section shall be 4 -inches of asphalt concrete over
12 -inches of class 2 aggregate base.
34. A stop sign and crosswalk shall be installed on the private street at the new intersection.
"No Parking" signs shall be installed around the perimeter of the cul-de-sac bulb, along
the private driveway serving lots 6-9 and in the emergency turnaround.
35. Street lights shall be installed along the private street.
Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Systems
36. The storm drain system and sanitary sewer system in the private street and on private
property shall be private and privately maintained. The storm drain across lot 9 shall be
directed to I street without passing through lot 11.
37. Extend public the water main, sanitary sewer main and storm drain system to the
southerly side of parcel C and convert any existing services to the new mains.
38. All new water services shall be 1.5 -inches with 1 -inch meters. Locate the meters on I
street at the pump house. Individual domestic water booster pumps shall be provided for
all parcels.
39. The public storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma
County Water Agency.
40. The water main and fire pump system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire
flow as required by the Fire Marshal. The fire pump system and equipment shall be
maintained and funded by the homeowner association.
Easements
41. All necessary easements shall be dedicated on the final map.
42. Parcel A shall include private access, emergency vehicle access, private storm drain,
private sanitary sewer, private fire line, private surface drainage and public water main
easements.
43. The private driveway serving lots 6-9 shall include private access, emergency vehicle
access, private water line, private fire line and private surface drainage.
Miscellaneous
44. Overhead utilities along the project frontage shall be placed underground from the utility
pole across from lot 1 to the first utility pole south of the property line between lot 9 and
the urban separator.
45. Erosion control and water quality control measures shall be employed. The necessary
documentation shall be filed as required by the responsible agencies.
46. Maintenance agreements shall be required for any shared utilities or facilities and shall be
recorded with the final map. Agreements shall identify the utility or facility to be
maintained, the parties responsible for maintenance and the funding mechanism for
maintenance, replacement and repair. All agreements shall be reviewed and approved
prior to recordation.
47. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes,
resolutions and ordinances. Technical review deposits shall be required at the time of
application submittal.
48. Provide formal appraisals for developer contributions as required by GASB 34
(Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement 34).
49. The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase 11 Storm Water Management
Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. The homeowners
association shall be responsible for providing a yearly inspection and maintenance report
for the proposed storm drain separator.
From the Fire Marshal:
This project is in substantial conformance with emergency vehicle access, water supply, and
other Fire Department conditions, excepting the conditions noted below:
50. The Fire Department is requiring an independent, third -party evaluation of the proposed
solution to the water supply issue. The Fire Marshal is authorized to approve alternate
materials or methods as prescribed in California Fire Code Section 103.1.1, which allows
the Fire Department a technical opinion or report without cost to the jurisdiction. This
report shall be completed by a fire protection engineer as agreed upon by the developer
and the Fire Marshal.
51. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the 9/2/05 letter (Pinnacle Ridge meeting notes) from
LaFranchi and Associates and accepts the conclusion/conditions noted in the letter,
including fire flow calculations for available pressure/gpm flow on the suction side of the
pump. Final approval of assumptions and conclusions are subject to review by a third -
party technical opinion.
52. Residual pressure for hydrant #3 is marginal, based on 1500 gpm at 20 psi. Connect
hydrant 93 to the fire pump to improve the residual pressure and flow. Also, relocate
hydrant #3 to property line between Lots 3 and 4.
53. The turnaround for Lots 6, 7, and 8 is acceptable.
54. The perimeter edge of the canoe turnaround, in the cul-de-sac, must be reduced by a
minimum of 1' to assure maximum maneuverability of fire department apparatus.
55. Provide an address monument sign, acceptable to the Fire Marshal for Lots 6-9, with a
minimum of 4" letters on contrasting background with lighted or reflected numbers.
56. Provide a minimum of 12' access gate or other proposed alternate (including the
driveway cut and the graded roadway minimum of 10' inside of gate), from I Street to the
urban separator for Fire Department use to suppress brush/grass fires.
57. The open space areas shall contain disked trails, perimeters, and intermediate fire breaks
across the middle to discourage the rapid spread of fire. Such fire abatement practices
shall be completed on an annual basis. A site plan outlining the firebreaks shall be
submitted to the Fire Marshal's office for approval as part of the landscaping plans
submitted with the building permit. Plans shall also reflect a notation that requires the
HOA or LAD to maintain the fire breaks annually.
58. This structure is within the boundaries of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
(VHFHSZ). Buildings constructed in this zone are subject to the requirements outlined in
Section 17.20.060 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
From the Water Resources & Conservation:
59. Due to high pad elevations, air gap booster systems are required for individual residential
units.
60. A rain gage system shall be installed in the Urban Separator. Location and make/model
to be determined by the Water Resources and Conservation Department,
61. On-site stone drain utilities shall be privately owned and maintained.
62. A double -detector check valve shall be required to protect the public water supply from
the private fire system.
1173791.1
M
li I CON im� I ji I � 4 Jkl
Attachments to Planning Commission Report dated September 9, 2008
Attachment 1: Draft Findings/Conditions:
Draft Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft Findings for a Tentative Subdivision Map
Draft Findings for a PUD Amendment to Wetsridge Units 4 & 5
Attachment 2: Location Map; General Plan Map; Zoning Map
Attachment 3: Project Narrative
Attachment 3a: PUD Development Standards & Design Guidelines
Attachment 4: Correspondence Received
Craig and Ivana Brandolino, letters addressed to Irene Borba dated April 26, 2006 and
August 10, 2005, and letter addressed to Pinnacle Homes dated April 26, 2006
From GeoQuest to Craig Brandolino, letter dated April 19, 2006
Todd Campbell, letter dated September 21, 2005
Marry Glenn, letter dated January 7, 2006
N.K. Parsons and M.D. Edwards, letter dated May 8, 2006
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Hooper, letter addressed to Mayor David Glass dated July 8, 2006,
letter addressed to Director of CDD dated April 26, 2006, letter addressed to
CDD/Planning Division dated May 1, 2006, four letters addressed to Irene Borba dated
January 1, 19, (2 letters), and 20, 2006, and December 13, 2005
Richard E. K. Brawn, letters dated August 20, 2008, April 22 and 26, 2006, March 8,
2005, and April 1, 2004
Clyde & Christine Christobal, letters dated January 29, 2006 and August 29, 2005
Petition from Residents of Westridge Knolls dated stamped by CDD September 23,
2005
Attachment 5: Initial Study
Associated Studies -
Slope Analysis Exhibit
Fire Hydrant Calculations
Green Point Checklist
Letter from Wildlife Research Associates to Pinnacle Homes
Biological Assessment
Traffic Impact Analysis
Pinnacle Ridge Story Pole Maps and Photos
A Cultural Resources Evaluation from Archaeological Resource
Service
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report
Report Geoteclurical Investigation
Grant of Private Open Space Scenic Easement by and between Pinnacle
Development Number 21 and the City of Petaluma
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Pinnacle
Ridge
Pinnacle Ridge — Detention and Storm Water Treatment Control Design
Preliminary Drainage Report "I" Street Storm Drain System, w/2 half
size maps
Water System Distribution Calculations
Water System Distribution Calculations, (Second Option)
Fire Flow Calculations
Water System Distribution Calculations
Attachment 6: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Plans (1I" x 17" and full size):
Landscape Concept Plan Map
Vesting Tentative Map
Elevations and Roof Plan Maps, (separate maps for lots 1 through 11
and pump house)
I
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
PLANNING COMM15510N
REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
CommunityDevelopneent DepmYment, Planning Division, 11 English Sheet, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: planning@cipetalnnm.ca. its
DATE: September 9, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO SUBDIVIDE
A 16.36 ACRE PARCEL AT 2762 "P' STREET INTO AN 11 -UNIT
SUBDIVISION AND TO AMEND THE PUD -PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT OF
WESTRIDGE UNITS 4 & 5 AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND PUD STANDARDS.
RECOMMENDATIONS I
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed project, accept public
comment and provide direction to staff and the applicant. Although the proposed project appears
to be generally consistent with the 2025 General Plan Land Use designation and densities, staff
seeks specific input from the Commission regarding applicable hillside and ridgeline policies.
Should the Commission be in a position to forward a favorable recommendation Staff has
included draft findings and conditions (see Attachment 1) for the following:
1. To Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. To Approve the PUD Amendment to Westridge Units 4 & 5 and
3. To Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for 11 Residential Units
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
2762 "F' Street
019-401-019
05-ZOA-0029-CR
Project Planner: Irene T. Borba, Senior Planner
Project Applicant: Pinnacle Homes
Craig Lawson
P.O. Box 14189
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
Page 1
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
Property Owner: Pinnacle Development Number 21
P.O. Box 14189
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Grevillia Drive
Property Size: 16.32 acres
Site Characteristics: The subject property is in an area of rural ranches and suburban residential
uses. The site is in the City of Petaluma, adjacent to the Sonoma County border. Grevillia Drive
is north of the subject property and "I" Street borders the property to the east. The site consists
of 16.32 acres of land comprised of rolling hills and grassland. The property is characterized as
having been used for raising livestock. Cross fencing is located at scattered locations on the
property and includes an incised drainage ditch which drains to the northeast. The parcel
supports a dense growth of native grasses and several large oak and bay trees at the southern
portion of the property. The subject property consisted of a single-family residence and
associated outbuildings, all of which have been demolished.
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Single-family residential subdivision of 11 -units.
Current Zoning: PUD -Planned Unit District (Westridge, Units 4 & 5)
Proposed Zoning: No change, PUD Amendment
2025 General Plan Land Use: Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (0.1-0.6 hu/ac)
(8.15 acres) and Very Low Density Residential (0.6-2.5 hu/ac) (1.89 acres)
Proposed General Plan Land Use: No Change.
Subsequent Actions if Project is Approved:
■ City Council Review and Approval
■ SPARC Review and Approval
• Improvements Plans/Final Map
• Building Permits
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 2762 "P' Street, APN 019-401-019 which is currently vacant.
The subject property previously contained a single-family residence and associated outbuildings
which were demolished. In accordance with Resolution No. 2005-198 N.C.S., the applicant
Page 2
t obtained approval from the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee on February 9, 2006 to
2 demolish the residence and all of the outbuildings/accessory structures. The Committee
3 concluded that the structures were not historically significant.
4
5 The applicant is proposing an 11 -lot subdivision and PUD Amendment. The lot sizes are
6 proposed as follows: Lot 1-0.44AC (19,042 SF); Lot 2- 0.43AC (18,695 SF); Lot 3- 0.65AC
7 (28,401 SF); Lot 4- 0.49AC (21,389 SF); Lot 5- 0.44AC (19,074 SF); Lot 6- 0.68AC (gross
8 29,737 SF, net 29,180 SF); Lot 7- 0.77AC (gross 33,610 SF, net 29,721 SF); Lot 8- 1.56 AC
9 (gross 68,093 SF, net, 66,176 SF); Lot 9- 2.02AC (gross, 87,973 SF, net 86,410 SF); Lot 10-
90 0.47 AC (20,574 SF) and Lot 11-0.63AC (27,600 SF). The smallest of the lots is Lot 2 at 0.43
11 AC and the largest lot is Lot 9 at 2.02AC. The average lot size is 0.78 AC (34,014 SF). The
12 smallest of the lots is Lot 5 at 0.44 AC and the largest lot is Lot 9 at 1.99 AC. The average lot
13 size is 0.80 AC. The smallest of the lots is Lot 2 at 0.43 AC and the largest lot is Lot 9 at
14 2.02AC. The average lot size is 0.78 AC (34,014 SF). The total gross lot size is 16.36 acres
15 which includes an Urban Separator Parcel consisting of 6.32 acres of the site, The Urban
16 Separator Parcel is to the south end of the parcel, adjacent to the city limit line and urban growth
17 boundaries.
18
19 The proposed project will be accessed by a new public street via "I" Street. All access to the lots
20 will be from the public street and the proposed driveway that extends off the end of the cul -de -
21 sac. No vehicular access to any lot will be allowed from "I" Street. The street width is proposed
22 to be 32' with a 6 -foot planter strip and 5 -foot sidewalks. Lots 6, 7, 8, & 9 will be accessed from
23 a private driveway at the end of the public street.
24
25 The proposed request requires approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for an I1 -lot
26 subdivision. hl addition, an Amendment for the Westridge Subdivision Units 4 & 5 PUD -
27 Planned Unit District will be required as noted in Resolution No. 89-10 which approved the unit
28 development plan for the Westridge Units 4 & 5, which included a condition that: "the
29 Remainder of the Hash property (16.5 acres of AP No. 019-401-02) shall be prezoned PUD with
30 the following development/operating standards: a) Existing agricultural operations and uses are
31 consistent with the PUD prezoning designation and may continue at current levels; b)
32 Development Standards shall be consistent with the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance "A"
33 Agricultural District; and c) Any revisions to or increase the level of development must be the
34 subject of a PUD amendment (see Attachment 3, Project Narrative). The project applicant
35 requested a Planned Unit District Amendment rather than a standard zoning designation in order
36 to meet the intent of the policies of the General Plan that pertain to feathering, clustering and
37 ridgeline development (see Attachment 3a, PUD Development Standards and Design
38 Guidelines).
39
40 BACKGROUND
41
42 The subject property was annexed to the City of Petaluma in 1989 as part of the Westridge
43 Subdivision Units 4 and 5. An Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) was prepared for that
44 development. As part of the Westridge Subdivision, the subject property was zoned PUD -
45 Planned Unit District. The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property is
46 divided into three separate land use designations; Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential
Page 3
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
(8.15 acres) and Very Low Density Residential (1.89 acres). As part of the Westridge
Subdivision, the subject property was zoned PUD -Planned Unit District.
The project received Preliminary SPARC Review on September 9, 2004. SPARC appeared to be
in favor of the proposed project.
In accordance with Resolution No. 2005-198 N.C.S., the applicant obtained approval from the
Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee on February 9, 2006 to demolish the existing
residence and all of the outbuildings/accessory structures. The Committee determined that the
structures were not of historically significant.
STAFF ANALYSIS
2025 General Plan Consistenev:
The subject property was annexed to the City of Petaluma in 1989 as part of the Westridge
Subdivision Units 4 and S. As part of the Westridge Subdivision, the subject property was zoned
PUD -Planned Unit District. 'The 2025 General Plan land use designation for the subject property
is: Urban Separator (6.32 acres), Rural Residential (8.15 acres) and Very Low Density
Residential (1.89 acres). The Rural Residential (0.1 to 0.6 hu/ac) land use designation is
intended for single-family residential development located primarily at the western perimeter of
the city, along the Urban Growth Boundary. This designation maintains a rural character and
provides a transition to unincorporated rural and agricultural lands. This density range reflects
prevailing lot sizes and development patterns. The Very Low Density Residential (0.6-2.5 hu/ac)
land use designation is intended for single-family residential development applied primarily to
the southern hillsides, with a minimum lot size of half an acre, and larger lots required for sloped
sites. The Urban Separator includes open space lands within and/or directly adjacent to the
Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development,
as designated by the City of Petaluma. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from
urban land, may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the city's open space
system. On lands with development potential, the Urban Separator allows transferability of
development potential to the remaining portion of the same property. Given the General Plan
land use designations, and the allowance to transfer density from the Urban Separator, the
subject property potentially could be yield i I units, which is the number the applicant has
proposed.
Below is a table of applicable 2025 General Plan goals, policies and/or programs associated with
the project. Staff has noted the applicable goal, policies or program and then commented as to
whether or not the project appears to be consistent, or requires further direction from the
Planning Commission.
Page 4
Chapter 1
I -G-1: Land Use
1-P-1
Land Use, Growth, Management & the As
Built Environment
Goal/Policy
Maintain a balanced land use program that
meets the long-term residential, employment,
retail, institutional, education, recreation, and
open space needs of the community.
Promote a range of land uses at densities and
intensities to serve the community needs
within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
1-P-2 Use land efficiently by promoting infill
development, at equal or higher density and
intensity than surround uses.
1-P-3 Preserve the overall scale and character of
established residential neighborhoods.
1-P-14
1-G-2:
Hillside/Ridgelines
1-P-16
1-P-17
Chapter 1
(continued)
1-G-3: Land Use
1-P-18
Require provisions of street trees,
landscaping, parking and access features to
help integrate land uses and achieve an
effective transition between uses of disparate
intensities.
Preserve the essential scenic and natural
resources of the open ridgelines and hillsides
that help define the unique character of
Petaluma.
Allow development in hillside areas that
preserve ridgelines and hillsides and are site
sensitive.
Retain ridgelines and prominent hillsides as
open space through appropriate clustering
and/or transfer of density to other parts of a
development site (applies to Rural and Very
Low Residential areas within the West Hills,
South Hills and Petaluma Boulevard North
subareas only).
Land Use, Growth, Management & the As
Built Environment
Maintain a well-defined boundary at the edge
of urban development.
Maintain a permanent open space around the
city by the continuation of the Urban
Separator and the use of an Urban Separator
Pathway, where appropriate.
Page 5
Comments
Consistent. Project is meeting the
General Plan land use density and is
providing housing and 6.32 acres of
urban separator which will be dedicated
to the city.
Consistent. The project site is within
the UGB and the proposed density is
within the density range of the general
plan.
Consistent. The proposed density is
within the density range of the general
plan.
Consistent with the adjacent Westridge,
Units 4 & 5 subdivision.
Consistent. The project provides for
street trees and on -street parking as well
as access to the urban separator.
Further direction from the Planning
Commission needed.
To help address the question, the
applicant has provided a slope analysis
(sheet TM4). Story poles have been
erected and a map & photos of the story
pole locations has been provided.
See response above in 1-G-2
See response above in 1-G-2
Consistent.
Consistent. The subject property
contains 6.32 acres of urban separator
which will be conditioned to be
dedicated to the city.
1-P-18 (con't)
An Urban Separator path has been
proposed by the applicant. The
Commission may want to discuss the
appropriateness of that path given the
topography.
1-P-19
Ensure that the Urban Separator and Urban
Consistent. The project proposal
Separator Pathway function as an overlay, the
utilizes the transfer of density for the
intent of which is to provide property owners
Urban Separator.
with the opportunity to request transfer of the
development potential of land designated as
urban separator to another portion of the same
site.
1-P-20
Maintain a standards width for the urban
Consistent.
separator at a minimum of 300 feet except in
those areas where is may be variable due to
topography, physical or ownership
constraints, or is already established at more
or less than 300 feet.
1-P-21
As development or annexation occurs, the
Consistent, project will be conditioned
Urban Separator and/or Urban Separator
to dedicate the Urban Separator and
Pathway shall be dedicated to the City, at no
pathway.
cost for the City for the land or required
interface improvements.
1-P-23
Establish public scenic or overlook areas in
Planning Commission should discuss
appropriate locations within the Urban
and determine the appropriateness of
Separator.
public scenic/overlooks at this site.
1-P-28
The city does not guarantee that any
Planning Commission should discuss
individual project will be permitted to achieve
and determine the appropriateness of
the maximum densities shown on the Land
the policy for the proposed project.
Use Map.
I -G-17 Trees and
Recognize that trees are a community asset,
Consistent. The proposed project is
the Built
an essential element in the interface between
providing for street trees. A tree report
Environment
the natural and built environment, and part of
was prepared by John Meserve. The
the urban infrastructure.
report evaluated 5 trees potentially to be
impacted by the project proposal.
Mitigation measures were
recommended. Three of the five trees
evaluated were recommended to be
removed.
These are not protected trees. The
applicant is proposing to plant over 100
new trees on site, some of which are of
the protected species.
1-P49
Preserve existing tree resources and add to the
Consistent. See response above in 1 -G -
inventory and diversity of native/indigenous
17.
species
Page 6
Chapter 2
Community Design, Character and Green
Building
Goal 2-G-1: City
Preserve Petaluma's setting as an urban place
Consistent. The proposed project
Form and Identity
surrounded largely by rural land uses and
complies with the general plan
densities, agricultural and open space.
densities.
2 -P -I
As depicted on the Land Use Map allow for
Consistent. The proposed project
urban development at defined densities and
complies with the general plan
intensities to prevent the need to extend
densities.
outward beyond the Urban growth Boundary.
2-P-2
For development adjacent to the UGB, the
Consistent. The proposed project
intent of the designated land uses is to feather
complies with the general plan
or reduce densities to provide a transition
densities.
from urban to rural.
Further direction from the Planning
Commission needed as to whether or
not the proposed project meets the
intent of feathering.
Goal 2-G-2: City
Maintain and enhance Petaluma's unique
Consistent. The proposed project
Form and Identity
identity and sense of community, history and
complies with the general plan
place.
densities.
2-P-6
Create a strong sense of entry into the city at
Planning Commission should review
key locations, identified as Gateways. Each
the project proposal discuss and
gateway should be considered individually
determine the appropriateness of what a
with some requiring architectural and/or
gateway should be at this location and
landscape treatments and others more simply
whether or not the project as proposed
protecting/enhancing what already exists (e.g.
meets the intent of the policy.
cultural landscapes and ecological diversity)
The applicant has provided photos to
to provide a sense of transition or entry to
illustrate how they meet the intent of the
Petaluma,
gateway and maintain the rural
"I" Street at the southwest entrance is listed as
character of the area.
a gateway.
Subarea -West
The proposed project is within the
Hills
boundaries of the West Hills Subarea.
Goal 2-G-1 l: West
Reinforce the existing natural character and
The proposed project complies with the
Hills
densities of the hillside neighborhood.
General PIan densities.
2-P-60
Provide a transition from the urban densities
The proposed project complies with the
of Downtown to the rolling hills and
General Plan densities.
agricultural lands beyond the UGB.
2 -P -6I
Protect existing agricultural uses, wildlife,
The proposed project complies with the
historic and cultural resources, and natural
General Plan land use designations.
vegetation.
2_P-62
Preserve the rural aspect of the area by
The proposed project complies with the
maintaining exisfing density (Rural, Very
General Plan densities.
Low and Low Residential) and land use
patterns.
Page 7
2-P-63
2-P-65
2-P-67
1
Allow for clustering of residential units in the
bills, permitting smaller lot sizes where
clustering and common space is maintained
and proposed development corresponds to
stipulated density ranges.
Require dedication of the Urban Separator
and/or Urban Separator Pathway along the
western and southern boundaries of the UGB.
Create an open space network through
residential areas by requiring integration of
open space with public trails when properties
are developed.
Appears to be consistent. The proposed
project complies with the general plan
densities.
The Planning Commission may want to
discuss whether or not the project meets
the intent of clustering. Clustered
development is defined as development
in which a number of dwelling units are
placed in closer proximity than usual, or
are attached, with the purpose of
retaining open space.
The project will be conditioned to
comply and therefore would be
consistent.
The proposed project has proposed an
Urban Separator pathway.
The Planning Commission may want to
discuss the appropriateness of a path in
this location given the topography.
2 Note: Per the 2025 General Plan, the subject property is within the West Hills Planning sub -
3 area. The West Hills is defined as a small sub -area defined by Petaluma's Urban Growth
4 Boundary (UGB) and I street. "I" Street Extension provides a minor gateway from outlying
5 agricultural lands. The General Plan envisions little change to this neighborhood, preserving
6 its existing hillside character, while allowing low density infill development on vacant and
7 under-utilized sites between existing neighborhoods and Purrington Road. The remaining
8 lands could slowly develop, as utility extensions occur, to allow Very Density Residential uses
9 (up to two dwelling units/acre).
to
2-P-74
2-P-76
2-P-77
Limit residential densities to Very Low and
Low Density Residential.
Develop a strong gateway at I Street with
landscape treatment and views of the
Petaluma Valley. Maintain the rural
character and interface of the adjacent
outlying areas of the UGB when designating
gateway improvements.
Preserve the existing public view sheds
featuring the Petaluma community.
Page 8
The land use designation of the subject
property met this policy.
The project is required to obtain Site
Plan & Architectural review approval.
Staff will include a condition that as
part of that the gateway be reviewed by
SPARC.
The gateway aspect of the project
would typically be reviewed by
SPARC. The Planning Commission
may want to provide some direction to
SPARC on the gateway.
The Planning Commission should
discuss and determine if the project
meets the intent of the general plan.
Goal 2-G-18:
Green Building
2-P-118
2-P-122
Chapter 4 The
Natural
Environment
Goal 4-G-1:
Biology & Natural
Resources
4-P-2
4-P-3
Goal 4-G-2:
Biology & natural
Resources
Goal 4-G-3: Air
Quality
4-P-16
Provide leadership and guidance to ensure the
application of sustainable site planning and
green building practices.
As part of the development code and
standards updates, incorporate sustainable site
planning, development, and maintenance
standards and procedures, reflecting
conditions in the variety of Petaluma settings
(such as hillsides and floodplain).
Require development projects to prepare a
Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would
address the reuse and recycling of major
waste materials (soils, vegetation, concrete,
lumber, metal scraps, cardboard packaging,
etc) generated by any demolition activities
and construction of the project.
Protect and enhance biological and natural
resources with the UGB.
Conserve wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas in the following order of
protection preference: 1) avoidance, 2) on-site
mitigation, and 3) off-site mitigation.
Protect special status species and supporting
habitats within Petaluma, including species
that are State and Federal listed as
endangered, threatened, or rare.
Promote resource protection within the
Petaluma Watershed to conserve grassland
habitats, oak woodlands and other natural
resources that are found in areas between the
UGB and the Planning Area boundary.
Improve air quality and meet all federal and
State ambient air quality standards and goals
by reducing the generation of air pollutants
from stationary and mobile sources.
Improve air quality through required planting
of trees along streets and within park and
urban separators, and retaining tree and plant
resources along the river and creel corridors.
To reduce combustion emissions during
construction and demolition phases, the
contractor of future 1 projects shall encourage
the inclusion in construction contracts the
specific requirements or measures.
Page 9
The proposed project will be
conditioned to comply with green
building practices as outlined by the
applicant. The applicant agreed to
specific green building measures.
Hillside development standards have
been adopted. These are contained
within Chapter 16 of the Implementing
Zoning Ordinance (IZO).
A Construction Phase Recycling Plan
will be required as condition of
approval.
Consistent with Mitigation Measures.
Refer to Initial Study.
Consistent with Mitigation Measures.
Refer to Initial Study.
Consistent with Mitigation Measures.
Refer to Initial Study.
Consistent with Mitigation Measures.
Refer to Initial Study.
Consistent. Refer to Initial Study.
Consistent. Refer to the landscape plan
(sheet 1-10) which illustrates the
planting of over 100 trees many of
which are on the protected tree list.
The project will be conditioned to
comply with the appropriate
requirements.
Goal 4-G-6: Reduce the contribution to greenhouse gases
Greenhouse Gas from existing sources and minimize the
Emissions contribution of greenhouse gases from new
construction sources.
Chapter 5
5-P-2 Ensure the identified mobility system is
provided in a timely manner to meet the needs
of the community by updating the City's
transportation impact fee program to insure
that necessary citywide improvements are
funded.
5-P-3 Ensure public improvements are constructed
and maintained in a manner that is
economically feasible to the budgetary
constraints of the City.
5-P-4 New development and/or major expansion or
change of use may require construction of off-
site mobility improvements to complete
appropriate links in the network necessary for
connecting the proposed development with
existing neighborhoods and land uses.
5-P-22 Preserve and enhance pedestrian connectivity
in existing neighborhoods and require a well
connected pedestrian network linking new and
existing developments to adjacent land uses.
5-P-23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access
for all new development.
5-P-25
Establish a network of multi -use trails to
facilitate safe and direct off-street bicycle and
pedestrian travel. At the minimum, Class I
standards shall be applied unless otherwise
specified.
Chapter 6:
Recreation,
Music, Parks, &
the Arts
6-P-18
Development that occurs adjacent to
designated trails and pathway corridors shall
be required to install and maintain the
publicly owned and accessible trail in
perpetuity.
Page 10
The project does not significantly
impact greenhouse gases.
Refer to the Air section of the initial
study for further comments.
The project will be conditioned
appropriately.
The project proposal will be
conditioned to pay a traffic impact fee.
The City Engineer has recommended a
condition to provide the appropriate
project improvements.
The City Engineer has recommended a
condition to provide the appropriate
project improvements.
The proposed project will provide a link
to the Urban Separator and an Urban
Separator Pathway.
For other discussion on traffic, refer to
section below on traffic/circulation and
parking, or the transportation/traffic
section of the initial study.
Consistent. The proposed project
provides for public access to the Urban
Separator and provides for an Urban
separator Pathway.
Consistent. The project includes
sidewalks and public access to the
Urban Separator and provides for an
Urban separator Pathway
Consistent. The project includes
sidewalks and public access to the
Urban Separator and provides for an
Urban Separator Pathway
The project will be conditioned
accordingly.
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
Chapter 11
Housing
Goal 11-G-1:
Provide adequate residential development
Housing Supply
opportunities to accommodate projected
residential growth and facilitate. mobility
within the ownership and rental market.
11-P-1
Promote residential development within the
Urban Growth Boundary.
11-P-2
Encourage the development of housing on
underutilized land
Goal 11-G-2; Promote a range of housing types to meet the
Housing Variety housing needs of all Petalumans.
I1 -P-4 Allow flexibility within the City's Standards
and regulations to encourage a variety of
housing types.
Zonma Ordinance Consistencv:
I
Consistent. The project would provide
for 11 single-family residential units.
Consistent, the subject property is
within the UGB.
Consistent. The subject property is
currently vacant and the proposal is
consistent with the general plan land
use densities.
Consistent. The project meets the intent
of the goal.
Consistent. The project meets the
intent of the goal. The project proposal
includes a Planned Unit District.
The subject property is zoned PUD -Planned Unit District and is part of the Westridge
Subdivision Units 4 & 5. The project proposal includes an Amendment for the Westridge
Subdivision Units 4 & 5 PUD -Planned Unit District. Resolution No. 89-10 approved the unit
development plan for the Westridge Units 4 & 5, including a condition that: "the Remainder of
the Hash property (16.5 acres of AP No. 019-401-02) shall be prezoned PUD with the following
development/operating standards: a) Existing agricultural operations and uses are consistent
with the PUD prezoning designation and may continue at current levels; b) Development
Standards shall be consistent with the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance "A" Agricultural District; and
c) Any revisions to or increase in the level of development must be the subject of a PUD
amendment.
The requested PUD Amendment includes proposed development standards for the project.
Development standards include but are not limited to setbacks, heights, fencing, permitted and
accessory uses (see Attachment 3a PUD Development Standards). The project applicant
requested a Planned Unit District Amendment rather than a standard zoning designation in order
to meet the intent of the policies of the General Plan that pertain to feathering, clustering and
ridgelines.
Hillside Ordinance -Chanter 16 of the Imnlementine Zonine Ordinance (IZO):
The purpose of the chapter establishes the regulations for development and alteration of
properties in hillsides and ridgeline areas in order to preserve the essential scenic and natural
resources that define the character of Petaluma, and to implement the General Plan goals and
policies. The following objectives of the Hillside Ordinance are intended to ensure that all
hillside development is in compliance with the goals, policies, and implementing strategies of
Petaluma's General Plan:
• Ensure high quality projects.
® Ensure that projects are designed to fit with and avoid site constraints.
Page 11
2 Y Minimize the potential for geologic failures, fires, and floods that result from or
3 adversely impact new development.
4 ■ Maintain the natural, open space character of the hillsides.
5 ■ Promote public enjoyment of the hillsides, including the creation of hillside hiking/biking
6 trails and open space.
7 ■ Maintain consistent visual character of Petaluma's hillside backdrop, for the community
8 as a whole, by discouraging developments of excessive visual prominence.
9 ® Ensure that development does not dominate, but rather visually blends and achieves
to harmony between the natural and built environment.
11 ■ Conserve the natural features of the site such as topography, natural drainage, vegetation
12 (including native and significant trees), wildlife habitats, movement corridors, and other
13 physical features.
14 ■ Promote sustainability.
15
16 Staff seeks further direction from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the project is
17 consistent and meets the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. Staff realizes that hillsides/ridgelines
18 are an important issue for the community and the neighborhood. As noted previously, the
19 applicant has provided the Commission with a slope analysis map and story poles have been
20 erected to assist the Commission in their review of the project. A story pole map is also included
21 as an attachment to the report.
22
23 Traffic/circulation/narking:
24 As part of the environmental review a Traffic Impact Analysis was required of the applicant (Refer
25 to the Initial Study and associated Traffic Impact Study, Attachment 5). The project will not result
26 in a significant increase of vehicles to the site. There may be some short-term impacts to
27 automobile, bicycle and pedestrian traffic due to construction vehicles entering and exiting the
28 project site. Construction vehicles will be contained within the site and will not impact the
29 movement of local traffic. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal to ensure that the
30 project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, no significant environmental
31 effects will occur as a result of this proposal.
32
33 A Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Allan Tilton of W -Trans,
34 dated June 6, 2005. The analysis evaluated potential traffic impacts that would be expected from
35 the proposed subdivision of the 11 single-family residences and addresses the potential impacts the
36 project may have on surrounding streets in the area.
37
38 Existing Conditions:
39 The study area consisted of "I" Street adjacent to the project site. "I" Street has two lanes with
40 sidewalk, curb and gutter on the northerly side of the street. Currently 'T, Street carries
41 approximately 3,000 vehicles per day. The General Plan adopted Level of service (LOS) standard
42 for streets indicate the minimum acceptable operation is LOS C where it is currently LOS C or
43 better. Where operation was at LOS D or E in 1985, it shall not deteriorate to the next lower level.
44 Under a City Council Policy adopted in 1990, mitigation is required at any study intersection
45 where the project results in delay worse than LOS D. Currently, the portion of "I" Street adjacent
46 to the project site operates at LOS A during the p.m. peak hour.
47
48
Page 12
F Project Trip Generation and Distribution:
2 Project trip generation and distribution was calculated for this project under the Single -Family
3 Detached housing category (Land Use #210) to project vehicle trips. Per the traffic analysis, the
4 proposed Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision is expected to generate an average of 105 daily trips,
5 including 8 trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 11 during the p.m. peak hour. Trip distribution
6 characteristics were determined by examining existing patterns of traffic and the locations of
7 services and schools in the project area. It was assumed that approximately 90% of the traffic
8 originating from the proposed subdivision would be oriented to the north on `D" Street, with the
9 remaining 10% oriented to the cast on Swmyslope.
to
11 Existing Plus project Conditions:
12 Upon the addition of project -generated traffic, "I" Street is expected to continue operating
13 acceptably at LOS A during p.m. peak hour with a volume -to -capacity ratio increase to 0.17 from
14 0.16, an increase of 0.01. The project will have a minor incremental impact with service levels
15 remaining at LOS A.
16
17 Site Access:
18 Access to the project would be provided via new street connection to "I" Street. it is expected that
19 the proposed street connection would provide adequate access to the surrounding street network.
20
21 Future Conditions:
22 The City of Petaluma has developed a Traffic Model for use in evaluating the potential traffic
23 impacts of build -out of the land uses described in the current General Plan together with new or
24 improved streets. The Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision site is located within TAZ 117 of the City's
25 Traffic Model, The General Plan assumptions for TAZ 117 include an additional 11 single-family
26 homes from year 2002 baseline conditions. The Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision at 11 single-family
27 homes will meet the anticipated development potential of TAZ 117 and the trips from this project
28 have been considered within the General Plan Update.
29
30 Conclusions:
31 ■ The project will add an average of 105 daily trips to the area circulation system, including 8
32 am. peak hour trips and 11 p.m. peak hour trips,
33 a The service level on "I" Street will remain at LOS A with project added traffic volumes,
34 a The added traffic volumes have been foreseen and are included in the City of Petaluma
35 General Plan Traffic Model and;
36 • The project access design will need to maintain a minimum of 395 feet of sight distance in
37 both directions along "I" Street. The final improvement plans will need to incorporate
38 landscaping and site grading that will maintain the required sight distance.
39
40 PUBLIC COMMENTS
41
42 A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing
43 was published in the Argus Courier August 21, 2008 and sent to all residents and property
44 owners within 500 feet of the project site. The following opposing written correspondence was
45 received from the following residents/properly owners (see Attachment 4):
46
Page 13
1 ■ Craig and Ivana Brandolino, letters addressed to Irene Borba dated April 26, 2006 and
2 August 10, 2005, and letter addressed to Pinnacle Homes dated April 26, 2006, The
3 letters raise concerns of runoff/drainage, and privacy.
4 ■ From GeoQuest to Craig Brandolino, letter dated April 19, 2006. This letter was done at
5 the request of the Brandolinio's who hired Mr. Maurer to look at potential drainage
6 issues.
7 ■ Todd Campbell, letter dated September 21, 2005. Mr. Campbell's letter raised
8 issues/concerns regarding fencing, lighting, colors, and the general compatibility of the
9 proposed project with the site and the surroundings, drainage and water pressure and fire
10 risk.
it ■ Marry Glenn, letter dated January 7, 2006. Ms. Glenn raised concern pertaining to
12 drainage and privacy.
13 ■ N.K. Parsons and M.D. Edwards, letter dated May 8, 2006. Issues pertained to water
14 shortage, view sheds, water conservation, and the aesthetics of the project. The letter
15 speaks further to violation of the principles of feathering and density.
16 ■ Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Hooper, letter addressed to Mayor David Glass dated July 8, 2006,
17 letter addressed to Director of CDD dated April 26, 2006, letter addressed to
18 CDD/Planning Division dated May 1, 2006, four letters addressed to Irene Borba dated
19 January 1, 19, (2 letterer), and 20, 2006, and December 13, 2005. The concerns raised
20 included: closeness of project proposal to existing residences, privacy, views, quality of
21 life, number of proposed units, drainage, and feathering.
22 Richard E. K. Brawn, letters dated August 20, 2008, April 22 and 26, 2006, March 8,
23 2005, and April 1, 2004. Issues: Potential slumping from site that may damage adjacent
24 property, and disturbance of soils, runoff, gateway to Petaluma, design of proposed
25 residences and the appropriateness of the proposed homes with surrounding, height of
26 proposed homes, and the public process.
27 Clyde & Christine Christobal, letters dated January 29, 2006 and August 29, 2005. Issues
28 raised pertained to density and proximity of homes, loss of privacy and quiet and
29 potential for slides.
30 Petition from Residents of Westridge Knolls dated stamped by CDD September 23, 2005.
31 Issues: reduction of quality of life, low water pressure, the private road, enforcement of
32 CC&R's, traffic study failed to address certain aspects of project, the width of I Street
33 and how it needs to be fixed.
34
35 Regarding the drainage issues, the applicant has provided preliminary drainage study. The
36 project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
37 construction the contract will be required to adhere to City of Petaluma standards and regulation
38 regarding storm water management and erosion controls measures. The applicant and the
39 appropriate studies/reports have been provided and are part of the attachments for the report.
40 As far as privacy, fencing, colors, architectural details, appropriateness of residences with the
41 surroundings, the proposed project is required to obtain Site Plan & architectural Review approval.
42 The Planning Commission will consider the General Plan density and the goals/policies of the
43 General Plan with regards to hillsidehidgelines and feathering. Regarding I Street, the proposed
44 project will be conditioned to provide certain improvements to I Street as recommended by the
45 City Engineer. In response to the public process, as required by State law, the proposed project
46 was publicly noticed in the local newspaper and to property owners/tenants within 500' of the
Page 14
1 subject property. Staff also has a list of interested parties to be notified of any public hearing and
2 the list was utilized when preparing the public notice. Staff has attached correspondence received
3 to date from the public. The public will be allowed to provide testimony at the public hearing for
4 the Planning Commission to consider.
5
6 A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant in January 2006.
7
8 IMPACT FEES
9
10 The project will be subject to the development fees, including but not limited to: sewer and water
11 connection, community facilities development, storm drainage impact, park and recreation land
12 improvement, school facilities, in -lieu housing and traffic mitigation.
13
14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15
16 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
17 Study (see, Attachment 5) of potential environmental impacts was prepared. The potential for
is the following significant impacts were identified: geology/soils, hydrology/water, biological,
19 visual quality and aesthetics. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the
20 applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no
21 substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as mitigated, would have a
22 significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Mitigated Negative
23 Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been prepared (see
24 Attachment 6).
25
26
27 ATTACHMENTS
28
29 Attachment 1: Draft Findings/Conditions
30 Draft Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
31 Draft Findings for a Tentative Subdivision Map
32 Draft Findings for a PUD Amendment to Wetsridge Units 4 & 5
33
34 Attachment 2: Location Map
35 General Plan Map
36 Zoning Map
37
3s Attachment 3: Project Narrative
39 Attachment 3a: PUD Development Standards & Design Guidelines
40
41 Attachment 4: Correspondence Received
42 Craig and Ivana Brandolino, letters addressed to Irene Borba dated April 26, 2006 and
43 August 10, 2005, and letter addressed to Pinnacle Homes dated April 26, 2006
44 From GeoQuest to Craig Brandolino, letter dated April 19, 2006
45 Todd Campbell, letter dated September 21, 2005
46 Marry Glenn, letter dated January 7, 2006
Page 15
I N.K. Parsons and M.D. Edwards, letter dated May 8, 2006
2 Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Hooper, letter addressed to Mayor David Glass dated July 8, 2006,
3 letter addressed to Director of CDD dated April 26, 2006, Ietter addressed to
4 CDD/Planning Division dated May 1, 2006, four letters addressed to Irene Botha dated
5 January 1, 19, (2 letters), and 20, 2006, and December 13, 2005
6 Richard E. K. Brawn, letters dated August 20, 2008, April 22 and 26, 2006, March 8,
7 2005, and April 1, 2004
8 Clyde & Christine Christobal, letters dated January 29, 2006 and August 29, 2005
9 Petition from Residents of Westridge Knolls dated stamped by CDD September 23,
10 2005
11
12 Attachment 5: Initial Study
13 Associated Studies -
14 Slope Analysis Exhibit
15 Fire Hydrant Calculations
16 Green Point Checklist
17 Letter from Wildlife Research Associates to Pinnacle Homes
18 Biological Assessment
19 Traffic Impact Analysis
20 Pinnacle Ridge Story Pole Maps and Photos
21 A Cultural Resources Evaluation from Archaeological Resource
22 Service
23 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
24 Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report
25 Report Geotechnical Investigation
26 Grant of Private Open Space Scenic Easement by and between Pinnacle
27 Development Number 21 and the City of Petaluma
28 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Pinnacle
29 Ridge
30 Pinnacle Ridge — Detention and Storm Water Treatment Control Design
31 Preliminary Drainage Report "I" Street Storm Drain System, wt2 half
32 size maps
33 Water System Distribution Calculations
34 Water System Distribution Calculations, (Second Option)
35 Fire Flow Calculations
36 Water System Distribution Calculations
37
38 Attachment 6: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
39
40 Plans (11 "x 17" and full size):
41 Landscape Concept Plan Map
42 Vesting Tentative Map
43 Elevations and Roof Plan Maps, (separate maps for lots I through 11
44 and pump house)
45
46 s:lplanning%pclreportslpinnaele ridge sept 2003
Page 16
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC.
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3 DRAFT FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
4 DECLARATION
5
6 Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
7 2762 "I" Street
g APN 019-401- 019
9 Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR
10
11 Findines for ADDroval of a Mitigated Neeative Declaration:
12
13 1. That based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project have been
14 identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant as a
15 condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
16 In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project,
17 as conditioned and mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
18
19 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
20 State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish
21 and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing undeveloped site surrounded
22 by urban development.
23
24 3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
25 by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
26
27 4. That the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Initial Study and
28 considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project.
29
3o 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the
31 adopted mitigation measures.
32
33 6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
34 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
35 California.
36
37 MITIGATION MEASURES:
38 GeolOav and Soils.
39 1. As deemed appropriate, the recommendations as outlined in the Geotechnical investigation
40 prepared by Bauer Associates dated January 2005 shall be incorporated.
41 2. All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be
42 conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title
43 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control
44 Ordinance 41576, Title 17, Chapter 1731 of the Petaluma Municipal Code).
Page 17
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
3. The project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a
registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of Public Works, prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to
be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other
grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the
drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following
measures as applicable:
a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be
minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent
possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities,
including short- term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and
field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed.
Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes.
b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected
from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences,
diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be
mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay
mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate.
C. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures
shall be on-site by October 1 st. All grading activity shall be completed by
October 15th, prior to the on -set of the rainy season, with all disturbed
areas stabilized and re -vegetated by October 31st. Upon approval by the
Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short-term grading may be
allowed. The Engineering Section in conjunction with any specially
permitted rainy season grading may require special erosion control
measures.
4. All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic
safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
5. All public and private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for
compliance with the approved Improvement PIans, prior to City acceptance.
6. Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans
shall be subject to review and approval by the 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.
7. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a
detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable
Page 18
i codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through
2 construction of the project.
3
4 8. The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and approve
5 the landscaping plans, which show how disturbed areas arc to be replanted. Any changes
6 to the landscaping plan as required by SPARC shall be incorporated into plans that are
7 submitted for building permit issuance.
8
9 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan
10 or Final Map, the project sponsor shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical
11 Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the
12 City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance
13 and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific
14 soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for site
15 preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design,
16 utilities, roads, bridges and structures.
17
is 10. The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and
19 structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the
20 geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall
21 sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The
22 geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City,
23 prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the
24 improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
25 Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
26 geotechnical specifications by the Engineering Section of the Community Development
27 Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building
28 permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils
29 information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of
30 building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
31
32 Hvdrologv and Water:
33
34 1. All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment
35 and/or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water.
36 The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and
37 specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to
38 issuance of grading or building permits.
39
40 a. The applicant shall designate construction staging area and areas for storage of any
41 hazardous materials (i.e. motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) used during construction on
42 the improvement plans. All construction staging areas shall be located away from
43 any stream and adjacent drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas
44 from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous
45 materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contaminants from
46 entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak.
47
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
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
47
b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other
construction related materials or wastes, oil or petroleum products or other organic
or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded
material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and
disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall designate appropriate
disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications.
c. No heavy equipment shall be operated in any live creek channel. All in -stream
channel work shall be limited to the dry season (typically defined as May I"
through October 15th and performed in accordance with conditions specified by the
Department of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The
Department of Fish and Game may require a more limited construction period in
stream channels that support anadromous fisheries. Applicant shall provide copy of
the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof of compliance with the
permit conditions prior, to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading
permits for work within any channel.
2. The applicant shall submit the required Notice of Intent for compliance with the conditions
for a general permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate System (NPDES)
storm water permit for construction activities administered by the State of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The conditions require development and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which may also
meet the City's requirement for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, noted above.
3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit or approval of any improvement plans
for earthwork within any creek corridor or identified wetland site, proof of authorization
from all applicable responsible agencies including, but not limited to, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the
California Department of Fish and Game, shall be submitted by the applicant to the
Community Development Department.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review and approval
by the Public Works Department prior to approval of a final map, improvement plan,
grading or building permit. The project grading and all site drainage improvements shall
be designed and constructed in conformance with the City of Petaluma Community
Development Department's "Standard Specifications" and the Sonoma County Water
Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria". Channel modifications and bank stabilization
improvements within a natural stream channel shall be designed in conformance with the
City's "Restoration Design and Management Guidelines". The drainage plans shall
include supporting calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable
engineering methods. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted. Surface nmoff shall be
addressed within each individual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm drain
system. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be subject to
review and approval of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City
Engineer.
Page 20
I Biological:
2
3 1. No trees or limbs of the oak trees described in the Wildlife Research Associates report shall
4 he removed without first having a qualified bat biologist conduct emergence surveys to
5 determine presence or absence of day roosting bats. No machinery shall be parked or used
6 beneath the trees, to prevent fumes and noise from impacting bats that may be roosting
7 inside tree cavities. If no bats are observed emerging from cavities in the oaks, the trees
8 shall be removed within 48 hours. If no bats are observed, then tree removal shall occur
9 only between February 15 and April 15, or between August 15 and October 15, in order to
to avoid impacts to non-volant young or torpid adult bats that may be roosting in cavities in
11 the trees.
12
13 2. Conduct construction activities during sununer months when the roadside drainage ditch is
14 dry to prevent impacts to water quality.
15
16 3. Construction activities may result in erosion and sedimentation of downstream aquatic
17 habitats. Sediment transport from construction activities to the roadside drainage ditch and
18 downstream aquatic habitats can have deleterious effects on aquatic organisms in these
19 aquatic habitats and result in violations of State and Federal water quality regulations.
20
21 4. Ensure that best management practices are adopted in order to minimize the amount of
22 sediment leaving the site during construction activities.
23
24 5. Prior to issuance of development permits, obtain a general permit for Strom Water
25 Discharges from Constriction Activities through the SFBRWQCB.
26
27 6. Prior to issuance of development pennits, prepare and implement a Stonn Water Pollution
28 Prevention Plan for construction activities.
29
30 7. Construction and landscaping activities may result in impacts to valley oak tree.
31 Construction and landscaping activities at Lot 8 should avoid impacts to the valley oak tree.
32 Prior to issuance of development permits, protective fencing shall be installed. Fencing
33 should encompass the entire canopy of the tree to prevent impacts to its roots and drip line.
34
35 S. Landscaping and irrigation should be designed to not impact the roots and drip line of the
36 valley oak tree.
37
38 Visual Ouality and Aesthetics:
39
40 1. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to
41 prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties and natural/undeveloped
42 areas. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans,
43 which reflect the location and design of all proposed streetlights, and any other exterior
44 lighting proposed.
45
Pale 21
1 2. Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas
2 and other light-sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility.
3 Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially Iight-
4 sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen
5 interior living space from headlight glare.
7 3. No illumination shall be installed within the designated open space area except for low-
s level lighting along designated pathways adjacent to public streets. The improvement and
9 landscape plans prepared for the project shall reflect the location and design details of all
10 light fixtures proposed. Said locations and details shall be reviewed and approved by the
11 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of development permits.
12
13 4. Shade trees shall be incorporated into building and improvement plans along public streets
14 and within parking areas in conformance with the City's Site Plan and Architectural
15 Review Guidelines to reduce glare and to provide shade.
16
17 S. All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
18 placed underground.
19
20 6. Architectural details, landscape plans and specifications, and detailed site plans shall be
21 subject to review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior
22 to issuance of development permits.
23
24 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring.
25
26 IMPLEMENTATION:
27
28 L The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and
29 provide proof of compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals of
30 improvements plans.
31
32 2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation
33 measures and conditions into the design and improvements plans and specifications for the
34 project.
35
36 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project
37 implementation of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall
38 ensure compliance with such measures and conditions. Applicant shall notify all assigns
39 and transfers of the same.
40
41 4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation
42 measure that involves on-going operations on the site or long-range improvements, such as
43 archaeological resources, etc.
44
45
46
47
Page 22
1 MONITORING -
2
3 1. The Building Division, Planning Division, Public Works Department and Fire Departments
4 shall review the improvement and construction plans for conformance with the approved
5 project description and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and permit
6 requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading plans,
7 or building permits.
8
9 2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required
10 permits from all responsible agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the
11 permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
12
13 3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all
14 improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the project
15 description, permit conditions, and approved development or improvement plans.
16
17 CONSTRUCTION MEASURES:
18
19 1. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation
20 measures and conditions of approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the
21 City prior to issuance of any grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for
22 construction.
23
24 2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the
25 building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
26
27 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans and
28 conditions of approval.
29
30 4. If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference
31 with the construction contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the
32 mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and
33 building permits.
34
Page 23
F;_ �
TENATATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
1
ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
4
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
5
6
Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
7
2761 "I" Street
8
APN 019-401- 019
9
Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR
10
11
FINDINGS FORA TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION NIAP:,
12
13
1.
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
14
provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and
15
the State Subdivision Map Act.
16
17
2.
That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements,
18
is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
19
safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including
20
roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure.
21
22
3.
That the site is physically suitable for the densityand the type of development proposed.
23
24
4.
That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
25
substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur
26
to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there
27
would be no significant, environmental impacts that could not be mitigated.
28
29
30
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
31
32
33
From
Planning:
34
35
1.
Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other
36
first sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Pen -nit plans to list these
37
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures as notes.
38
39
2.
The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the
40
plans dated stamped August 21, 200$.
41
42
3.
All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
43
for the Pinnacle Ridge project are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project
44
approval.
45
46
4.
Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee
47
to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5)
days of receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and Game has found
that a de minimis determination is not appropriate, and that an environmental filing fee (as
required under Fish and Game Code Section 711 Ad) must be paid to the Sonoma County
Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (for fee amount, contact them
at 944-5500).
5. The building elevations, site plans, landscape plan, Design Guidelines and Development
Standards are subject to the review and approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
6. All work within a public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the
Community Development Department.
7. A reproducible copy of the finalized PUD Development Plan and written PUD Standards
and Design Guidelines incorporating all project conditions of approval shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department prior to Final Map recordation.
8. A reproducible copy of the Tentative Subdivision Map, reflecting all adopted conditions of
approval, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to Final
Map recordation.
9. The applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the
construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during
construction.
a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be
properly muffled and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be
turned off when not in use.
b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of
twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed
15mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this
purpose. Responsibility for watering shall include weekends and holidays when
work is not in progress.
C. Constriction sites involving earthwork shall provide for 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
cleared of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or
other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions.
Page 25
I e. Post -construction re -vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall
2 be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment
3 Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or
4 issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
5
6 f. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to
7 monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number
8 to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permit.
9
10 10. All residential units designed with fireplaces shall meet the requirements of Ordinance
11 1881 N.C.S. for clean -burning fuels.
12
13 11. Improvement plans shall indicate that all construction activities shall be limited to 7:00
14 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
15 Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of
16 Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for
17 additional hours. There will be no start up of machines or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m.,
18 Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. or past
19 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 5:30 p.m., Monday
20 through Friday. Plans submitted for City permits shall include the language above.
21
22 12. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre -wiring for solar facilities for each
23 dwelling and are subject to staff review and approval.
24
25 13. Improvement plans shall indicate that construction and demolition debris shall be
26 recycled to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
27
28 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, temporary protective fencing shall be erected 5 feet
29 outside the drip line of the remaining oaks. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in
30 height and shall be secured with in -ground posts subject to staff inspection. Fencing shall
31 be installed prior to grading permit issuance and any grading/construction activity. Proof
32 that the temporary fencing has been installed shall be made to the Planning Division by
33 photographs.
34
35 15. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
36 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for
37 the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required to post signs when
38 pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
39
40 16. All project lighting shall be downcast to prevent glare into pedestrians and bicyclists
41 eyes.
42
43 17. All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to
44 prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties and natural/undeveloped
45 areas. Plans submitted for SPARC review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans,
46 which reflect the location and design of all proposed streetlights, and any other exterior
47 lighting proposed.
Page 26
1
2 18. All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be
3 placed underground.
4
5
6
7
x
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
19. 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.
From Public works (Ennineerina)
The following conditions shall be addressed at the time of final map and improvement plan
application.
Frontaee Improvements
20. Match the existing I Street improvements constructed with the adjacent Westridge
Subdivision and extend improvements to the southerly side of Parcel C. The street
configuration shall include a 5 -foot sidewalk, travel lane and bike lane (southbound),
travel lane and bike lane (northbound). The minimum pavement section shall be 5 -inches
of asphalt concrete over 15 -inched of class 2 aggregate base. A standard driveway
approach and driveway shall be provided to the pump station,
21. South of Parcel C, to the City Limits, the street shall be relocated to the center of the
existing 40 -foot right-of-way. The street section on the project side shall include
construction of a 12 -foot vehicle lane and a 6 -foot on -street bike lane. The street section
shall also include construction of a northbound 12 -foot vehicle lane. The minimum
pavement section shall be 5 -inches of asphalt concrete over 15 -inches of class 2
aggregate base. Construct an appropriate transition from the new improvements to the
existing road at the City Limit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
22. Street lights, traffic signs, striping and pavement markers shall be installed. "No parking"
signs shall be installed along the project frontage.
23. The necessary right-of-way and public utility easement shall be dedicated along I Street
to construct the public improvements described in the conditions of approval and shown
on the tentative map.
Page 27
I Grading
3 24. Grading and slide repairs shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report specific
4 to this development. Slide repairs shall be completed to protect the new development and
5 the public right-of-way along I Street.
6
7 25. Investigate and address the subsurface water issue along the subdivision boundary at lots
8 1, 2 & 3. The report and solution shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9
10 Private Street
11
12 26. The minimum private street pavement section shall be 4 -inches of asphalt concrete over
13 12 -inches of class 2 aggregate base.
14
15 27. A stop sign and crosswalk shall be installed on the private street at the new intersection.
16 "No Panting" signs shall be installed around the perimeter of the cul-de-sac bulb, along
17 the private driveway serving lots 6-9 and in the emergency turnaround.
18
19
28.
Street lights shall be installed along the private street.
20
21
Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Systems
22
23
29.
The storm drain system and sanitary sewer system in the private street and on private
24
property shall be private and privately maintained. The storm drain across lot 9 shall be
25
directed to I street without passing through lot 11.
26
27
30.
Extend public the water main, sanitary sewer main and storm drain system to the
28
southerly side of parcel C and convert any existing services to the new mains.
29
3o
31.
All new water services shall be 1.5 -inches with 1 -inch meters. Locate the meters on 1
31
street at the pump house. Individual domestic water booster pumps shall be provided for
32
all parcels.
33
34
32.
The public storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma
35
County Water Agency.
36
37
33.
The water main and fire pump system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire
38
flow as required by the Fire Marshal. The fire pump system and equipment shall be
39
maintained and funded by the homeowner association.
40
41
Easements
42
43
34.
All necessary easements shall be dedicated on the final map.
44
Page 28
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
35. Parcel A shall include private access, emergency vehicle access, private storm drain,
private sanitary sewer, private fire line, private surface drainage and public water main
easements.
36. The private driveway serving lots 6-9 shall include private access, emergency vehicle
access, private water line, private fire line and private surface drainage.
Miscellaneous
37. Overhead utilities along the project frontage shall be placed underground from the utility
pole across from lot 1 to the first utility pole south of the property line between lot 9 and
the urban separator.
38. Erosion control and water quality control measures shall be employed. The necessary
documentation shall be filed as required by the responsible agencies.
39. Maintenance agreements shall be required for any shared utilities or facilities and shall be
recorded with the final map. Agreements shall identify the utility or facility to be
maintained, the parties responsible for maintenance and the funding mechanism for
maintenance, replacement and repair. All agreements shall be reviewed and approved
prior to recordation.
40. Prepare final map and improvement plans per the latest City policies, standards, codes,
resolutions and ordinances. Technical review deposits shall be required at the time of
application submittal.
41. Provide formal appraisals for developer contributions as required by GASB 34
(Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement 34).
42. The project shall comply with the .City of Petaluma Phase 11 Storm Water Management
Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. The homeowners
association shall be responsible for providing a yearly inspection and maintenance report
for the proposed storm drain separator.
From the Fire Marshal:
This project is in substantial conformance with emergency vehicle access, water supply, and
other Fire Department conditions, excepting the conditions noted below:
43. The Fire Department is requiring an independent, third -party evaluation of the proposed
solution to the water supply issue. The Fire Marshal is authorized to approve alternate
materials or methods as prescribed in California Fire Code Section 103.1.1, which allows
the Fire Department a technical opinion or report without cost to the jurisdiction. This
report shall be completed by a fire protection engineer as agreed upon by the developer
and the Fire Marshal.
Page 29
1
44.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the 9/2105 letter (Pinnacle Ridge meeting notes) from
2
LaFranchi and Associates and accepts the conclusion/conditions noted in the letter,
3
including fire flow calculations for available pressure/gpm flow on the suction side of the
4
pump. Final approval of assumptions and conclusions are subject to review by a third -
5
party technical opinion.
6
7
45.
Residual pressure for hydrant #3 is marginal, based on 1500 gpm at 20 psi. Connect
8
hydrant #3 to the fire pump to improve the residual pressure and flow. Also, relocate
9
hydrant 43 to property line between Lots 3 and 4.
10
11
46.
The turnaround for Lots 6, 7, and 8 is acceptable.
12
13
47.
The perimeter edge of the canoe turnaround, in the cul-de-sac, must be reduced by a
14
minimum of V to assure maximum maneuverability of fire department apparatus.
15
16
48.
Provide an address monument sign, acceptable to the Fire Marshal for Lots 6-9, with a
17
minimum of 4" letters on contrasting background with lighted or reflected numbers.
18
19
49.
Provide a minimum of 12' access gate or other proposed alternate (including the
20
driveway cut and the graded roadway minimum of 10' inside of gate), from I Street to the
21
urban separator for Fire Department use to suppress brush/grass fires.
22
23
50.
The open space areas shall contain disked trails, perimeters, and intermediate fire breaks
24
across the middle to discourage the rapid spread of fire. Such fire abatement practices
25
shall be completed on an annual basis. A site plan outlining the firebreaks shall be
26
submitted to the Fire Marshal's office for approval as part of the landscaping plans
27
submitted with the building pennit. Plans shall also reflect a notation that requires the
28
HOA or LAD to maintain the fire breaks annually.
29
30
51.
This structure is within the boundaries of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
31
(VHFHSZ). Buildings constructed in this zone are subject to the requirements outlined in
32
Section 17.20.060 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
33
34
From the Water Resources & Conservation;
35
36
52.
Due to high pad elevations, air gap booster systems are required for individual residential
37
units.
38
39
53.
A rain gage system shall be installed in the Urban Separator. Location and make/model
40
to be determined by the Water Resources and Conservation Department.
41
42
54.
On-site storm drain utilities shall be privately owned and maintained.
43
44
55.
A double -detector check valve shall be required to protect the public water supply from
45
the private fire system.
Page 30
1 would further ensure compatibility. The proposed project would also require review and
2 approval Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
4 4. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied
5 through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated Negative
G Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance potential for the following
7 impacts were identified: geology/soils, hydrology/water, biological, visual quality and
8 aesthetics. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that
9 will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Based upon the Initial Study, a
10 determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would result.
11
12 5. A copy of this notice was published in the Arcus Courier and provided to residents and
13 occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements.
14
15
Page 32
I
LOCATION MAP
r e
I
�zi€Geilsp
I `
1'9-Y
❑ ❑
®
�
4
ogp`eEci
rig
r
s
,
O V
n m
?Gg?=i=?
�
9
c
�e3y.3Gi
{G
a @
u
c n
p
ETH
�zi€Geilsp
gj dd
1'9-Y
❑ ❑
®
n
N
ogp`eEci
rig
r
O V
n m
?Gg?=i=?
9
�e3y.3Gi
{G
a @
u
c n
p
ETH
FE
v
K
99
a. Iris
c
3
z
2iH a7i
GENERAL PLAN MAP 7_
�i EID 00 El
x x x
Mill 3x
EP
w m
jl Mill
ul
00
X 0
�i EID 00 El
x x x
Mill 3x
EP
w m
jl Mill
ul
The project being submitted is the fifth development project that the applicant, Pinnacle
Homes, has developed in western Petaluma. In each of the previous projects and again in
this project, Pinnacle Homes has not requested a bonus density, modifications to the
applicable General Plan, or the underlying Iand use designations. In addition, Pinnacle
Homes has always attempted to go the "extra step" to evaluate the impacts of its projects
on neighboring properties, and sited its proposed homes to reduce those impacts. As an
example, Pinnacle Homes has shifted lot lines, moved house locations, lowered the
profiles of the houses, and added landscape buffers to reduce the impacts of the proposed
projects during the planning stages.
In this particular project, the proposed street serving the community has been sited away
from "I" Street in order to maintain the rural nature of that street as it meets the Urban
Growth Boundary, and have similarly sited the homes away from "I" Street so that there
is a large, natural landscape area proposed between "I" Street and the homes. Pinnacle
Homes conducted a neighborhood meeting in January of 2006 and after hearing the
concerns of the neighbors on Grevillia Drive, Pinnacle Homes redesigned two of the
homes reducing them is size and reorienting the third home adjacent to those neighbors to
reduce their impact on the neighbors. Pinnacle Homes also moved these three proposed
homes further away from the existing houses and designated an open space easement
with landscaping along the contiguous property line with the neighbors. Additionally, a
Class I Bike Path along "I" Street is being proposed, but it is removed from the actual
travel way for automobiles for safety reasons, which also results in a more rural
appearance for the street. Also, over 6 acres of the property is being dedicated as an
Urban Separator along the Urban Growth Boundary for open space.
Recognizing that the 2025 General Plan encourages a wide range of housing
opportunities which is essential for a healthy, vibrant community, Pinnacle Homes is
proposing to build eleven "executive level" homes in this project in conformance with the
applicable land use designation. However, Pinnacle Homes is also dedicated to the
principles of `Build it Green" (BIG) and is committed to building homes, not only at the
highest quality, but also with the least impact possible. Pinnacle Homes, therefore, will
be building these homes with a `Build it Green" rating exceeding 100 points based upon
the 2007 BIG checklist. To achieve these levels, the homes will be equipped with
superior insulation, the highest energy efficient appliances, the newest water savings
devices available in the marketplace, and water -efficient landscaping which does not
include any sod areas. The applicant has had discussions with Michael Ban the Director
of Water Resources and Conservation and offered to conduct a pilot program
implementing a user activated hot water recirculation system in the homes. Pinnacle
Homes is also planning on retaining outside consultants in the sustainability arena to
assist their "in house" experts on evaluation of new ideas and products being currently
developed to reduce the impacts of the proposed homes even further.
Specifically, the project being submitted for review is for a Tentative Subdivision Map
and PUD Amendment consisting of eleven residential lots, two commonly owned
parcels, one for a private street (Parcel "A") and one for a pump house (Parcel "C"),
along with a dedicated parcel to the City of Petaluma (Parcel "B" Urban Separator). The
project has been previously reviewed under a pre -application submittal (03 -PRE -0253)
Pagc2aria 081908 -2-
for the Neuendorff Subdivision and under the present project (04 -PRE -0457) for pre -
SPARC. It also was reviewed under the policies and guidelines of the 1985-2005
General Plan and 1999 Zoning Ordinance. Based on that review, the application was
deemed complete and the Initial Study was completed and signed. The project was put
on hold when the City became aware of the water availability issues. The following
updated project information is based on the policies and goals of the 2005-2025 General
Plan along with portions of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (Hillside Development
and Tree Preservation).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 16.36 acre (gross area) site is located in the foothill area on the southern end of
Petaluma. It is surrounded by the Westridge Knolls Unit 4 Subdivision to the north, rural
residential single-family homes to the east, public open space to the west and privately
owner vacant property to the south.
The Urban Limit Line is located along the southerly line of the subject property. The
present City Limit Line is coincident with the Urban Limit Line but departs at "P' and
extends along said street in a northerly direction.
Elevations range from 140 to 330 feet. Slopes on the site vary. Approximately 8.1% of
the site has slopes that range between 0%-10%, with 32.4% being 10%-20%, 41.9%
being 20%-30% and 17.6% being over 30%. Based on our calculations using the
average slope formula as outlined in Chapter 16 (Hillside Protection) Section 16.070
(Hillside Subdivisions), the average slope of the site is 23.9%. Given that the average
slope exceeds the 10% slope threshold for implementing Hillside Subdivision design
criteria a number of reports, calculations and exhibits have been augmented or added to
application. A Topographic Map (Existing Conditions Exhibit... Sheet TM 3), a Soils
Report prepared by Bauer Associates, Architectural Drawings, a Visual Analysis were
originally prepared for the project and have not substantially changed. Newly created
documents included in the updated application include Average Slope/Minimum
Parcel/Density calculation report, Slope Analysis Exhibit and an Opportunity and
Constraints Analysis Exhibit.
The majority of the site consists of open grassland that has been used for grazing until the
recent past. There are very few trees on the site and have been identified on the Existing
Conditions Exhibit. The replacement ratio mitigating the proposed tree removal far and
away exceeds the most stringent criteria outlined in the Tree Protection Ordinance. See
the Master Landscape Plan for locations, sizes and species of proposed tree plantings.
A substantial landslide area has been identified on the site (See report prepared by Bauer
Associates). The limits of the slide areas have been identified on the Existing Conditions
Exhibit.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The project being presented for review is for an 11 -Lot Subdivision and PUD. The PUD
standards are outlined in the "draft" PUD Development Standards and Design Guidelines
for Pinnacle Ridge.
Pae 3 of 10 081908 - 3 -
Density
Densities for the project have been analyzed under the 2005-2025 General Plan Land Use
Designation and the Hillside Protection Ordinance criteria. Three land use designations
are located on the property: Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) [0.6 to 2.5
units/acre], Rural Residential (RR) [0.1 to 0.6 units/acre] and Urban Separator (US) [0.1
to 0.6 units/acre]. Under the 2005-2025 General Plan, densities are based on net areas.
Net area excludes all public right of ways and/or private right of ways/easements for
vehicular access. The General Plan Density Calculation Exhibit (TM -6) itemizes the
gross and net areas for each land use designation along with the maximum unit per acre
allowed within each. Based on the calculations 11.51 units can be constructed on the site.
Eleven units are being proposed.
The allowable density was also calculated using the formula outlined in the Hillside
Subdivision section of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Under that criterion, 24 lots
would be the maximum allowable number that could be constructed. See attached
Average Slope/Minimum Parcel/Density Calculation Report.
Site Pian
The site plan was developed to allow for construction of single-family homes. The
locations of the building sites were dictated by two major elements, the existing landslide
area and sensitivity to the amount of grading required for the project. Because of the
sites high visibility and steep slopes the design limits major grading to the construction of
the private street and private driveway with limited grading adjacent to the proposed
residences designed to compliment the surrounding existing grades.
The entire slide area will be repaired as a part of the project. The repaired area will be
restored to a natural state. This area will remain open and free from construction.
The proposed site grading will require approximately 2,800 cubic yards of fill and 14,800
cubic yards of cut.
Of the 16.36 acres streets, driveways, building envelopes and associated areas of grading,
will impact only 4.4 acres. Approximately 72% of the site will remain in an undeveloped
condition.
The Site Plan was reviewed at a Preliminary SPARC Hearing in August of 2004 and was
favorably received for its sensitivity to the existing hillside conditions.
Architecture
Preliminary Floor Plans and Elevations for each lot have been prepared by Farrell Faber
& Associates, Inc. as required under Section 19.020 B 8 of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance and the Hillside Subdivision section of the Hillside Protection Ordinance.
A Visual Analysis of the site has been prepared as required under the Hillside
Subdivision section of the Hillside Protection Ordinance and has been made a part of this
Page 4 of 10 081908 - 4 -
augmented application. A power point presentation of this modeling will be shown at the
public hearings.
The following information is a synopsis of the proposed residences that will be
constructed on each lot.
Lot 1—
The proposed construction is of a craftsman style two story 4 bedroom 3 bath residence,
with lap siding, stone veneer, and composition shingle roof. This home consists of
approximately 2756 square feet of living area and a 2 car garage totaling 628 square feet.
The home is designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the
building envelope. The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the
existing natural grade.
Lot 2 —
The proposed construction is of a two-story residence, traditional style, with lap siding,
stone veneer, and composition shingle roof. This 3 -bedroom 2-'/Z bath has approximately
2721 square feet of living area and a 2 -car garage totaling 530 square feet. The home is
designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the building envelope.
The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 3—
The proposed construction is of a 4 bedroom 3 -bath traditional farmhouse style, two story
residence, lap siding, brick accents with a composition shingle roof. It consists of
approximately 2620 square feet of living area and lower floor with a 3 -car garage totaling
704 square feet. The home is designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and
within the building envelope. The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit
above the existing natural grade.
Lot 4 —
The proposed construction is of a two story contemporary 4 bedroom 2 '/ bath residence.
It has a smooth stucco finish and a flat tile roof, approximately 3357 square feet of living
area and a 2 car garage totaling 1187 square feet. The home is designed to sit within an
average of the existing grade and within the building envelope. The building height does
not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 5 —
The proposed construction is of a 5 -bedroom 4 -V2 -bath craftsman style, two-story
residence with shingle siding and a composition shingle roof. It consists of approximately
4301 square feet of living area and a 3 -car garage totaling 1044 square feet. The home is
designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the building envelope.
The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 6 —
The proposed construction is of a two-story residence, contemporary style, stucco and
vertical siding with a flat the roof. This 3 bedroom 3 '/2 bath plus den has approximately
4020 square feet of living area and a 3 car garage totaling 767 square feet. The home is
Page 5 of 10 081908 - 5 -
designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the building envelope.
The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 7—
The proposed construction is of a one story, 5 bedrooms 4 -V2 -bath Tuscan style residence.
It has a smooth stucco finish; stone accents and a mission "s" tile roof, approximately
4160 square feet of living area and a 3 car garage totaling 681 square feet. The home is
designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the building envelope.
The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 8 —
The proposed construction is of a craftsman style two story residence, stucco and stone
with a flat the roof. This 5 bedroom 4 bath has approximately 4645 square feet of living
area and a 3 car garage totaling 998 square feet. The home is designed to sit within an
average of the existing grade and within the building envelope. The building height does
not exceed the 30' height limit above the existing natural grade.
I.ot 9 —
The proposed construction is of a 4 bedroom 3-1/a bath traditional style, two story
residence, lap siding, stone accents with a composition shingle roof. It consists of
approximately 3674 square feet of living area and a 3 -car garage totaling 808 square feet.
The home is designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the
building envelope. The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the
existing natural grade.
Lot 10
The proposed construction is of a two story, 5 bedrooms 4 -bath Tuscan style residence. It
has a smooth stucco finish; stone accents and a mission "s" the roof, approximately 3704
square feet of living area and a 3 car garage totaling 1450 square feet. The home is
designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the building envelope.
The building height does not exceed the 30' beight limit above the existing natural grade.
Lot 11—
The proposed construction is of a two-story Mediterranean style 4 bedrooms 2 -l2 -bath
residence. It has a smooth stucco finish; stone accents and a mission "s" tile roof,
approximately 3357 square feet of living area and a 2 car garage totaling 1187 square
feet. The home is designed to sit within an average of the existing grade and within the
building envelope. The building height does not exceed the 30' height limit above the
existing natural grade.
Landscaping
A Preliminary Landscape Plan and Master Pence Plan has been prepared by Susie Dowd
Markarian Landscape Design as required under 19.020 B 7 of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance and the hillside Subdivision section of the Hillside Protection Ordinance. The
original version of the Preliminary Landscape Plan was reviewed during the Preliminary
SPARC Hearing and was favorably received. The plan has been revised to address
Page 6 of 10 081908 - 6 -
Westridge Knoll neighborhood concerns to provide additional screening between
projects.
As a part of the subdivision approval the proposed plan will not only provide landscaping
along the new public street but will also landscape the cut/fill slopes that will be created
in conjunction with the public improvements. Additional landscaping will also be
provided along the rear portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 to provide screening and privacy
between this development and the adjacent homes located in Westridge Knolls. Based on
comments received from SPARC specific areas within the restored landslide area will
also be planted with trees.
Front yard and planter strip landscaping to be completed with construction of each home.
Though there are only a few trees located on the site a Tree Preservation and Mitigation
Report was prepared by Horticultural Associates. Three trees will be removed due to the
proposed development. As previously stated, the replacement ratio mitigating the
proposed tree removal far and away exceeds the most stringent criteria outlined in the
Tree Protection Ordinance. See the Master Landscape Plan for locations, sizes and
species of proposed tree plantings.
Access and Circulation
The proposed project will be accessed by a new private street and common private
driveway via "P' Street. All access to the lots will be from the private street and the
proposed common private driveway that extends off the end of the cul-de-sac. No
vehicular access to any lot will be allowed from "F' Street. Urban frontage
improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along "I" Street have been limited to the front
of Lot 1 and portion of Lot 11. The remaining "P' Street frontage improvements will
consist of a more "rural" road section that will include a 12 foot traveled way, a 2 foot
paved shoulder and combination of asphalt concrete dikes and roadside ditch (See
Typical Sections on Sheet TM -11). This will allow for the site to maintain some of its
rural "curb -side" appeal and provide a transition to county lands.
The private street will provide access to all proposed lots. The private street design is
being proposed as a Minor Residential Street per City of Petaluma criteria. The street
width is proposed to be 32 feet as specified in the pre -application Engineering Comments
with a 6 -foot planter strip and 5 -foot sidewalks. Parking is proposed on both sides of the
street. The proposed street grades range from 5% to 18% and have been reviewed with
Michael Ginn. The 18% grade is needed to help minimise the required cut slope and
retaining wall heights along the right of way. A cul-de-sac with three parking spaces is
proposed at the terminus of the public street (See Typical Sections on Sheet TM -11).
Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 will be accessed from a common private driveway at the end of the
public street. The driveway will be 20 feet in width and have a City of Petaluma Standard
Hammerhead turnaround at its terminus. No parking will be allowed along the driveway
or turnaround to provide for adequate emergency vehicle access.
Page 7 of 10 091908 - 7 -
Homeowner maintenance responsibilities for the private street and common private
driveway shall be outlined in the maintenance section of the proposed CC&R's.
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will be from the extension of the existing public
sidewalk on the westerly side of "I" Street to the proposed private street. The public
sidewalk on "I" will terminate approximately 120 feet southerly from the proposed
private street and "I" Street Intersection. Sidewalks will be located on both sides of the
proposed private street.
Existing Class II Bicycle Paths are located on both sides of "I" Street to Grevillia Drive.
The project proposes to extend the Class II Path on the westerly side of "I" Street to the
termination of the proposed public sidewalk system. At this point the route will
transition into an off street Class I Bicycle/Pedestrian Path. This path will run the entire
length of "I" Street to the proposed Urban Separator (land to be dedicated to the City of
Petaluma). The off-street path will terminate at this point but will also transition back to
"I" Street to allow access back to the roadway. A Class II Path will be extended to the
City Limit Line as specified in the City of Petaluma Bicycle PIan.
The proposed private street will be designated as a Class III Route. Comments were
received from the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee (PBAC) from the pre -
application submittal for the Neuendorff Subdivision requesting a public easement and
path to allow a connection from the proposed cul de sac to the Urban Separator. The
project is not proposing this connection due to the proximity of the proposed and existing
public paths to the Urban Separator. A Circulation Plan showing points of access to
public lands in the extended neighborhood has been prepared as a part of the submittal
package.
The proposed private street and common private driveway are designed to meet all City
of Petaluma emergency vehicle access. As previously stated our office met with Michael
Ginn to address street grades and horizontal alignments for the traveled ways. Fire truck
modeling verifying access has been prepared by our office.
Parking
On -street parking will be allowed on both sides of the proposed private street. Three
additional spaces will be located within the cul de sac. No on -street parking will be
allowed on "I" Street.
The Implementing Zoning Ordinance RI Zone District Standards will control on-site
parking for each parcel though all of the proposed site designs allow for additional
spaces.
Sanitary Sewer
The public sanitary sewer will be extended from the existing system located in "I" Street
to the intersection of the proposed private street. At this point, the sanitary sewer
extending into the project will be privately maintained. Each lot will be provided an
individual sewer lateral. Locations shown on the Preliminary Site Development Utility
PIan are conceptual and subject to change. Homeowner maintenance responsibilities for
Page 8 of 10 081908 -8 -
the private sanitary sewers shall be outlined in the maintenance section of the proposed
CC&R's.
Storm Drain
The public storm drain system will be extended from the existing system located in "I"
Street to the southerly curb return located at the "I" Street intersection with the proposed
private street. The proposed storm drain will be terminated at an inlet structure at the end
of the public curb, gutter and sidewalk on "I" Street. This structure will accept flows
from the proposed roadside ditch that will continue to extend out the "rural" portion of
"I" Street.
A private storm drain system will also be extended into the site at the most northerly
comer of the project. Proposed surface runoff will be collected by numerous catch basins
and drop inlets via graded swales, erosion resistance swales located on the lots along with
concrete curbs and gutters on the private street and common private driveway. All catch
basins and drop inlets will be connected to a private storm drain system. Also being
proposed is a subsurface drain extending along the northerly line of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The
closed and subsurface systems are needed to mitigate lot -to -lot flows within the project
and to protect downslope properties. The public and private storm drain system is shown
on the Preliminary Utility Plan (TM -10). A Preliminary Drainage Report has been
prepared demonstrating the adequacy of the existing 24" public storm drain to carry
anticipated flows and is a part of this updated application.
In addition, storm water treatment and detention is being proposed to mitigate pollution
and downstream degradation to existing urban creeks. This system is also shown on the
Preliminary Utility Plan (TM -10). Preliminary Storm Water Treatment and Detention
Design reports have been prepared in support of the system and are a part of this updated
application.
Homeowner maintenance responsibilities for the private storm drains, detention and
treatment system shall be outlined in the maintenance section of the proposed CC&R's.
Water
The elevation of the proposed subdivision will pose challenges to provide the required
demand and water pressure for domestic and fire protection needs. For domestic water a
series of meters along with individual air gap pumps will be required. Locations of the
meters and the enclosures for the air gap pumps needs are shown on the Preliminary
Utility Plan (TM -10). Domestic water needs for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 will be
provided via a public water main located within the private street. A public water main
easement will be required over the private street and is shown on the PUD Tentative Map
(TM -7).
The fire protection system has been totally changed from the initially proposed wet/dry
connection system. A pump station located on the commonly owned Parcel "C" is being
proposed for the fire protection system and for the domestic water for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and
9. The system is shown on the Preliminary Utility Plan (TM -10). Reports and
calculations in support of the preliminary design along with the pump house architectural
Page 9 of 10 081908 - 9 -
drawings were submitted to the City of Petaluma in January of 2006. The preliminary
design was accepted by the City for completeness. Final design and calculations will be
required for approval in the construction document phase of the project.
Homeowner maintenance responsibilities for the private domestic and fire protection
systems shall be outlined in the maintenance section of the proposed CC&R's
Public Utilities
All public utilities shall be placed underground within the project. The existing overhead
utilities are located on the easterly side of "I" Street. The exact location for the utility
drop along with undergrounding requirements needs to be determined by the City
Engineer and the utility companies.
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Draft Development Standards and Design Guidelines have been prepared as required
under Section 19.020 F of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance
Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's)
Section 19.020 E of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance requires that CC&R's be
submitted as apart of the application. CC&R's are being prepared for this development
without creating a Homeowners Association CHOA}. In past projects the City of
Petaluma has taken the position that the CC&R's are a private matter and have not
required them for submittal. A draft version has been prepared and can be submitted if
requested.
Supplemental and Supporting Reports
A number of reports can be required for the PUD Tentative Map application submittal.
The following is a list of reports that have been prepared:
Trak Letter — W -Trans
Preliminary Title Report —North American Title Company
Geotechnical Investigative Report — Bauer Associates
Arborist Report — Horticultural Associates
Historic Evaluation Report — Archaeological Resource Services
Biological Assessment — Golden Bear Biostudies
Phase 1 Environmental — Trans Tech Consultants
Accompanying this submittal package are additional supporting documents, exhibits and
reports that address project objectives in greater detail. These include the following:
PUD Development Standards
PUD Checklist
Fire Flow Calculations
Development Schedule
Average Slope/Minimum Parcel/Density Calculation Report
Preliminary Storm Water Treatment and Detention Design Reports
Preliminary Drainage Report
Page 10 of 10 081908 _10-
PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS &
DESIGN GUIDELINES
PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR PINNACLE RIDGE
I. PURPOSE:
A. The purpose of this document is to provide written standards for lot development in
the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision. The overall objective is to provide specific standards and
guidance for individual lot development in a sensitive setting abutting the Urban
Separator and Urban Growth Boundary, which will encourage excellence of siting and
design to complement the existing natural setting. In addition to this document all lot
owners/builders should reference the City Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Unit District (PUD) Development Plan and
Standards and the Tentative Subdivision map as well as all Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee (SPARC) approvals for the project.
B. The matters addressed herein are intended to supplement the City of Petaluma's zoning
regulations and building requirements and to promote environmentally sensitive and
logical development of properties within the subdivision.
II. USES:
A. Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses:
1. Permitted principal uses and permitted accessory uses not covered within this
document shall be in accordance with the R-1 Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Prohibited Uses:
1. All prohibited uses not covered within this document shall be in accordance with the
R-1 Standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. PROCEDURES:
A. The City of Petaluma shall review the design, site layout and landscaping plans for all
lots prior to issuance of a building permit.
B. All buyers of lots shall be given a copy of these PUD Development Standards by the
seller/developer prior to time of purchase of the property.
C. Minor modifications to the PUD Development Standards may be approved in
accordance with chapter 19 of the Zoning Ordinance.
%
UG `?. o `LCDL
'_PONINI, I:IVISIO
IV. GRADING AND DRAINAGE
A. Excavation, fill and "significant grading" and paving for lot -specific development
shall be limited as shown on the approved PUD Site Development Plan, except for
necessary driveway and pedestrian access, rear yards not visible from the main street and
required utilities.
B. 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 shown on the approved PUD Site Development Grading Plan. Steeper
grades within private landscape areas not shown on said plan shall require approval by
the Planning Director.
C. The height of exposed retaining walls and pony walls of buildings shall be limited to a
maximum of 8 feet except as approved by SPARC.
D. Driveway slopes shall not exceed 18%.
E. All grading activities shall be completed prior to October 15`h unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer. Erosion Control Measures shall be installed per the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to said date.
F. All grading and excavation shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report
prepared for this project by Bauer & Associates. The project's geotechnical engineer
shall approve the grading plans. Applicable 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.
G. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be allowed except in areas as shown on the approved
PUD Site Development Grading Plan. Surface run-off that is collected within each
individual lot shall be conveyed to an approved outlet or surface dispersion area. In
order to minimize erosion, surface drainage on slopes exceeding 25% shall be directed to
erosion resistant swales. Swales shall be connected to an approved outlet or surface
dispersion area.
The individual lot owners shall maintain all private drain and sewer systems
V. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
A. These guidelines are intended to encourage quality and innovation of design.
Examples, which are for illustration only and are not exclusive, include horizontal siding
with brick or stone accents, as viewed from the street, multi -light windows, window sills,
porches and balconies, enclosing exposed understory supports, structure massing and the
like. Large blank walls should be avoided when possible. New house design should
reflect as near as possible the topography of individual lots. Finished first floor
elevations, where practical, shall be stepped at reasonable intervals to follow changes in
existing grades.
B. Contrasting architectural designs shall be acceptable. Variety should be obtained as
well by use of form, color, texture and material.
C. Structures should be designed to reflect a pleasing sense of scale with the
surroundings.
D. Highly reflective colors and surfaces are prohibited. Bright colors may be acceptable
on a very limited basis for accent or emphasis but the use should be subtle and sensitive.
E. Roofing materials shall be class "A" rated or better and may include concrete tile,
terra cotta tile, clay tile, metal tiles and high definition composition shingles. Built-up tar
and gravel, cap sheet, single -ply and similar roofs are only acceptable if not visible from
any surrounding property. To reduce overall height, mass and bulk and avoid adverse
visual impact, roof pitches should not exceed a 9 and 12 pitch. Architectural features
such as dormers are encouraged as long as they do not substantially increase the bulls and
mass of the structure. Roof forms and rooflines should be broken into a series of small
building components. Long, linear, unbroken rooflines are discouraged.
F. All outdoor mechanical equipment, including satellite dishes (larger than 30 inches),
shall be visually screened or out of public view upon installation, subject to the approval
of the Planning Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or
landscape plans.
G. Solar equipment, panels or other collectors should give the appearance of being built-
in to the structure. Exposed supports, excessive lengths of exposed piping, etc., are not
acceptable.
H. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans. All lights attached to buildings
shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall and/or use opaque glass. All lights
shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in excess of 8
feet in height, except city approved street lighting) and shall complement building
architecture. Upllghting of trees shall be acceptable. Landscape and walk way lights are
also acceptable provided they are low -voltage type and the fixture type directs light
toward the dwelling or ground.
I. Refuse containers and woodpiles should be situated from view from the street and
adjacent properties.
I House plans that are to be repeated shall incorporate architectural design changes for
exterior elevations so that no two home exteriors will look exactly alike.
K. Architectural design shall reflect a 'custom" appearance, which is sensitive to lot-
specific topography and site design issues (e.g. proximity to trees and neighboring
developments, views, etc.). No eight -inch OC Tl l l type siding shall be allowed.
Twelve -inch reverse board and batten siding, horizontal siding, shiplap siding, stucco,
vertical redwood or cedar siding and Mediterranean styling are examples of materials and
architectural concepts that are encouraged.
L. The architectural treatments utilized on the street elevations of each of the approved
house designs are encouraged for use around the sides and rear elevations of the
buildings. Masonry veneer treatments and unique elevation treatments need be carried
only on the front elevations. 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, door trims and windows. The window and door trim, color
schemes and special gable end treatments shall be installed on all elevations. Approved
siding materials shall be consistent on all elevations.
M. External downspouts shall be painted to match background -building colors unless
used an architectural feature. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed
because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted).
N. Side, rear or setback garage door entrances shall be encouraged where possible.
Windows in garage doors are also encouraged to help avoid the normal garage door look
from the street.
O. 2,700 sq.ft. of living space excluding the garage shall be. the minimum square footage
allowed on any lot.
P. Address must be posted at or near main entry, minimum four (4) inch letters on
contrasting background. Address locator required to be posted at or near the driveway
entrance. Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. Location and design to be approved by
the Fire Marshal's office.
Q. Mobile homes, pre -manufactured homes, or log homes are not allowed. Temporary
sales or construction trailers by builders or developers are allowed during the sales of any
lots or construction and/or sales of homes.
VI. FIRE SPRINKLERS.
Per City of Petaluma Ordinanco 2084, all new residences (including bathrooms over 55
square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep, in other attached structures) shall
have fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-1?. These
systems shall be calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads.
Activation of the fire sprinkler system shall sound an interior alarm that will notify
normally occupied spaces.
VII. LOT SITING AND SETBACKS
A. Minimum Lot size shall be 18,500 sq.ft. No further subdivision of these lots shall be
permitted. Accessory dwellings are permitted with a use permit as per City Ordinances.
B. Setbacks for all primary and accessory structures shall be as shown on the approved
PUD Plan.
C. Except where specified under these PUD Standards, all properties and uses within the
subdivision shall be regulated in a manner consistent with the R-1 Zoning Standard.
D. The maximum building f000tprint coverage for any lot, including all accessory
structures, covered decks, covered patios and carports shall not exceed 10,000 sq.ft.
Coverage shall not include roof overhangs, open wood decks or patios and paved areas.
E. Maximum permitted building height for all lots shall be 30 feet. Maximum permitted
building height for new accessory structures shall be limited to 15' except as permitted
for approved accessory dwellings.
F. Building outside the building envelope will be limited to single story non -occupancy
structures, patios, decks and swimming pools in accordance with the provisions of the
R-1 Zoning Standards
VIII. LANDSCAPE DESIGN
A. Front yard landscaping and irrigation systems must be approved by the City of
Petaluma Planning and Building Department as part of the building permit review
process.
B. Landscaping should soften and enhance the improvements, tying them to the land.
The landscaping shall serve as a transition between structures and natural terrain. Fire
resistant landscaping for private lot development shall be encouraged. Irrigation to serve
all landscaping in street tree planter strips adjacent to private residences shall be designed
to connect with the private lot irrigation systems of the adjoining lots.
C. Each property owner is responsible for the maintenance in perpetuity of all plants and
irrigation systems in the areas between his property and the curb
D. Any tree removed pursuant to the subdivision improvements and/or subsequent
house/lot development, shall be replaced as required by Chapter 17 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
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 or based on
site specific and design purposes. All trees shall be installed to City planting and staking
standards. All shrubs shall be a minimum five -gallon size. All planted areas not
improved with lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with a two-inch
deep baric mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established.
F. All plant material shall be served by an automatic underground irrigation system
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 street front areas shall be provided to Staff for
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan shall include street
trees with planting design and species for Staff approval. Landscaping shall be installed
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a bond shall be obtained guaranteeing
the installation of the landscaping at a more weather -permitting time.
L Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets or walkways as
needed, subject to City standards.
I. All turf, groundcovers and shrubs shall be kept a minimum of T 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 public area landscaping, subject to City standards. Plans shall identify all
proposed species and plant spacing and shall include planting details consistent with City
standards. Separate planting legends shall be utilized for public and private area plant
fists. Plant quality specifications shall be provided to the landscape contractor for all
public area street trees and submitted for staff review prior to approval of construction
permits/public improvements.
L. Lot 5 shall be responsible for the maintenance of the island canoes at the end of the
cul-de-sac. A drip system will be installed at the time of construction of the house.
M. The project developer shall comply with all applicable flood mitigation requirements
adopted by the City Council, as contained in Zoning Ordinance Article 16 and Municipal
Code Chapter 17.34, "Storm Drainage Impact Fees."
N. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed 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.
P. All work within a public right-of-way requires an excavation permit from the
Department of Public Works
X. FENCES
A. Site boundary fencing shall be of an open wire design 6' in height except as noted
herein.
1) Existing chain-link fencing abutting the Westridge Knolls subdivision and the Urban
Separator shall remain.
2) Fencing at lots 1 and 11 along the "I" street side shall be solid wood design 6 feet in
height.
Lot fencing shall be subject to the following conditions
1) Wood fencing shall be allowed as front to rear yard privacy fencing as well as side
yard /property line privacy fencing all wood fencing heights shall be in accordance with
the city fencing standard in place at the time a permit is issued
2) Wood fencing shall only be constructed with -in 100 feet of the primary residence.
3) All fencing types and there locations shall be incorporated into the homes construction
documents and shall be approved by the community development department
B. Optional use of lattice or trellising to provide additional screening above a 6 -foot solid
fence, where a 6 -foot fence is permitted, not to exceed 8 feet in height, shall be subject to
Staff review and approval at time of fence permit application.
XI. CONSTRUCTION
A. All grading and major dust generating activities, when practical, shall be conducted in
a manner that contains the dust within the immediate boundaries of the construction site.
B. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal
Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
C. Prior to any construction activity on the site, protective fencing shall be installed at
the dripline of trees identified for preservation within the immediate vicinity of proposed
construction activity. These trees are identified for preservation per the arborist report
prepared for the project. City Staff shall be notified by the project proponents prior to
commencement of any work proposed closer than the driplines of trees recommended for
preservation. All such activity, including excavation, pruning and root work shall be
conducted under the supervision of the consulting arborist who will report to staff, with
costs bome by the project proponents.
D. High- or moderate -value trees in good condition (as identified under the 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 stipulated
in chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Species and location of the replacement trees
shall be from the approved landscape plan.
E. All City -authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the hours
between 7:OOam and 7:OOpm, Monday through Friday, except that indoor work may be
conducted on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, provided noise levels generated are
within the limits of the City of Petaluma noise limits. No construction work shall be
permitted on 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 shalt 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 tamely manner as they arise,
including enforcement of abatement procedures to bring violations into conformance with
the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance standards.
Dated:
Declarants:
L*199A
• * �kR
ATTACHMENT 4
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
CRAIG & IVANA BRANDOLINO
109 GREVILLIA DRIVE
PETALUMA , CA 94952
AUC 1 5 2005
AUGUST 10, 2005 11V" uAlll,e-rki'L!al4iLi'v'(
IRENE T. BORBA
PROJECT PLANNER FOR PINNACLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
11 ENGLISH STREET, ROOM 100
PETALUMA CA, 94952
RE: DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 2762 1 STREET, HASH PROPERTY (APN:019-401-
190)
DEAR IRENE BORBA,
WE ARE AWARE OF THE INTENT TO DEVELOP HOMES THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY BEHIND
OUR HOME. WE HAVE VIEWED THE PLANS AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF
OUR CONCERNS.
WE HAVE LIVED AT 109 GREVILLIA DRIVE FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND FOR THE
DURATION OF THAT TIME WE HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH WATER RUNOFF FROM THE
HASH PROPERTY LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND US. DURING THE RAINY SEASON, THE
RAINFALL HAS SOFTENED AND LOOSENED THE SOIL ON THE HILL BEHIND US, CAUSING
THE GROUND TO SHIFT AND SLIDE EVERY WINTER. THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE
CLOGGING OF OUR CULVERT AND HAS HAD A DIRECT EFFECT ON OUR PROVIDED
DRAINAGE. IT HAS ALSO CAUSED THE MUD TO OVERFLOW INTO OUR YARD AFFECTING
OUR LANDSCAPING ON THE HILL AND OUR LAWN. IN ADDITION TO MOVEMENT OF THE
SOIL, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE WATER HAS WORKED ITS WAY UNDERGROUND
UNDERMINING OUR CULVERT AND RESULTING IN WATER GUSHING OUT THROUGH THE
MIDDLE OF THE HILL IN OUR BACKYARD. DUE TO THIS UNCONTROLLABLE FLOW OF
WATER, OUR YARD HAS BEEN FLOODED YEAR AFTER YEAR CAUSIING US DAMAGE AND
EXPENSE ANNUALLY. WE HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS ON OUR PROPERTY TO DIVERT THE
WATER RUNOFF TO NO AVAIL. OUR CONCERN AND HOPE IS THAT THE
UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE FOR THE NEW HOMES AS WELL AS THE PROPERY ITSELF
WILL TAKE OUR SITUATION INTO ACCOUNT. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
EFFORTS ARE MADE BY THE DEVELOPER TO DIAGNOSE THIS PROBLEM AND CREATE A
SOLUTION WHICH WILL BENEFIT BOTH THE NEW RESIDENTS AND THE EXISTING
RESIDENTS.
DURING THE RAINY SEASON, WE HAVE SEEN SHIFTS AND SLIDING IN THE LAND. OUR
CONCERN IS THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE NEW HOMES COULD CAUSE MORE SHIFTING
AND SLIDING TO LARGER AMOUNTS OF ALREADY UNSTABLE GROUND, AND IN TURN
CAUSING DAMAGE THAT COULD AFFECT OUR PROPERTY.
OUR NEXT CONCERN IS A PRIVACY ISSUE. IN VIEWING THE PLANS, WE HAVE FOUND
THAT TWO OF THE HOMES WILL SIT DIRECTLY BEHIND AND ABOVE OUR HOME. BEING
THAT THESE HOMES SIT ON HIGHER GROUND, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT OUR
CURRENT PRIVACY WILL BE GREATLY INVADED. OUR MASTER BEDROOM WINDOWS
ALIGN ALMOST DIRECTLY TO THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE TWO NEW HOMES WILL
BE BUILT. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE YARDS OF THESE HOMES AS WELL AS THE
FIRST AND SECOND LEVELS OF THESE HOMES WILL HAVE A DIRECT AND CLEAR VIEW
INTO OUR BEDROOM, WE FEEL THAT IT IS THE NEW DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO BUILD A FENCE OF ADEQUATE HEIGHT AND MATERIALS THAT WILL GIVE US THE
FAIREST AMOUNT OF PRIVACY POSSIBLE. CURRENTLY ALL THE HOMES ON THE WEST
SIDE OF GREVILLIA DRIVE ARE OUTFITTED WITH CYCLONE FENCING. IN ADDITION TO
THE FENCING ANY EFFORTS THE DEVELOPER WOULD MAKE TO USE TREES AND
SHRUBS TO SUPPORT AND ENHANCE THIS PRIVACY ISSUE WOULD BE GREATLY
APPRECIATED,
ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF OUR HOME IN RELATION
TO THE PROPOSED BULIDING SITE.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL US SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT 762-5334,
SINCERELY,
CRAIG & IVANA BRANDOLINO
,-
;�:.
-�.
row
�aa� .�,
� � ��
CRAIG AND IVANA BRANDOLINO
109 GREVILLIA DR
PETALUMA , CA 94952
APRIL 26, 2006
IRENE T. BORBA
PROJECT PLAMNER FOR PINNACLE RIDGE SUBDIVSION
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
11 ENGLISH STREET, ROOM 100
PETALUMA, CA 94952
RECEIVED
MAY 01 2006
COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FORWARDED TO RICHARD DOWD AT PINNACLE HOMES
DEAR IRENE BORBA,
WE ARE FORWARDING A COPY OF OUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COVER LETTER
SENT TO RICHARD DOWD ON APRIL 26, 2006.
WE WANT TO MAKE THE CITY AWARE OF HOW SERIOUS OUR WATER PROBLEM IS, AND
THAT WE EXPECT THE CITY TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND DEMAND THAT PINNACLE
HOMES INCLUDE A SOLUTION FOR THE SUBSURFACE WATER RUN OFF THAT IS
CURRENTLY DAMAGING OUR PROPERTY. PINNACLE HOMES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
SUBMIT A SOLUTION FOR THIS PROBLEM BEFORE THEY ARE GRANTED ANY PERMITS
FOR MODIFICATIONS ON THE HASH PROPERTY.
WE HAVE SOUGHT LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT WE WOULD PREFER TO AVOID ANY CIVIL
ACTION AGAINST PINNACLE HOMES OR THE CITY OF PETALUMA . BUT IF THIS
PROBLEM IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR RESOLVED, A CIVIL ACTION WILL BE OUR
ONLY CHOICE.
CRAIG AND IVANA BRANDOLINO
109 GREVILLIA DRIVE
PETALUMA, CA 94952
APRIL 26, 2006
RICHARD A. DOWD, VICE PRESIDENT
PINNACLE HOMES
PO BOX 14189
SANTA ROSA, CA 95402
RE: DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS FOR WATER RUN OFF FROM THE HASH PROPERTY
DEAR MR DOWD,
WE ARE FORWARDING THIS LETTER ONTO YOU, REGARDING AN EVALUATION
CONDUCTED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ON OUR PROPERTY ON APRIL 13, 2006.
HIS FINDINGS CONCLUDED THATTHERE IS EXCESSIVE WATER RUN OFF BOTH
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FROM THE HASH PROPERTY INTO OUR YARD. HE
STATED THAT IF THIS SUBSURFACE WATER RUN OFF WERE TO CONTINUE, THERE
WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL EROSION AND DAMAGE TO OUR HILL. I TOLD HIM OF THE
PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT YOU PLAN TO INSTALL ON THE PERIMETER OF
YOUR DEVELOPIVIENT THAT BORDERS OUR PROPERTY, AND AFTER HIS SURVEY HE
CONCLUDED THAT THIS SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT WITHOUT HAVING THE
KNOWLEDGE OF HOW DEEP THIS SUBSURFACE WATER RUNS. HE RECOMMENDED
ARRANGING AN APPOINTMENT" TO MEET WITH YOU AND YOUR ENGINEERS TO
DIAGNOSE THE ORGIN OF THE SUBSURFACE RUN OFF AND TO COLLECTIVELY CREATE
A SOLUTION THAT WILL BRING THIS PROBLEM TO AN END.
IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN TO OPPOSE THE BULDING OF YOUR
NEW DEVELOPMENT. ALL WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS TO RESOLVE THE WATER RUN OFF
ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND TO STOP ANY FURTHER DAMAGE. WE HOPE TO BE ABLE
TO WORK WITH YOU TO
CREATE A PERMANENT SOLUTION THAT WILL BENEFIT EVERONE CONCERNED.
PLEASE CALL ME SO THAT WE CAN ARRANGE A CONVENIENT TIME FOR EVERYONE TO
MEET,
MY CELL NUMBER IS 415-385-6234, THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME.
C PNE
p
cc IRBORBA
cc CITY ATTORNEY
GeoQuest
19 April 2006
Project No. M06-115
Mr. Craig Brandolino
109 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, California 94952-6111
Subject: DRAINAGE CONCERNS
109 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, California
Introduction
In accordance with your request, this Ietter presents drainage concerns regarding your
residence at 109 Grevillia Drive in Petaluma, California (hereinafter the "site"). The
undersigned performed a 13 April 2006 site reconnaissance and discussed the drainage with
you. The site location is shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map.
Site Conditions
Your property is located on the southeast side of Grevillia Drive, several properties up from
"I" Street, in southern Petaluma. The site is located on the north side of a small hill bordering
recent developments. As such, the lot slopes gently up toward the southeast (see Plate 1).
It is understood that you purchased your house new from Condiotti Enterprises, Inc.
("Condiotti"; Santa Rosa, California) approximately I 1 years ago. It is not known what type
of foundation or drainage was installed by Condiotti, but it is understood you will be
contacting Condiotti to obtain this information. Based on the conditions observed in the crawl
space, it appears the house is supported on drilled piers. Landscaping improvements were
installed by you in the back yard approximately two years ago, including a building block
retaining wall, lawn and bushes. The improvements included a new V -ditch at the back of
the building block wall. In addition, a V -ditch was installed at the back of the Brandolino
55 hillside Terrace
Novato, CA 94945
phone 415.897.9979
fax 415.897.1266
fjmaiircr@comeast.net
Brandolino Drainage
109 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, California
Project No. M06-115
19 April 2006
Page 2
property by Condiotti at the time of development. The land behind the site slopes up to the
south and is an undeveloped hillside. However, it is understood that Pinnacle Homes
("Pinnacle"; Santa Rosa, Califon -da) will be building a residential subdivision on the
undeveloped property in the near future.
Drainage Problems
Itis understood that during the last two winters, water seepage has built up in the backyard
of the Brandolino property. The seepage has damaged the new improvements such as
landscaped areas covered with plastic and mulch In addition, the seepage has day -lighted
through the new building block wall, even though the wall reportedly was constructed with
a backdrainage system. At the time of the undersigned's 13 April 2006 site visit, the
Brandolino back lawn was completely saturated and difficult to cross. There was standing
water in places in the bark yard. The crawl space of the Brandohno house appeared wet to
saturated in places. Although the concrete V -ditches behind the Brandolino home appear to
be working, it is understood the new V -ditch was overwhelmed with surface water this
winter.
Conclusions and Recommendations
General surface andnear-surface seepage has resulted in the flow of water from the adjacent
Pinnacle Homes property into the Brandolino yard. Although the V -ditches appear to pick up
substantial amounts of surface water, there clearly is significant near -surface and subsurface
water extending into the Brandolino yard. It is understood you met with representatives of
Pinnacle homes recently, and the new subdivision will include surface drainage control
systems. However, it is likely that, due to the large amounts of subsurface seepage, the
surface drainage improvements will not fully mitigate the drainage problems. Therefore, it
isrecommendedanothermeeting be conductedwithPinnacle Homes and their geotechnical
consultant in the near future. It is likely that it will be necessary for a subdrain, commonly
referred to as a "French" drain, be installed along the Pinnacle Homes property where it
abuts the Brandolino property to mitigate the subsurface water seepage.
Limitations
Additional information about the Condiotti development and the Brandolino house (i.e.,
foundation and drainage information) should be obtained and forwarded to the undersigned
GeoQuest
Brandolino Drainage
109 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, California
Project No. M06-115
19 April 2006
Page 3
for review. In addition, geotechnical and civil engineering work performed for the upcoming
and adjacent Pinnacle Homes development should be obtained for review by the
undersigned. It is possible that the conclusions and recommendations contained herein will
be modified by this information.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this letter consist of professional
opinions and conclusions by a consulting engineer. The only warranty or guarantee made by
the consultant in connection with services performed for this project is that such services are
performed with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession
practicing under similar conditions at the same time, and in the same or a similar locality. No
other warranty, either express or implied, is made or intended by rendition of consulting
services or by famishing written reports of the fundings.
We trust this provides the information you require at this time. If you have questions, please
call. It is a pleasure to be of service.
Sinc
F edericlt Maurer, Jr.
Geotechnical Engineer
Attachment: PIate 1, Vicinity Map
[FINITI=
I
;Y
_C.
v
-01
Lc—
417
r
1�2 ICU
V()
�_ - L�L
Vicinity Map
RL BRANDOLINO DRAINAGE
109 GREVILLIA DRIVE Project # ScaleI Date Plate
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
GeoQuaw M( As ShownApr. 2006 1
I
'.1FET_A
cRear
a
Irak",
'4
;Y
_C.
v
-01
Lc—
417
r
1�2 ICU
V()
�_ - L�L
Vicinity Map
RL BRANDOLINO DRAINAGE
109 GREVILLIA DRIVE Project # ScaleI Date Plate
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
GeoQuaw M( As ShownApr. 2006 1
I
Todd D. Campbell • 133 Grevillia Drive • Petaluma, CA 94952 o 707-776-0998
September 21, 2005
City of Petaluma
Community Development Department
Petaluma Planning Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: Pinnacle Ridge
SEP 2 3 2005
COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
This letter is sent to address the proposed homes identified as the Pinnacle Ridge
Development. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Petaluma Planning Department
regarding this issue. I live at 133 Grevillia Drive in West Ridge Knolls. The development in
question lies about 300 yards south east of my property.
As I am sure all will agree the development property has nature beauty. I am sure that this is
one of the compelling interest for this development. It is also one of the most compelling
issues for why my wife and I purchased our particular home. I am also sure that all concerned
parties want to maintain this natural beauty while still accommodating the desires of the
developers and the current homeowners who border on this property.
I am compelled to write this letter for several reasons. Shortly after I first moved to my
property I noticed that there were story poles erected to indicate where the Cerf s home (and
now others) have been placed. The reference to the Cerf's property is due to the fact that this
outcome represents a good working solution that addressed all concern parties. I also hope
that this represents the outcome of when all parties' issues are heard and addressed. It was
interesting to see the impact that construction of the Cerf's home has had on this area. Clearly
construction of the magnitude of the Pimracle Ridge development deserves equal attention so
that these do not create a visual destruction of this beautiful area for all concerned..
Some of the issues brought up with the construction review of the Cerf s property deserve
critical review as well to minimize the environmental impact of this proposed development
including the use of colors and materials that blend with the endogenous natural colors of the
area and use of native plants and vegetation associated with this particular micro environment.
Several other potential improvements should be considered as follows:
• Fencing similar to if not identical to the design, materials and construction as the
surrounding/adj acent properties
• Limitation of exterior lighting to eliminate a potential "beacon effect" during
nighttime hours
• Limitation of antennas, flagpoles or satellite dishes unless positioned to be out of
visual sight
• Requirement of adequate drainage engineering to eliminate potential runoff and
unstable property
• Maintenance of the 30 foot fire break currently provided by the city to existing
adjacent homeowners
Todd D. Campbell a 133 Grevillia Drive a Petaluma, CA 94952 @707-776-0998
• , Traffic flow on I Street, and the impact to residents exiting from Grevillia.
Most of the homes that border this proposed development have pressure booster systems to
augment the City water pressure. Having lived with this for 9 years, it is clearly the least
favorable aspect of my home. Any change in the water pressure from what is now borderline
should not be tolerated as this not only impacts our water pressure, but also impacts that
performance of our in home fire sprinkler system, City fire hydrants and potable water and
irrigation pressures. This presents not only a potential reduction in our living standards, but
also an additional tisk to fire safety in an area already designated by the city as a high fire
risk.
I have had the opportunity to view the proposed site from the perspective of other
homeowners that border on the referenced property. These homeowners have additional
concerns that impact them directly including:
loss of privacy
drainage run off and land erosion
potential for fire (note wind patterns blow in the direction of the adjacent properties
on Grevillia)
It is possible that solutions can be identified to help reduce these concerns. It should be the
responsibility of all to find and implement these solutions.
I also believe that the impact of the proposed property can be better realized with the
following suggestions: erecting story poles on the property to simulate the location, size and
height of all proposed construction, review of the proposal from all locations, both on
Grevillia and I Street. Furthermore, while I can appreciate the concerns of the developers to
expedite the approval of this proposal, I feel there are issues that require fiuther consideration
that additional time, consideration and on-site review can provide for a better outcome for all
concerned and the maintenance of this beautiful location for everyone to enjoy for years to
come.
In conclusion, I am compelled to write this letter to request that consideration be given to
better size this proposal to be more congruous with the area and the intent of this
development, address the needs and concerns of adjacent property owners, address long term
needs for the water pressure and fire safety in this area and better preserve and utilize the
natural beauty of this location.
Respectfully submitted,
�9"J'_
Todd D. Campbell
133 Grevillia Drive
Community Development Department January 7, 2006
Attn: Ms. Irene Borba
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms. Borba,
I am writing you in regards to the proposed plan from Pinnacle Homes for the
development of the former Hash property aka 27621 Street Pinnacle Ridge subdivision. I
understand that the plan was submitted and has not yet been approved and I would like to
express my concerns.
When I purchased my home, a big part of the decision was having an ample sized back
yard to have a pool and have enough space in between homes to enjoy our privacy. I
found this at 113 Grevillia Drive. I have invested over $100,000. in the back yard alone
as I love spending time there working as well as relaxing and enjoying the view. It's
quiet, serene and a lovely place to spend time alone or with family and friends. With this
proposed plan, I am loosing at least 95% of my view. To say this is disheartening is an
understatement.
There are also very serious drainage issues from that property into the culvert behind my
home. This can only exacerbate that problem having these homes so close to the property
line. It will add additional stress to the hillside behind my home. I would really hate to
have the hillside end up in my pool. Does the current plan deal with this issue
adequately? Is there anything to ensure this won't happen? And if it does, is this the
responsibility of the builder or the homeowner?.
I don't understand why more homes aren't being slated for the other end of the site. Why
do these homes need to be built right on top of us? I understand these are million dollar
homes. These are not homes that are being built right next door. They are behind me and
at least 30 feet above me looking right into my back yard. This changes the elevation and
appeal of the home I purchased. Wouldn't the prospective buyers appreciate a little more
room between homes and an ample size back yard for children to play in, not to mention
a little privacy of their own?
I agree with Kathy Hopper's suggestion of a buffer of trees between our homes/property
lines. This would help with some of the view issues but I don't feel we should loose our
entire view.
RECEIVED
JAN 1 0 W6
COMMUNTIV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns and thoughts.
Sincerely,
Marry L. G nn
Cc: Pinnacle Homes
117 ir, G1 --17f7
113
P-1 f c� gyps
RECEIVED N.K. Parsovws awd M.D. Edwards
MAY 0 8 2006 x53 ctrevllL%a Drrve
OOMMJNT(Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Petals tKn.a,
Irene Borba, Planner, City of Petaluma 81 a -DO (o
and
Plannin- Commission
City of Petaluma
I 1 English St.
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear 1vis. Borba and Planning Commission:
We are writing to express our concerns and give some suggestions regarding the
proposed project, "Pinnacle Ridge," City Pile Number 05-ZOA-0029-CR,
We are writing not only as neighbors who will be impacted fairly directly by the project,
but also as residents of Petaluma, who are concerned in general about building projects
that appear to not honor good planning, conservation, view sheds, water conservation,
neighborly behavior and architectural integrity.
First, it is our understanding that Petaluma was recently told by the State of California
that we are at the edge of our water allotment and must curtail development. I'm sure
you are more aware of the details of the water shortages than we are, but certainly a
housing development at the edge of town that is expected to be made up of large homes,
with water pumped up the hill to serve them, is exactly the type of development that
would exacerbate Petatunha's limited water supply.
This state mandate, coupled with the fact that when the Westridge Knolls development
was built, it was built with specific thought and a charter for water usage that was
designed specifically for Westridge Knolls. As homeowners, we believe that a new
development piggybacking onto the water supply that serves Westridge Knolls and this
end of "I" street would put a strain on our area's water supply, let alone most probably
violate the charter drawn up when this Westridge Knolls was developed.
Second, the proposed development violates the principles of "feathering," where
development toward the outer reaches of the urban grohvth boundaries is supposed to be
less and less dense. This project sits on the edge of the city, along a designated Open
Space. Anything built there should be the lowest density as possible. The Open Space is
not a direct invitation to build huge structures right up to the edge of where it "officially
begins." The proposed development violates not only the letter of the law regarding
feathering, but also the spirit of the taw and these snvetures are offensive.
Third, the proposed project violates the agricultural zoning (and lower density) of the
property on which they are being constructed. How on earth did a farm get rezoned to
acconunodate all these houses? It should not be rezoned to accommodate these large
imposing homes.
Fourth, on general aesthetic principles, the current stay poles erected by Pinnacle Homes
that are now standing on the property illustrate the layout and height of I l or 12 homes
that:
o are structures that encroach too far up the hill and much too close to the attractive
open space of the hillsides;
• are visible not only from about one mile away, because they go up the hillside, but are
visible from the 101 freeway, heading south, and from various points around
Petaluma.
are of overbearing design and height, which encroach into the views and effectively
cut off sunlight, views and privacy of a number of homes, particularly at the southeast
end of Grevillia;
As residents of west Petaluma, we are also aware of the Pinnacle Ridge project currently
under construction on Sunnyslope Road, which consists of three homes that face
Sunnyslope and a number of other new homes that continue the subdivision at the top of
the Wallenberg cul-de-sac.
We were disappointed to see the appearance of tall "street laraps" at the top of
Wallenberg, which are visible from below, which run along the ridgeline as well. Who
on earth approved those streetlamps? They are ugly and out of place. We are afraid
similar tall "street lamps" will be placed on any roads that go up on this proposed
development. No. We do not want street lamps. The hill behind Grevillia is a beautiful
open space graced by ancient trees, naturally moving land, wild grasses and gracefully
curving lines. Cows come up and walk along the ridgeline from behind and everybody
in the area loves to see them up there. The natural beauty of the open space and hillsides
are part of the beauty and charm of Petaluma.
Some positive recommendations that we believe would be a potential compromise:
Pinnacle could consider building four or five one-story houses, or fewer, and feather out
the density as it approaches a) the open space and b) as it approaches the residences on
Grevillia.
There is a way to build responsibly, and certainly Pinnacle can do this and still make
money.
(dick Parsons Mega n�dwards
mAAacle IZ;dne Fane
RECEIVED
JUL I s 2006
Cpl�l�4Ul��'IiDE�1F��1���F_N����r41�����IVF Mr
Mayor David Glass
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
,,�go\
July 8, 2006 t ?k Po
and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
RECEIVED
JUL 17 2006
Re: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision (Hash Property)
MAYOR
Dear Mayor Glass:
This letter is written to state the fact that we are strongly against the development of
"Hash Property" by Pinnacle Ridge. We are disconcerted that a developer, Pinnacle
Ridge has purchased Mr. Hash's property and intends on developing huge homes that
will greatly reduce our quality of life and equity in our home.
When we purchased our home, there was an active farm adjacent to o!!r backyard and
open space to the west of it. We thought that the land would remain farmland. Vve never
thought that a developer would be allowed to purchase the land.
Nonetheless, that is what has happened and we would like to express the fact that we
are displeased with Pinnacle Homes' intent of building so many homes so close to our
property line and for completely obstructing our backyard views.
As you can see by the enclosed photograph, the owners will be able to see into every
window of our home that faces south and the owners of the home to the east of that will
be able to see into our two windows that face east. Additionally, the noise from the
residents, via their daily lives, vehicles, animals, friends, and perhaps at home business
traffic will greatly affect our lives.
If the house directly behind us is approved as is, a travesty of injustice will occur. No one
who would be in our position would approve of Pinnacle Ridge's plans in its current
state.
The proposed house that will be directly behind us will completely obstruct our backyard
view. The proposed home to the east of the aforementioned will also obstruct our view of
the beautiful country land towards the east. The view towards the open space will be
blocked by the home directly behind us as well.
Pinnacle Homes has designed their proposed plans in order to make the most profit for
them and at the expense of the current residents of Petaluma. This is not a win-win
situation. We are loosing a great deal in order for Pinnacle Homes to make a great profit.
It is also unfair to the City of Petaluma, as the homes do not enhance the charm of
Petaluma, as they will take away from the charm, tranquility and beauty of the current
homes. I Street could be developed and the homes could be placed on large lots. Fewer
homes could be built and Pinnacle Homes could in fact be a lovely, tranquil
development. Building charming homes, fewer of them and away from the current
As professionals, the developers knew that there were residents next to their property
when they purchased the land. They knew that they ought to take the high road and
develop the land in an educated manner, or not purchase the land at all. Instead, they
told us that they designed the development with us in mind. They told us that some of
the land could not be built upon due to landslides.
However, we know that we were not taken into consideration when the plans were
made. We heard that there are 16 acres of land and that the 16 acres were tentatively
approved for 11 homes. Even though Pinnacle Homes cannot "build on some of the
land" due to landslides, they intend on building their 11 homes on fewer acres of land.
We are taking the brunt of it due to the plan of having them built close to our property
lines, large square footage of the homes, homes built upon hills, and smaller properties
per home. What happen to the concept of feathering? Does it not apply to Mr. Lawson?
We hypothesize that Mr. Lawson will come back to the City of Petaluma in the near
future with plans to build homes on the area that now has a slide problem, as his
employees will have miraculously been able to fix the problem. Then, there will not only
be 11 huge homes, a lot of people, dogs, etc., but also additions to all of the
aforementioned.
We have been told that the last development by Pinnacle Homes (on Sunnyslope) was
supposed to consist of only 8 homes and that they now are able to build 11. is this going
to happen to us?
Supposedly 16 acres were approved for 11 homes. Now a few acres cannot be built
upon, so there should be fewer homes, but Pinnacle homes has decided to build their 11
homes on fewer acres of land at our expense. Further, we have no doubt that they will in
fact be able to build upon the landslide acres in the future.
If this plan is approved as is, it will be an unjust decision. If you or Mr. Lawson owned
our home, we are certain, but it is only our opinion, that he and you would say that a
house built on the proposed site adjacent to our backyard is unethical.
You can let the loyal citizens, taxpayers, and voters know that they matter and that they
live in a community that cares about their citizens, city and country.
We sincerely hope that our concerns will be taken into consideration. We sincerely hope
that all -of these months of.worry, stating our concerns, and attending the Pinnacle Ridge
meeting were not in vain.
Please call us at 707-769-1724, if you pian on approving the development in its current
state. We would like you to come over and see how it will be a detriment to our lives.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Sincerely,
/4-1/ Akvc,�
Ralph, Kathy and Blake Hooper
Enclosures: Photograph
List of Concerns
January 1, 2006
List of Concerns
Earth Movement:
Landslides
It is not in our vested interest to have a house, part of a bouse, vehicles, play equipment, yand accoutrements,
or another landowner's land, slide into our house and/or property.
Drainage:
Having proper drainage for the new houses is a necessity.
Water Pressure:
How will the use of water by the new residents affect the Westridge Knolls and other current residents' water
pressure?
Noise:
Vehicles:
Parents: Noise M -F twice daily for each working parent (i.e., engines conning garage door/doors
opening and closing
Teen-agers- driving
Mail
UPS/FEDEX Delivery .
Garbage Trucks
Lawn Care/ lawn mowers, trimmers
Playing in Driveway, i.e., basketball
Music while, kids are playing in the driveway
Alarm System
Parties:
Music
Pool Parties
Barbeques
Garme of Pinnacle Homes facine us and other residents of Westridee Knolls:
Unattractive
Noisy
Future view of cars, trucks, campers, boats, skateboards, basketball hoops
Animals:
If all of the residents have at least one dog that would mean that we would be deigned with the privilege of
hearing 11 barking dogs. This is a bit much, especially during the Spring/Summer/Fall when it is quite
enjoyable to sleep with the windows open.
Privacy
New residents will be. able to view our activities outside and within our home/bomes.
Their evening lights, i.e., outdoor and indoor lights will be able to shine into our windows.
Ouality of Life:
No serenity
No privacy
No openness
No breathtaking views
No views of the deer, rabbits, etc.
No leaving blinds open
Decrease in equity of home (immediate)
Decrease in future equity
Decrease in desirability for living in our home and neighborhood
Claustrophobic feeling while living in home, i.e. the closeness, height and density of houses
Prisoner within own home & property: We will have to keep our blinds closed due to the
aforementioned reasons -Residents Peering Within our Home/Yard
Events that may hanoen:
Owners may choose to work on their or others' vehicles on their property. (More noise, congestion and
invasion of privacy for our neighborhood homeowners.)
Ralph M. Hooper APR 2 8 2006
et Greg, C Drive945COMMUNTIYDEVELOPMENTDE_PARTMENT
Petaluma, CA 44952
April 26, 2006
Director, Petaluma Community Development
I1 English Street
City of Petaluma, CA 94932
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing, Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision, File Number 05-ZOA-
0029-CR
Dear Sir,
I live at 117 Grevillia Drive in the Westridge Knolls Subdivision with my wife, Kathy,
and son, Blake. We have owned this home since its construction in October 1994. We
bought this house because of its fine construction and design, because it was in Petaluma,
and because it was bordered in the back by the Hash farm.
Our back yard is actually a steep hill with the Hash property raised to the level of our
second story windows. This is not an optimal situation, but the sight of horses grazing
above our hill and the open spaces beyond more than compensated for the awkward
grading.
We have been aware for some time that Pinnacle Homes had purchased the Hash
property with the intent to build a number of large, expensive homes. Our hope was that
the homes would be few in number and spaced appropriately over the Hash grounds.
Most of all, we hoped that these homes would not be pushed against our back fence.
In February, Pinnacle Homes hosted a meeting to our friends and neighbors and made
plain its intention to squeeze eleven large homes into one-third of the Hash property, the
very third closest to the back fences of our closest neighbors and us. Pinnacle was
required by law to erect large poles that represent the eleven structures in spacing and
size. With the eleven homes pushed up against these back yards it has the effect of a
series of eight -to -ten story buildings right behind us. Moreover, these very tall structures
congregated so close together and to us will block the ridgeline view not only for our
immediate neighbors, and us but also for the 160 -plus residents of Westridge Knolls plus
surrounding streets.
I have to assume that Pinnacle was told by the PI<anning Commission that it could build
up to eleven large homes based on the total acreage of the Hash property. Indeed, if
eleven large homes were fairly evenly spaced over the entire property, and not placed
close to existing Westridge properties, some form of decent ridgeline view could be
maintained and the damage to the value of our properties could be minimized.
Understand that we do not oppose Pinnacle Homes' right to build on the Hash property.
But we strongly oppose their current plan, which will wreak severe economic and
quality -of -life damage on our neighbors and us. We have been good citizens of Petaluma
for over a decade and all we ask is that Pinnacle Homes also be a good neighbor.
To summarize, we oppose the current Pinnacle Homes building plan and strongly urge
the Planning Commission to disapprove the Pinnacle Homes Tentative Map based on the
following negative impacts of the plan:
1. It severely threatens the economic value of the homes of adjacent Westridge
Knolls homeowners.
2. It poses a real threat of mudslides on the lulls behind our home and the homes
closest to us.
3. It destroys the ridgeline view for the entire area by creating an eyesore of a
glut of large homes too close together on too high a hill.
4. It will severely compromise our privacy and render our back yard life virtually
impossible.
Ralp
Sincerely,
aim,-)
7 h M. Hooper
May 1, 2006
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision (Hash Property)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
MAY 0 2 2006
COMMUNTH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
This letter is written to reiterate the fact that we are strongly against the development of "Hash Property"
by Pinnacle Homes. We are disconcerted by the fact that Pinnacle Homes has not decided to remove the
home that will be directly behind us, and the one that will be directly to the east of it.
As you can see by the enclosed photographs, the owners will be able to see into every window of our home
that faces south and the owners of the home to the east of that will be able to see into the two windows that
face east. Additionally, the noise from the residents, via their daily lives, vehicles, animals, friends, and
perhaps at home business traffic will greatly, greatly affect the quality of our lives.
The photographs are not clear as I am not a professional photographer, but you can see past the master
bedroom directly into our son's bedroom. Additionally, the people will be able to see into the formal living
room and downstairs bathroom.
If the house directly behind us is approved as is, a travesty of injustice will occur. No one who would be in
our position would approve of Pinnacle Ridge's plans.
We conveyed in our previous letters that the proposed house that will be directly behind us will completely
obstruct our backyard view.
The proposed home to the east of the aforementioned will also obstruct our view of the beautiful country
land.
Pinnacle Homes has designed their proposed plans in order to make the most profit for them and at the
expense of the current residents of Petaluma. This is not a win-win situation. We are loosing a great deal in
order for Pinnacle Homes to make a great profit. It is also unfair to the City of Petaluma, as the homes do
not enhance the charm of Petaluma, as they will take away from the charm, tranquility and beauty of the
current homes. I Street could be developed and the homes could be placed on large lots. Fewer homes
could be built and Pinnacle Ifomes could in fact be a lovely, tranquil development. However, this would be
a loss of profit for the developer. I Street would have to be developed and fewer homes would have to be
built. It seems to me that building charming homes and fewer of them would enhance the area, especially
when passersby enter and exit Petaluma via I Street.
It is not necessary to build homes closely to the current residences' property lines and to be congested. The
appearance is even more devastating because they will be built upon hills. We are passionate about our
home, lives, neighbors, and community, while Mr. Craig Lawson and his associates are intent upon making
a rather large profit.
Yes, they may be nice, they may be charming, but once they have developed all that they can developed,
they will move on. The homes will be built and we will have to live with the aftermath of this development.
This matter is about ethics. This is about developing property that will benefit all involved parties. This is
about doing what is right for Petaluma's citizens.
The businesses that are successful are successful due to the fact that their employees are treated with
respect and are well paid. This in turn is true for cities. Cities that do well are those wherein people want to
work and live. They have a great reputation because the people within them care about the community. We
in tum ought to do the same.
When has it become okay for a person with money to do what he or she wants and at the expense of others?
Please make this a successful development. This development should at least maintain our quality of life
and equity in our homes or improve upon them, This is not only for our sake, but also for future residence
of Petaluma. We want people to be proud and happy about where they live, not embarrassed and ashamed.
Our quality of life will greatly diminish if the current plans are approved. We, wish to maintain the privacy
and peacefulness that we currently enjoy. We would also like to maintain the quality of life that we have
had while residing here in Petaluma. No cars, dogs barking, mail carriers, motorcycles, and the like have
disturbed us from the direction of our backyard. Additionally, it would be lovely if we could maintain the
appreciation and/or equity of our home.
We purchased our home with an active farm directly behind us and with open space to the west of it. We
are passionate about our home. If we wanted to live with a skyscraper behind us (after all, we have a hill, so
the house will start on the second story) we would have purchdaed a home in San Francisco.
It seems highly unethical to let people purchase property with the thought that the land behind them would
continue to be farmland and then to have a developer callously put up story poles with the audacity that the
citizens of Petaluma were not entitled to any consideration.
After all, Mr. Lawson knows that we do not approve of the home that will be built directly behind us. We
have written letters stating this fact. Even without the communiqu6, anyone with any decency would know
that placing a home, where it is placed is not proper and not ethical.
Once again, the land ought to be developed in such a way that it enhances the City of Petaluma. It ought to
be an asset. By having a development that enhances Wesvidge Knolls and its surrounding neighborhood
will in tum enhance Petaluma. A development that takes away from the current residents will also be a
deficit to Petaluma as property value will decrease and people will not want to live here. This situation
could be successful for all involved if everyone would act with integrity.
After all, the developers are the professionals. We cannot move our homes to please the developers, so the
developers should develop their property in order to please the already established, fine citizens of
Petaluma.
As professionals, the developers knew that there were residents next to their property when they purchased
the land. They knew that they ought to take the high road and develop the land in an educated manner, or
not purchase the land at all. Instead, they spoke to us with mendacity and told us that they designed the
development with us in mind. They told us that some of the land could not be built upon due to landslides.
However, we know that we were not taken into consideration when the plans were made. We heard that
there are 16 acres of land and that the 16 acres were tentatively approved for 11 homes. Even though
Pinnacle Homes cannot "build on some of the land" due to landslides, they intend on building their 11
homes on fewer acres of land. We are taking the brunt of it due to the p1an of having them built close to our
property lines, large square footage of the homes, homes built upon hills, and smaller properties per home.
What happen to the concept of feathering? Does it not apply to Mr. Lawson? We hypothesize that Mr.
Lawson will come back to the City of Petaluma in the near future with plans to build homes on the area that
now has a slide problem, as his employees will have miraculously been able to fix the problem. Then, there
will not only be 1 I huge homes, a lot of people, dogs, etc., but also additions to all of the aforementioned.
We have been told that the last development by Pinnacle Homes (on Sunnyslope) was supposed to consist
of only 8 homes and that they now are able to build 11. Is this going to happen to us?
Supposedly 16 acres were approved for I 1 homes, Now a few acres cannot be built upon, so there should
be fewer homes, but Pinnacle homes has decided to build their 11 homes on fewer acres of land at our
expense. Further, we have no doubt that they will in fact be able to build upon the landslide acres in the
future.
Their one home equates to approximately two of ours. Feathering and other building concepts ought to be
put into consideration. What about having a beautiful buffer between our development and theirs? Let us do
the ethical thing and enhance our neighborhood, not take away from it, Let us show the loyal citizens of
Petaluma that we are grateful for their loyalty and not allow this development to be approved as is.
If this plan is approved as is, it will be air unjust decision. If you or Mr. Lawson owned our home, we are
certain, but it is only our opinion, that he and you would say that a house built on the proposed site adjacent
to our backyard is unethical.
Many people take the high road. They live to serve, rather than to be served. They believe that they need to
give back to their community, to their country, to their nation.
This is a defining moment in some of your lives. You can do the right thing. You can state that this
development is unjust and unfair to the current residents of Westridge Knolls and that another plan will
have to be drafted.
You can let the loyal citizens, taxpayers, and voters know that they matter and that they live in a
community that cares about their citizens, city and country.
We sincerely hope that our concerns will be taken into consideration. We sincerely hope that all of these
months of worry, stating our concerns, and attending the Pinnacle Ridge meeting were not in vain.
Please call us at 707-769-1724, if you plan on approving the development in its current state. We would
like you to come over and see how it will be a detriment to our lives.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ralph, Kathy and Blake Hooper
Enclosures: Photographs
Addendum:
We have not had any water pressure problems.
We have not had any landslide problems.
We have not had problems with our neighbors, i.e., noise from parties, dogs and so forth.
May 1, 2006
Please note that this photograph was taken from our family room.
The hill is our backyard and you can see how close the home will
be to our home and how it will completely close us in as the new home's
foundation equates to the second story of our home.
You too would see the injustice, if you would have purchased
a home with an active farm, open space, beautiful views and tranquility
to find out that it is to be completely taken away from us. We will
have nothing but views of homes and noise and this too, will apply to the future
owner/owners of our home.
I beseech all of you, including Mr. LaNvton and Mr. Dowd to not allow
the plans to be approved in their current state. Please build fewer homes,
let them be one story and built in such a way that the value of our homes
and the quality of our lives will not dissipate.
January 1, 2005
Mr, and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
Community Development Department
Ms. Irene Borba
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms. Borba:
This letter is written to restate the fact that we are displeased and distressed with seeing
story poles approximately 135 feet from our back door. As stated earlier, we purchased
our property in good faith, knowing that there was an active farm adjacent to our property
and open space to the right of it. We have enjoyed said properties tremendously, It gives
us great pleasure to live in a tranquil environment, be surrounded by open land, and to be
part of a lovely community.
If the homes are approved as currently planned, it will be a travesty ofjustice. As you can
see, there will be no views upstairs, or downstairs when one looks out of the back
windows of our home. ("Phe two side windows also look upon story poles.)
Furthermore, the home directly behind us ought to be relocated. It is not ethical to take
away all of the beautiful views that we currently enjoy. Moreover, it was conveyed to me
that the garage or garages (2/3 car garage?) will face the back of our house. We do not
wish to hear the parents coming and going, the garage doorldoors opening and closing,
children playing basketball at all hours, blaring music, lights shining in our windows, etc.
Finally, we do not wish to feel like prisoners in our own home. How would the developer
feel if he had people peering down on him? We will have to keep the b4nds closed at
night and perhaps during the day as the house directly behind will be so close to ours.
It is wonderful when people bring out the best in one another and this should be true with
this development. It should be created in such a way that the current residents' homes
should be enhanced by the surrounding development, rather than diminished. At the very
least the property value and fine qualities should continue to grow in the current fashion.
Pinnacle Homes should develop their property in a way that improves the reputation of
Petaluma. It ought to move their houses back from their current positions, make them
one-story, blend in with the country -like atmosphere (it is too congested and city -like in
its current stage) in order for us, the current homeowners, to continue to have a nice view,
feet the openness within our homes, enjoy the tranquility that surrounds us, and maintain
our privacy.
1
JAN 0 5 2006
COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Open space or a park -like atmosphere could be used as a buffer between our homes.
Perhaps, the homes could be built towards the south and east side of the property. This
would allow the residents of Westridge Knolls and those who come into our
neighborhood to not see said homes, reduce the level of noise, and retain the sense of
openness. We mention the latter as our backyard has a hill and what helps us to not feel
closed in, is the fact that we have open land behind us. We are already feeling edgy and
closed in with the poles being placed so close to us and with there being an abundance of
them. (There seems to be 5 or more homes within our line of vision.)
We do not wish to have a Fountain Grove atmosphere adjacent to our backyard and
would like to convey that Pinnacle Homes may spend a lot of time conveying their
wishes to you, but this is their livelihood. Our neighbors, as well as, us are living active
lives with our jobs, children, volunteer work, etc. Even though, we do not convey our
concerns daily, this does not mean that, we are not concerned about what is going on with
Pinnacle Homes' intent to develop the property behind us. We are Wy unhappy with
said plans and do not want this development approved.
Consequently, we do not accent to the development of Pinnacle Homes in what is known
as the "Hash Property." We have purchased a home in Petaluma, voted, paid taxes,
performed volunteer services, given to charities and have been an active participant
within this community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
List of Our Concerns
Photographs
January 1, 2006
List of Concerns
Earth Movement:
Landslides
It is not in our vested interest to have a house, part of a house, vehicles, play
equipment, yard accoutrements, or another landowner's land, slide into our house and/or
property.
Drainage:
Having proper drainage for the new houses is a necessity.
Water Pressure:
How will the use of water by the new residents affect the Westridge Knolls and
other current residents' water pressure?
Noise:
Vehicles:
Parents: Noise M -F twice daily for each working parent (i.e., engines
running garage door/doors opening and closing
Teen-agers- driving
Mail
Parties:
UPS/FEDEX Delivery
Garbage Trucks
Lawn Care/ lawn mowers, trimmers
Playing in Driveway, i.e., basketball
Music while kids are playing in the driveway
Alarm System
Music
Pool Parties
Barbeques
Garage of Pinnacle Homes facing us and other residents of Westridee Knolls:
Unattractive
Noisy
Future view of cars, trucks, campers, boats, skateboards, basketball hoops
Animals:
If all of the residents have at least one dog that would mean that we would be
deigned with the privilege of hearing 11 barking dogs. This is a bit much,
especially during the Spring/Summer/Fall when it is quite enjoyable to sleep with
the windows open.
Privacy:
New residents will be able to view our activities outside and within our home
Their evening lights, i.e., outdoors and indoors will be able to shine into our
windows.
Oualitv of Life
No serenity
No privacy
No openness
No breathtaking views
No views of the deer, rabbits, etc.
No leaving blinds open
Decrease in equity of home (immediate)
Decrease in future equity
Decrease in desirability for living in our home and neighborhood
Claustrophobic feeling while living in home, i.e. the closeness, height and
density of houses
Prisoner within own home & property: We will have to keep our blinds
closed due to the aforementioned reasons
Events that may hannen:
Owners may choose to work on their or others' vehicles on their property. (More
noise, congestion and invasion of privacy for our neighborhood homeowners.)
Owners may wish to have a daycare within their home/garage. (More traffic,
noise and invasion of privacy for the residents of Westridge Knolls.)
Owners may wish to rent out a room or turn their garage into a small apartment.
(More residents, traffic, noise and invasion of privacy for the current residents of
Westridge Knolls.)
Owners may wish to build a rental unit upon their property. (More residents,
traffic, noise and invasion of privacy for the current residents of Westridge Knolls.)
Owners may wish to work from home. If they have clients, there will be more
traffic, noise and invasion of privacy for the residents of Westridge Knolls.)
Owners may wish to teach and/or sell items from their home. (Art Classes, etc.)
(This too will cause more traffic, noise and invasion of privacy for the residents of
Westridge Knolls.)
Owners may wish to own a huge unsightly RV. We will be subjected to view said
object. Owner may have people living in vehicle in a permanent residence capacity in
which we will be subjected to more unpleasantness.
m
41
It
TK
January 19, 2006
Community Development Department
Ms. Irene Botha
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: "Hash Property"/Pinnacle Homes
Dear Ms, Borba:
RECEIVED
OOMMUNTIV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
This letter is written to further state the fact that we are strongly against the development of "Hash
Property" by Pinnacle Homes.
When we purchased our home, Mr. Hash owned the property that is adjacent to our backyard. To the west
of our property is open space. We purchased our property next to an active farm and truly enjoyed being
Mr. Hash's neighbor.
It is our opin ion that "Hash Property" should be given to the City of Petaluma as open space, purchased by
a farmer, wine grower, land supporter, or by someone who would build one nice charming home on said
property.
We understand that the property was sold with the idea that I I homes could be built on it, We were told at
the Pinnacle Homes' meeting that homes cannot be built on certain parts of said property due to landslides.
With that said, they need to build fewer homes, if any. They ought to get rid of the homes on lots 2 & 3
(especially Lot 2). The rest of the homes need to be developed towards the south and east part of the
property.
This proposed development has a tremendous impact upon our quality of life, property value and equity
within our home.
We would like to extend an invitation to anyone who has a deciding vote on this matter, to our home, It is
one thing to see a map, but it is another to see what is happing in person. It is with sincerity that we feel
that anyone would feel the way that we do if they owned our home. We are not trying to be difficult, but
rather, trying to convey that this proposed development will indeed have a great impact on the quality of
our lives and the value of our home.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Enclosures:
Photographs
List of Concerns
Sincerely,
List of Concerns
Drainage Problems
Water Pressure Problems
Landslides
Loss in Property Value
Loss of Equity
Loss of Privacy
Loss of Views
Loss of the Ridge Line
Loss of Quietness
Loss of Tranquility
Loss of Quality of Life
Fountain Grove Atmosphere
Problems with new Neighbors
Placement of trees, etc., to block their eye sore of a home — in turn receiving their
complaints because we will now be blocking their northern view.
Brief Statement:
Pinnacle Homes knows that "Hash Property" was an active farm when many of us
purchased our homes. With that in mind, they cannot feign indifference or ignorance to
this pertinent fact. They know that building homes upon ours is unethical. Now, it is up to
them to rise to the occasion and do the proper thing. It takes a rare person to do such a
thing, but there are men, who have such character.
What they intend to do to us is unjust. The plans can be changed to enhance, rather than,
take away from the equity of our homes. The quality of our lives can continue by having
them implement a plan that will benefit all involved. Greed does not have to be the
deciding factor. It is up to them to make the right decision, but they cannot say that they
do not know why we are upset.
Further, even if "Hash Property" would have been a vacant lot, it is an obstruction of
justice to place so many homes so closely to our property. Anyone with integrity would
say that what I state is true.
For the Record
We have had no water drainage issues.
We have had no problem with earth movement.
We have had beautiful views from all of the windows facing south.
We have experience tranquility within and outside of our home.
We have enjoyed a high quality of life within our home.
We have seen an increase in equity for our home.
We have seen our property increase in value and desirability.
j
January 19, 2006
Community Development Department
Ms. Irene Borba
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: "Hash Property"/Pinnacle Homes
Dear Ms. Borba:
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2006
COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Please notify those listed on the enclosed document of any meetings in regards to the
development of "Hash Property" by Pinnacle Homes.
We are strongly against this property being developed and would like to express said
opinion at every opportunity that becomes available to us, be it in person or through
written correspondence.
Thank you once again, for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Mailing List
"Hash Pronertv" Pinnacle Homes Mailinu List
Mr. & Mrs. Brandolino 109 Grevillia Drive, Petaluma, CA 94952
Ms. Mary Glenn 113 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Dave Albee 114 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Hooper 117 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Jeff Greene 121 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Clyde Clmistobal 129 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Rick Carlson 137 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Brawn 141 Grevillia Drive
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Hagen
Mr. & Mrs. Mort Barak
Ms. Rose Marr
Ms. Debbie Yee
Mr. & Mrs. Hammerman
Mr. W. McDevitt
Mr. Irving Schwirman
Mr. Craig Dietrich
Mr. & Mrs. David Roh
145 Grevillia Drive
149 Grevillia Drive
173 Grevillia Drive
176 Grevillia Drive
433 Black Oak Drive
441 Black Oak Drive
234 Simon Drive
217 Dogwood Court
31801 Street
January 20, 2006
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2006
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper COMMUNTIV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
117 Orevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
Community Development Department
Ms. Irene Borba
I 1 Lnglish Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: "Hash Property'YPimnde Homes
Dear Ms. Borba:
This letter is written to state the fact that we are strongly against the development of "Hash Property" by
Pinnacle I Tomes. We are disconcerted by the fact that Pinnacle Homes has not written m us to inform us
that they are removing the home duals directly behind us and the one directly to the east of it.
We may be incorrect as to what lots the future homes will be on, but believe that they are Lot 42 and Lot R
3. We beg pardon as in our last communique, we stated that we most definitely wanted the house in Lot 42
removed, but now believe that the home that is in Lot 13 is the home that will be directly behind us. (With
so many story poles, it is difficult to know where one home begins and another ends.) Needless to say, if
we are cancer, homes in Lot s3, and Lot a2 need to be permanently removed.
We conveyed in our previous letters that the proposed house directly behind us will obstruct our view to the
south and wish to further state that it will also obstruct our view of the designated open space to the west of
us.
The proposed home to the east of the aforementioned will also obstruct our view of beautiful country hod.
Pinnacle Homes has designed their proposed plans in order to make the most profit for them and at the
expense of the current residents of Petaluma. It is also being unfair to the City of Petaluma as the homes do
not enhance the charm of Petaluma, but rather create an eyesore and a sense of coldness. l Street could be
developed and the homes could be placed on large lots. Fewer homes could be built and Pinnacle Homes
could in fact be a lovely, tranquil development. However, this would be a loss of profit for the developer. I
Street would have to be developed and fewer homes would have to be built. It seems to me that building
charming homes and fewer of them would enhance the area, especially schen passersby enter and crit
Petaluma via 1 Street.
It is not necessary to build homes 25' from current residences' property lines and to be congested The
appearance is even more devastating because they are placed upon hills. Of course we are upset. Anyone
would be upset, We are passionate about our homes, lives, neighbors, and community, while they are intent
upon making a profit.
The proposed development will cause nothing but problems. The current and future residents will have to
take responsibility for drainage problems, landslides, privacy issues, as well as noise problems.
We, and rightly so, will want to maintain our privacy and peacefulness, while the new residents will want
to enjoy their homes. We will want to plant trees. They will complain because we are blocking their view.
We will complain because they are being too loud. It will most likely be an endless cycle of unhappiness.
We plan un moving if the proposed development is approved, but of course will have to plant trees in order
to make our home appealing m the future homeowner.
We will not get full price for our home and would like to know if Pinnacle Homes intends on compensating
us for our loss. We lave our home, neighbors and community. We would love to continue attending St.
Vincent do Paul Church, patronizing Petaluma Market, Peterson's Pnin4 Don's Garage Door (very nice by
the way), Graziano's, Dempsey's, De Schmire, Rosen's, Finesse, cte. We would also love to continue
contributing to the community, i.e., volunteer ut school, volunteer for catechism classes, volunteer organist
etc We would also like to continue donating to various organizations such as COTS, Veterans, Petaluma
Kitchen, etc. We would also like to continue supporting such organizations as the Boys Scouts, Girls
Smuts and Police Department We would also like to continue paying our taxes in order to support this
lovely community. Additionally, we would also like to continue voting and making a positive difference
within this community.
However, we purchased a home with an active farm directly behind us and with open space to the west. If
this is taken away from us there will be no reason to stay. We are passionate about our home. It is our
refuge, If we wanted to live with a skyscraper behind us (after all, we have a hill, so the house will start on
the second story) we would have purchased a condo in San Francisco. We wanted to live next to Mr.
Hash's farm and we wanted to have open space next to if
Once again, the land ought to be developed in such a way that it enhances the City of Petaluma. It ought to
be an asset. By having a development that enhances Westridge Knolls and its surrounding neighborhood
will in turn enhance Petaluma. A development that takes away from the current residents will also be a
deficit to Petaluma as property value will decrease and people will not want to live here. This situation
could be successful for all involved if everyone would act with integrity.
If !his matter cannot be resolved in a proper fashion, the land ought to be zoned as open space.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
December 13, 2005
Community Development Department
Ms. Irene Borba
1 I English Street
Petaluma, CA94952
Dear Ms, Borba:
RECEIVED
COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph M. Hooper
117 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
This letter is written to convey and reiterate the fact that we are strongly against having
not only one house, but also several houses built adjacent to our backyard. It is most
distressing to know that Pinnacle Homes may have gotten farmland zoned for residential
use. It is also distressing to see that most of the houses are within view of our backyard
scenery and a little more than 100 feet away from our back door.
Instead of seeing rolling hills and deer, we will be seeing at least five homes from our
upstairs and downstairs windows.
Once again, when we purchased our home, we purchased it for the view. We have a hill,
which we were not in favor of having, but we were willing to accept this in lieu of the
beautiful view.
We saw that it was farmland and every time we drive from Marin County via the back
road, known as I Street, we see the sign that states that we are entering the City of
Petaluma. The sign is after Hash property.
It is disconcerting to see that the homes are built in favor of the owner of said property
and without regard, nor consideration for the residents of Westridge Knolls. Further, we
seem to be the family bearing the brunt of this disastrous situation.
Moreover, the planning does not include a barrier between our properties. There are no
trees and it looks as if there are no backyards adjacent to ours, but rather, the houses in
and of themselves. Even lower priced homes have their backyards aligned in a continuous
manner, in order to give BOTH parties privacy, quietness and the like.
My, it would be nice to have one of Pinnacle's homes, with the great view, quietness and
its' many advantages. That is what we currently have, but may soon lose if justice does
not prevail.
It is reprehensible to have Pinnacle Homes of Santa Rosa purchase land, get the area
zoned for their pleasure and build homes with no consideration for the current Petaluma
residents, taxpayers and voters.
As a result, we, the principal inhabitants affected by this plan, do not approve of the
capital adventure presented thus far by Pinnacle Homes. We purchased a home in the
country and if the plans are approved, it will leave us with the feeling of great trepidation,
as living with 5 homes directly in our backyard was not part of our purchase agreement.
Additionally, Mr. Richard A. Dowd, Vice -President, Pinnacle Homes sent us a letter
dated August 26, 2005, requesting correspondence with regard to our concerns by
September 15, 2005. We have yet to receive any response to our communication via
letter, but have indeed seen through this discourse, frames of their intended structures via
our views through all of our back windows.
Enclosed, you will find photographs of our concerns. At present, the view is quite
upsetting to see, but will be even more so, if in fact Pinnacle Homes is allowed to build
them on the present site. Please keep us informed as to any meetings, correspondence, or
concerns in this matter.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Avv�
Enclosures: IWA� O6
Photographs
To:
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
August 20, 2008
Planning Commissioners
Ms. Cathy Miller
Mr. Christopher Arras
Mr. Will Dargie
Mr. Spence Burton
Ms. Tanya Sullivan
Mr. Jack Rittenhouse III
Councilman David Rabbit
Director of Planning Division, Community Development, City of Petaluma
Thru: City of Petaluma
(Attenti,n City Clerk)
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Notice, Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
Dear Councilman and Commissioners
AUG 2 0 2008
Today, August 20, 2008, 1 received notification that a public hearing would be held on the subdivision
application on September 9, 2008 at 7:00 pm. This schedule ensures my rights to protection of my
property will be nullified. I have repeatedly asked to he notified the Planner responsible to be notified
as soon as the applicant submits a request for consideration. A letter to that effect is also in the file. I
believe I am entitled to such notification in order that I may have sufficient time to prepare my
objections to whatever new materials have been submitted by the developer. As I write this letter, I am
preparing to leave on vacation.
The combined value of the properties affected by this development far exceeds 10 times the value of
the site being proposed for development. The combined losses that the development will inflict will, I
am sure far exceed the value of the property being proposed for development. Just on the basis of
combined loss any approval of this development would inflict upon those of us who would suffer
property value loss and loss of utility the interests of the surrounding property owners must be allowed
to properly prepare. Two weeks at the end of summer is grossly insufficient.
Reset the Hearing Date
Two weeks at the end of Summer and just as school vacation ends is insufficient time for proper
preparation for a public hearing. I request that the Chair reschedule the meeting and coordinate with
Plans Division, sufficient advance notification of the date.
Value at Risk
Large amounts of value are placed at risk by this development, I am therefore asking that the Planning
Commission allocate time for each property owner who may choose to address the Commission not be
limited. If it must be limited due to meeting time constraints, then 1 ask that the limits be placed equally
upon the developer as upon any individual property owner. In other words, my house is valued at
$750,000. Five homes on the south side of Grevillia have similar values for a total value at risk of some
$3.5 million (this does not include others surrounding the site). The site was purchased for about $1,6
million, i believe. So the developer should receive $1.6/$Total value of surrounding properties of the
time made available for presentation and responding to Commissioner questions. Based upon the value
of my house, I would receive approximately% the time allocated to the developer. Here is why so much
time is needed to object to the development.
I ime far full public airing of any and all Environmental Report findings
I also want additional time to address each and every failure by the environmental report to properly
address full environmental concerns and full justification for the findings (not just personal judgment by
the writer of the report.) I do not believe that4tQA compliance is a report to be tabled. I also believe
the public needs to know the objective criteria used in any judgment offered in the report. The General
Plan represents the values the citizens of this town want to preserve and any conflicts therewith will
take time to address in public.
Time to address in a public forum conflicts with General Plan and objective measures used to resolve
such conflicts
This is a request to the Chairperson of the Planning Commission to require that the staff planner orally
address any and all conflicts the development has with the General Plan and state the level of objectivity
(by what measures) used to support the conclusion. This hearing is about fulfilling the goals of the
General Plan and not the personal opinion of a staff planner or commercial Environmental Report
writer_
This development involves a conflict between the developer who has no neighborhood ties with a
neighborhood that wishes to maintain its values and the values set forth in the General Plan. Full
discussion and resolution will take a great deal of time.
Request for a formal ruling from the Chair of the Planning Commission with regard to requested
hearing rules.
i hope this letter has allowed you to better judge why I object so strongly to such short notice. Ear us to
properly participate in a "Public Hearing' we need to know the rules for the hearing. I have asked for
full public hearing, not just simple submission of documents and written comments for which no
evidence that they were reviewed in full by the Commission is given. The lateness of this notice
underwrites the need for this letter. I am requesting this hearing actually record full public comment.
This is not a new request. I have asked the planner to coordinate with the Planning Commission the
necessary rules. It seems that such coordination has not been accomplished. .
So, I find myself in a position of asking the Chair to address rules that it seems not to be aware of having
been previously requested. Therefore, to protect the interests of myself and my neighbors, I want to
request that all the requests that I have made be addressed and formal ruling made by the Chair of the
Planning Commission either in writing before the meeting so we may know the rules, or prior to the
hearing and for the Chair to allow public comment prior to the chair ruling. This letter is necessitated by
my desire to avoid biindsiding the Commission with these requests at the hearing where scheduled time
may constrain any Chair ruling. I also want to ensure I do not run amok of State Law that does not
recognize the right to address, in court, new issues not raised in public hearings.
Sincerely,
Richard E. K. Brawn
DOST OFFicE Box 61
PETALuAiA, CA 94953-4061
Pamela Torilatt
Mayor
Teresa Barrett
Notice of Public Hearing of Proposed Project:
Samantha Freitas
BTike Harris
Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
Karen Nau
Affike Brim
David gbbiU
David RahLltt
City Pile Number: OS-ZOA-0029-CR
Councihnembers
Publish on or before August 21, 2008
- - ------*"`Yau-aze-;avited-ta amt.-:.ua Platr�.ivgEori.�ission �cetiug oa :t project iss - — ---
your neighborhood.**
Caumamity Devetopnlent
Department
I English Street
Petahonm CA 9495.2
&d4all
r&kScLpetah inamus
funding
Phone (707) 778-1301
Far (707) 778-4498
To Schedule Inspections:
Phone (707) 778.4479
GJ -Ss
Phone (707J 778-5301
Far (707) 778-5498
HalrsingDlvisiott.
Phone (707) 718-45.55
Far (707) 778-4-586
E -Mail
bgaablel@V1 pelahunamus
Neighborhood Preserratlan/
Coda Euforconem
Phone (707) 778-4469
Fax (707) 778-5498
E Mut!
codeenjorremant(du
etpalahuno.w.iu
Plaatrfng
Phone (707) 778-4301
Fax (707) 778-4498
NOTICE IS I MIEBY GIVEN that an application has received from Craig Lawson, of
Pinnacle Homes, the owner/applicant for a proposed project to be Iocated at 2762 'T"
Street, APN 019-401-019 (the former Hash property). The applicant is requesting approval
of a Tentative Subdivision Map for an 11 -unit residential subdivision and approval of a
PUD -Planned Unit District Amendment (Wesiridge Units 4 & 5). The subject property was
annexed to the City of Petaluma nlongwith the Westddge Units 4 & 5 subdivision in 1989.
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that Planning Division staff has conducted an Initial Study of
potential environmental impacts and has identified potential for sipfficant impacts to:
geology/soils, hydrology/water, biological, visual quality and aesthetics. Mitigation measures
to avoid, substantially reduce or compensate for the environmental impacts are identified
and have been agreed to by the applicant/incotporated into the project. Review and
comment period for the. Mitigated Negative Declaration is from August 21 through
September 9, 2008,
Meeting Hate/Ttne: September 9,200B at 7:00 P.M
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
California 94952
What Will Happen: You can comment on the project The Planning Commission will
consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve; conditionally approve, or deny
the project/or recommend that the City Council approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
project Efforts will be made to accommodate disabilities. The City Nfariager's office must be
notified at (707)778-4345 within 5 days from date of publication of this notice if you need
special accommodations.
For accessible meeting information,
please call (707) 778-4360 or (�
TDD (7071 778-4180
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: if you require special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (707) 778-4360 (voice) or
(707) 778-4480 CPDD)- Translators, American Sign Language integareters, and/or assistive
listening devices for individuals with hearing disabilities will be available upon request. A
minimum of 48 hours is needed to ensure the availability of translation services. In
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
April 26, 2006
Legal Counsel
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma CA 94952
Subject: Pinnacle Ridge Development Restriction.
Dear Sir,
City of Petaluma Resolution 89-10 titled: "Approving the Creation of Westridge
Units 4 and 5...", required that certain adjacent lands that were part of the land deal be
restricted in their use. Specifically paragraphs la, lb, and lc restricted the use of the
Hash Property, now known as APN 0190401-019. It made use of that property is servient
to the City of Petaluma and the landowners of the Condiotti project. The restriction runs
with the lands involved and therefore creates a restriction that I can enforce. Obviously,
changes in density have an adverse effect on my property value and I will object. The
Plans Department is proceeding with the belief that only the City of Petaluma is the only
party that needs to give consent. As you know, resolution of disagreements through
administrative procedure, if possible is preferable to the courts_ Therefore I choose first to
note the matter and seek compliance through administrative measures with the City of
Petaluma.
I am an owner of 141 Grevillia Drive. I purchased the land from Condiotti
Enterprises, and I am now one of the parties to the above mentioned agreement.
While the City may pursue its internal policies to review development requests,
the PUD cannot be changed to a higher density use through any administrative process
without consent of the all present landowners who have inherited the restriction.
I request that you notify the Director, Community Development that before
changes to the PUD can be allowed; the Director must receive consent from the
landowners who purchased from Condiotti Enterprises the land and restrictions that
restrict the PUD changes. .
If Counsel for Petaluma is convinced that land owners in Westridge Knolls are
not a parry to the restriction, please let me know so we can proceed in other venues.
Thank you.
Sineergly,,
Richard E. K. Brawn
Richard E. K. Brawn.
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
April 26, 2006
Ms. Irene Borba, Senior Planner
City of Petaluma
1 I English Street
Petaluma CA 94952
Subject: Pinnacle Ridge Development Restriction.
Dear Ms. Borba,
CDmor DaEL4Ps, MOST
Thank you for allowing me access to the Draft Initial Study of Environmental
Significance.
Please see the attached letter to Petaluma Counsel
Sin e ly,
Richard E. K. Brawn
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, California 94952
April 22, 2006
Director, Petaluma Community Development
City of Petaluma
1I English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
APR 2 7 2006
COMMONTfY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing, Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision. File Number 05-Z4A-
0029-CR
Dear Sir,
Thank you for the Notice. I read that staff is recommending approval of the
subdivision with 11 residential sites.
I want to formally ask that the format of the Commission hearing be such that the
environmental report can be properly scrutinized. I will have a lot of questions about
standards used to arrive at various conclusions. Those standards will need a public airing.
Although I have not yet read the report and mitigation measures, I am sure many issues
will be contentious and many facets will simply be a matter of judgment. I am not asking
to confront the commissioners; rather I want there to be actual public dialog between
affected property owners and the report writer and the staff.
The notice does not clearly state the purpose of the meeting.
1. Is the meeting to determine if the mitigated negative declaration is
adequate under CEQA or
2. Pursuant to the General Plan"
3. Is it to approve the subdivision?
Since I am confident that the Commission Chairperson will not be able to limit,
the meeting to just dealing with the negative declaration and environmental review, I am
asking that each property owner have equal time to present their case as is given to the
with the developer. Justification is as follows:
I. I am a resident of Petaluma, the developer is not.
2. The value of my property is not much different from the investment in
the land by the developer.
3. 1 live in the neighborhood and act to preserve neighborhood values, the
developer does not.
4. I have to live with the consequences of anything that. is done
improperly and approved as satisfactory by the City. The developer
does not.
5. The time and effort dedicated to review by of the proposal, if
converted to cash -equivalent, would be no less than that invested by
the developer.
6. My neighbors and I benefit from a status quo. So does the developer
through appreciation in value of the land. The developer enhances his
economic benefit by changing the status quo. That change may be
detrimental to the economic value of my property.
7. Any change in the status quo has an impact on my quality of life.
& The focus of the developer is to maximize profit. Neither the city nor
any staff member is empowered by law to take from any private
individual and simply give to another. Therefore, the Commission
must consider the economics of the neighborhood and the city, not just
the wishes of the developer.
I also request that the Chairperson to ask all Commission members to address, in
public, their contact to date with the developer (Pinnacle Homes and any connected
entities) and/or the members of the developer's team. I am aware that one of the
developer's team members is a member of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.
Therefore I ask specifically that Counsel for Petaluma be present at this meeting to ensure
Commission members properly recuse themselves from not only the vote but the entire
meeting where their interests that are conflicted can cause them to use (or give the
appearance of using) their positions on the Commission to guide meeting substance and
form or to sway other members of the Commission.
S' erely,
Richard E. K. Brawn
Cc Irene Borba
Senior Planner, Petaluma Planning Department (hand delivered)
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
March 8, 2005
Ms. Irene Borba
City of Petaluma
Community Planning Department
Planning Division
11 English Street, Rm. 11
Petaluma, CA 94952
SUBJECT: Development at 2762 "1" Street (APN: 019-401-019)
Dear Ms. Borba,
The purpose of my letter is to addresses legal and design issues, and the
application of Petaluma General Plan criteria.
I previously wrote of my concems about slumping land. I want to reiterate that
concern. Every hill in this area shows signs of slumping. Normally, slumping occurs
over millennia. However, something has changed and the surrounding slumps are quite
new. For example, a shearing of the land appeared on the open space of Westridge Knolls
just 5 years ago. This shear has now become a clearly visible slump. My property is
downhill from the proposed development. Should development precipitate a slump, my
property may be affected. If building is permitted, then the liability for mitigation of the
effects of any slumping must be legally enforceable against either the builder or the
subsequent property owner. As a taxpayer, I oppose the City being stuck with liability for
any responsibility for slumping as a result of any inadequate building approval process.
I looked through the available drawings. I was unable to find a sheet that
combined the known slide areas, contour lines, urban limit line, proposed lot boundary
dimensions and roof elevations all on one sheet. Having all these matters on one sheet is
essential to any analysis. Because the plans are computer generated, they cost little more
than the paper on which they are printed.
All of us are clearly aware that the City will not expand southward. So the way
this plat is subdivided and the structures will remain for perpetuity. General Plan 2005-
2025 shows this to be a gateway to Petaluma. Development must be carefully, very
carefully reviewed and the long-term interests of the City held as the top priority.
Precluding development is not the issue. The site is within the limits of Petaluma. I
oppose what I see as insufficient intellectual effort to enhance the gateway with a well-
designed development
The topography of the land is very steep and varied. The architectural drawings
present structures whose down-slope feature will be to tower two stories above the
ground floor. Building pads are not set back as a way to allow the straight lines and flat
surfaces of the buildings to into the hillside. Design shows the construction will be simple
standard construction with standard materials. The current plans are big, ostentatious, in -
your -face boxes lacking architectural merit. Architecture is not the business of designing
boxes. It involves the intellect to apply aesthetics, expectations, and, in this case to blend
that which is manufactured with nature. This is inappropriate for the I Street Gateway.
The only height measures shown on the drawings are floor Ievels. These houses
will be above the 200 -foot level. This means they will all stand silhouetted against the
skyline. Petaluma has a policy against such development. Placing the street on the
ridgeline does not change the fact that down-slope appearance of the houses will be as
two-story structures silhouetted against the skyline. Protection of the skyline has been a
long-term policy of Petaluma. I object to permitting such debasement of the General Plan
intent.
Street width needs to be addressed now. Leaving any city street with insufficient
room for expansion to accommodate traffic or without parking is not in the interests of
the residents. Within 30 years I Street will be a major arterial into a city of 100,000.
San Antonio Road will become a major thoroughfare around Petaluma. To allow any
development that does not allow for the future would be contrary to what state law is
trying to achieve with General Planning.
Zoning provides a density range in order to accomplish specific objectives. The
objectives to be accomplished are not balanced against development rights. Development
is expected to fulfill the objectives. A density of 9 units may be too many if the zoning
and general plan objectives remain sacrosanct.
Runoff will increase several hundred percent as a result of adding to the site
impermeable surfaces sloped specifically to get rid of rainwater. The hill currently suffers
erosion due to overgrazing some years ago. But this does give an idea of the problem
caused by runoff. Current channels are adequate for the land in its natural condition. New
development will cause channel erosion as the capacity of the channels is exceeded. The
City must notify the owner of all potentially affected properties, encourage consultation
and require agreement between them and the developer before proceeding with approval.
As you may know, grandfathering allowed development to remain in riparian corridors
through which runoff from this site will run.
Review of this plan has been expensive. The dollar cost of time from private
individuals, city commissioners, and staff, adds up to several thousand dollars. This is a
gateway to Petaluma. The public review process is not a vehicle to be used to solve
quality control problems of this project. So, I hope Staff and the Architectural Review
Commissioners will tell the builder to offer a design reflective of the surroundings, the
value Petaluma places on its rural setting and hilltops, and come up with structures
worthy of being part of the ureeminent eatewav into Petaluma.
Sincerely,
Richard E. K. Brawn
Cf Westridge Knolls Subdivision.
Richard E. K. Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
April 1, 2004
Director, Community Development
Petaluma City Hall
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
APP 0 6 :1004
RE: Development of the property at 27621 Street Extension (APN:019-401-190).
The above site appears to be under consideration for development.
The purpose for this letter is to advise the City authorities that development of the site has
the potential of initiating a slump that may damage my property and others located
downhill from the subject property. I am concerned about any movement of soil on the
western slope of subject site. Hillsides in the immediate vicinity and to the south and west
of the site have extensive slumping. In addition, much new and substantial slumping has
started in other nearby locations just over the past three years. While the slope between
the subject site and my property appears stable, I am worried that any increase in that
angle due to movement of soil would initiate slumping. The whole area seems to be in
the process of slumping.
I have noticed that at several locations on subject site that the earth has been scraped to a
depth of about 6 inches and I concluded that this was to assess future development. One
of the scrapings is on the west slope so it is possible that the new or future owner may
consider development on the west slope of subject property.
My property at 141 Grevillia Drive is downhill from the site that I reference. I must
object to any disturbing of the soil on the slope uphill from my property. I want to make
clear that should a slump occur and encroach into my property, the cost of mitigation or
repair would be substantial.
Enclosed is a plat map showing the location of the site.
S4chard
t�
K. Brawn
_aa , _: Sheet e
(D
�
[G
!»
~ $
)
q
,
a
�
�
\
umz
.
.
!m
\
)\
umz
.
.
!m
!m
e \
qI OQ m
so /ss (7
M,e/ee'S
�
A
T
oiass
QN
�`
Q�4
N K n
� w
m
zgn
2,pa
Ory
`>
o
e
S�
Smi�
Y� v E/S-I 'ad'8V
M1 p
Q�4
N K n
� w
m
Y
e
--� 000-90
9 m 0
Y� v E/S-I 'ad'8V
tl
nN
� tu[c t
- so
' �°'',Ecc slPtl •sty's stt ss`t
e E o
E
5I
•�'b wyt°8
�„
jO$
January 29, 2006
Ms. Irene Barba
Community Development Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
Dear Ms. Borba,
FEB 0 3 2006
OOMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
After attending the Pinnacle presentation on January 17"' and viewing their plans on file
at City Hall, we must strongly and strenuously object to the plans submitted and
presented by Pinnacle Homes.
As homeowners on Grevillia Drive, we feel the proposed development places too many
structures too close to existing homes and does not fit into the existing neighborhood.
Their plans, as proposed, drastically overdevelop the 6 acres bordering Grevillia Drive
that they have focused on, destroying a beautiful and valued ridgeline, and offering no
benefit to Westridge Knolls.
If this development is approved as submitted, the homeowners on Grevillia bordering
the hillside will lose valued privacy and the quiet enjoyment of our homes. We feel the
City of Petaluma and the Developer have an obligation to the homeowners who would
live in the shadow of these colossal hillside homes, which will obliterate our views,
disrupt our sightlines and eliminate privacy from our bedrooms, bathrooms and yards,
seriously devaluing our properties.
Pinnacle claims to be developing 11 homes on 16 acres positioned on the ridge that
borders Grevillia Drive. After reviewing their plans, we find that they are actually
planning 11 massive structures on only 6 acres due to three slide areas on the parcel. At
the January 17th meeting, their Geologist from Bauer & Associates answered questions
and confirmed that the three slide areas on the 16 -acre parcel would be fixed and could
be built on safely to withstand a magnitude 8.0 Earthquake.
We request that the City Planning Department decrease the density of this development,
and relocate structures off the ridge and deeper onto the parcel. Placing them further
into the parcel will protect a valued and irreplaceable ridgeline, maintain a pastoral
semi -rural entrance to Petaluma and preserve the value of homes in Westridge Knolls.
Sincerely,
Clyde and Christine Christobai
129 Grevillia Drive, Petaluma
August 29, 2005
Ms. Irene Borba
Petaluma Community Development Office
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94953
Re: Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision
Hello Ms. Borba,
�r-U'fi v-� t.
AUG 3 1 2005
v�i'sf41 6"tt Y!y""lit I 0INr`t
We are writing to you to express our concern over the plans submitted by Pinnacle
Homes for the proposed Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision.
After reviewing the plans submitted and currently on file in the Community Development
office, we have some concerns about the development in general, concerning parking,
overflow parking, traffic entry and egress onto a narrow and already busy I Street, the
transition from development to open space and the stability of the hill above our homes.
Our biggest concern and objection on the project concerns the home proposed for Lot 6.
The plans on file show two-story fronts and one-story backs to the houses on Lots 3, 4
and 5, which flank the open space, attempting to blend into the hillside. However, Lot
6, on the pinnacle of the ridge behind and overlooking our home, differs from all of the
other homes flanking the open space. According to the plans this home is positioned to
the rear of the parcel and is shown to have a two-story back, which we feel to a greater
degree negatively effects the privacy and enjoyment of our home and yard.
This development also raises concerns about the stability of the hill backing Grevillia
Drive once this construction project begins. We are very concerned that this
development, built above us and featuring several extra -large hillside homes, may
adversely effect our property by causing the hill behind us, and possibly our yard, to
slide. Should this happen, we would like to know who will be held responsible. We
have seen the damage caused by construction of the Buck Center to the homes below it
in Partridge Knolls.
Please let us know the status of the proposed development and if you will be able to
address our concerns.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Clyde & Christine Chnstobal
129 Grevillia Drive, Petaluma
rAr
Petition from Residents of Westridge Knolls
RECEIVED
To: Petaluma Planning Department
(Attention: Ms. Borba) SEP 2 3 2005
City of Petaluma
11 English Street COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Petaluma, CA 91952
Subject: Pinnacle Ridge
+ Whereas as we are residents most affected by the proposed development and we wish
to express our concerns.
o Whereas we residents of Westridge Knolls are appreciative of being informed of
developments, we also wish to express our desire that the development not reduces
the quality of life in our neighborhood.
Whereas the General Plan 2435 states that I street will serve as an Entry Way into
Petaluma, we are concerned that it is being treated as an `Entry'. At present we feel
that it because of its topography and rural condition, it is the pre-eminent entry into
Petaluma We wish to ensure that any development be commensurate with I Street
being the pre-eminent entry into Petaluma. We request that Plans apply the goals set
forth for such a situation and not simply apply the minimum standards for any place
in Petaluma
a Whereas we are concerned and we wish to submit the following list of concerns.
Westridge Knolls is subject to low water pressure. In the past, the Petaluma did
not allow extension of the water main because the water main did not have
sufficient head. Water in this are is provided from the water tank above
Purrington Road. In the summer, the demand is such that the tank does not get
filled in the evenings. Three years ago, the tank got so empty that the Fire
Department was barely able to put out a nearby fire. Westridge Knolls must be
given a guarantee that the water pressure will not drop due to the new
development adding demand in the summer. Either Plans or the developer must
take action to ensure the water pressure to both Westridge Knolls and other users
is at no time reduced.
The hydrology Report is not reviewable. In its present condition the report is
useless. The report must show where the restriction points are for drainage and the
source of the data used. The mathematics in the formulas are doubtless correct.
However all of us need to be able to review if the formulas used are appropriate.
The formulas are based on assumptions, geography and data that are not in the
report. Further, the report specifically ignores the erosion due to unnatural
amounts of additional water being added to the drainage channel. The hydrology
maps in the report is for Westridge Knolls, not the proposed development.
3. The development proposes a `private road'. This is not in the interests of
Petaluma. If the City were developed as PUDs, all with `private roads', the City
would be a web of substandard roads. Substandard Roads were approved for the
Classics on McNear Circle. That was an exception because the units were
intended to be `affordable'. We object to accepting private roads as the only entry
onto individual properties unless the development is a `gated community'. In
addition, the developer seems to be attempting to take substandard roads still
further with a multi-unit'driveway' off this substandard road. This is
unacceptable in principle and impractical in practice.
4. Such a `private road' means joint ownership of the roadway. This creates a
condominium arrangement with joint use of casements owned by some party.
Presumably that `some party' will be the owner, or will it be the City of
Petaluma? Such arrangements require joint use agreements with enforceable
homeowner dues. The City has indicated elsewhere that it will not enforce
CC&Rs. Yet if the City approves the development then the City becomes the
arbiter for all the problems and the City will ultimately have to assume ownership.
This is not acceptable.
5. CC&Rs. The City has a municipal responsibility to ensure the CC&Rs are
meaningful and enforceable. Just as the City is responsible to ensure building
code and fire code are met, it is also responsible to ensure that unworkable legal
arrangements are not imposed on the residents of the City. Therefore, while the
City may state that it will not enforce the CC&Rs, it is a party to the development
through the approval process and therefore would be named as a co-defendant in
any civil action.
6. Liability. Since the project is employing non-standard development, the City
Legal Counsel must review the development proposal to provide a guarantee that
no residual liability will accrue to the city by operation of State law. In this case a
simple legal opinion would be useless, and serve only to take counsel out of the
line of liability. Instead, like the citizens of Petaluma, counsel must have a vested
interest in the correctness of the legal finding.
7. The traffic study fails to address the fact that I Street will be a major arterial and
major road leading out of Petaluma in the foreseeable future. Planning means
forward looking and anticipatory. Addressing only current conditions is wasteful
of time and effort. The appropriate traffic conditions are not current conditions
but must be the road conditions at build -out for the General Plan 2035. The
additional traffic from the project should be added to that occurring at build -out.
Plans needs to give some thought to use of 50 mph instead of 35 mph. The access
is at a point on the City/county boundary. Cal Trans states that 50 mph on county
roads is appropriate. Alternatively, I Street extension should have 35 -mph speed
limit all the way to San Antonio Road.
8. 1 Street is 60 feet wide. The plans for the development show only 46 feet. This
needs to be fixed. If Plans' position that the City should bear the cost of road
widening, than at least the property lyres should be drawn to accommodate the
anticipated widening of the road. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Name Address Signaturee
WaIIAGA_�+,ll ��,FtIrGG « a2, L` Lae-
anticipated widening of the mad. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Name Address Signature
�tclts �nt�lsuk f 37 �YeV}ccG¢ n� .�i'�.&
I_
anticipated widening of the road. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Name Address- Signature 1
r-nr
�2fs: n 5�1C elve/D"� .
r'reS�G'��27`�
anticipated widening of the mad. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Address Signature
-f2/,i
anticipated widening of the road. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Name t ddress Signature
2r-lj1GL/A bR i tfe iPeyt- -LUrYA '%/%�
1`J `t Ca C --U ,
anticipated widening of the road.. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
e AddressSi
DCLr"gnature
�c->%K i\J�{e�Glr✓Z9 169�C1EuIZZ/W
"c UCra r1CU l'.ni, 10`x &PUA 'e 0r
anticipated widening of the road. Plans should also anticipate parking and a
bicycle lane, sidewalk and margin. Even 60 feet may be inappropriate.
Submitted by the Residents of Westridge Knolls most affected by the development
Name Address jure
/33 end 16! F7�
n�
O