Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8.A 10/17/2005CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL A October 17, 2005 Agenda Title: El Rose Heights PUD. Discussion and Possible Action Meeting Date: October17, 2005 Regarding a Recommendation from the Planning Commission to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and to Approve a Request for a Rezoning to Planned Unit District, PUD Development Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM Standards and Unit Development Plan, a Conditional Use Permit for 7:00 PM an All Residential Project, and a 5 -lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the El Rose Heights PUD located at 3 El Rose Drive, APN 008-480-040, & 2100 B Street, APN 008-480-015 (File #04-ZOA- 0668-CR) (Moore/Gordon) Category (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar © Public Hearing ❑ New Business ❑ Unfinished Business Department: Community Development Cost of Proposal: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A ❑ Presentation Director: Michael Moore Contact Person: Kim Gordon Associate P1 Phone Number: 778-4301 Account Number: N/A Name of Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Draft Ordinance Authorizing a Rezoning to Planned Unit District & Approving the PUD Unit Development Plan and Development Standards 3. Draft Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit 4. Draft Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 5. Location Map, General Plan Map, Zoning Map 6. SPARC Minutes Excerpt from April 8, 2004 Preliminary Review 7. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes Excerpts of 5/24/2005, 8/23/2005 and 9/27/2005 8. Initial Study 9. Draft PUD Development Standards 10. Plans (Full Size & Reduced- Vesting Tentative Map & Unit Development Plan, Site Sections, Architectural and Landscaping Plans) Summary Statement: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on May 24, August 23 and September 27, 2005. After deliberating and tatting public testimony, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve with conditions the request for rezoning to PUD, the PUD Unit Development Map and Standards, a conditional use permit, and the tentative subdivision map for 5 residential lots on two parcels totaling .55 acre Recommended Citv Council Action/Suggested Motion: The Planning Commission recommends adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Rezoning to PUD, Unit Development Plan and Development Standards, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map. viewed 4rfinance Director: Reviewev: ADD �y City Manager: i ate ` (p�� z Date: TZR�� lodav's Daae: \ Revision # an tavised: File Cafe: October 4, 2005 # s:/cc-city council/reports/elrose 101705 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 OCTOBER 17, 2005 3 4 AGENDA REPORT 5 EL ROSE HE, IGHTS PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 6 7 Subdivision of two parcels totaling .55 acres into 5 residential lots, Rezoning, PUD Map and 8 Development Standards, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration at 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street, APNs 008-480-015 and 10 008-480-040. 11 12 1. ExECUTIVE SUMMARY: 13 Proiect Description 14 Steve Lafranchi of Steven Lafranchi & Associates has submitted an application requesting 15 approval of a 1) Rezoning of two parcels totaling .55 acre from Administrative and Professional 16 Office (CO) to Planned Unit District (PUD) 2) Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for a 5 -lot 17 subdivision 3) PUD Map and PUD Development Standards 4) Conditional Use Permit for an all 18 residential project and 5) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 19 20 The project includes subdividing the property into 5 lots. Lots 1-4 would range in size from 21 3,039 to 4,395 square feet. The houses on Lots 1-4 would be 1,800 square feet and would be two 22 stories with an attached or tuck under two car garage. Lot 5 would be 9,267 square feet and 23 would include a 2,100 square foot single-family residence with an attached two car garage and a 24 638 square foot accessory dwelling unit above the garage. The project provides two garage 25 parking spaces and two driveway parking spaces for each single-family residence. Lot 5 provides 26 one additional driveway parking space for the accessory dwelling unit. 27 Proiect Anorovals 28 Following Planning Commission review and City Council approval, the proposal would be 29 required to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of the site, 30 architectural and landscaping plans and the Unit Development Plan and PUD Development 31 Standards. 32 General Plan Consistency 33 The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use. The intent of this 34 land use designation is to allow a mix of commercial, office and residential uses. The permitted 35 number of housing units is expected to vary depending on the topography, environmental aspects 36 of the area, existing and nearby land uses, proximity to major streets and public transit, and 37 distance to parking and shopping. The project results in a density of 9.08 units per acre. Densities 38 of less than 10 units per acre are allowed for properties with a Mixed Use land use designation 39 and no special findings are required. 40 41 Projects that are all residential are allowed on properties with a Mixed Use land use designation 42 with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). In order to approve a CUP, the findings 43 included in Attachment 3 must be made. The proposed project with the draft conditions of 44 approval appears to be consistent with the findings required for an all residential project based on 45 the following: I A. The project would provide 5 for sale market rate housing units that provide a smaller 2 housing type on a smaller lot size than is typically found within the City. The project would 3 also provide housing on land that has remained vacant and undeveloped for more than 40 4 years. The applicant would also be required to pay approximately $7,919 per unit for in lieu 5 housing fees. 6 7 B. Planning Commission and City Council review of the project would ensure compatibility 8 with surrounding land uses. Single-family residences are located on El Rose Drive and B 9 Street in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Future land uses on the site would be 10 required to comply with Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards, which would regulate 11 noise, lighting, etc. and ensure that the uses did not create a nuisance. SPARC review of 12 the project would also ensure design compatibility with surrounding properties. 13 14 C. The project is located in an area where utilities and infrastructure are available to support 15 the project and the increase in density. The traffic evaluation of the project prepared by 16 Steve Weinberger of W -Trans indicates 1) the residential project would generate 80% 17 fewer vehicle trips than office or medical office development of the site 2) the project 18 provides adequate access to the street network via B Street and El Rose Drive 3) the street 19 network is adequate to support the increase in traffic that would result from the project and 20 4) the level of service at the intersection of El Rose Drive/Sunnyslope Avenue and D Street 21 would not change as a result of the project. 9? 23 D. In 1962, the property was vacant and zoned Professional and Medical Office. Since 1973 24 the project site has been vacant and zoned Administrative and Professional Office (CO). 25 The adoption of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan has provided additional opportunities 26 for new medical and administrative and professional offices. In addition, the majority of 27 new medical office uses have located on the east side of the City. 28 29 E. The project is required to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 30 and approval. SPARC review of the project would ensure a superior design that provides an 31 attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. 32 33 Zonine Consistenev 34 The subject property is zoned Administrative and Professional Office (CO). The minimum lot 35 size in the CO zoning district is 6,000 square feet. The CO zoning district is not subject to the 36 requirements of the Hillside Residential Combining District. The CO zoning district allows 37 single-family dwellings with approval of a conditional use permit provided that the property has 38 a Mixed Use land use designation and that the property has a history of residential use. 39 40 Due to the proposed rezoning of the property to PUD and the 16% slope of the property, the 41 project is also subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential Development Combining 42 (HRD) District. Based on the average slope of the subject property, the minimum lot size would 43 be 12,894 square feet. 44 45 The project proposes to rezone the property to PUD in order to 1) allow single-family dwellings 46 as a permitted use 2) reduce the lot size required in the CO and HRD zoning districts 3) reduce 47 the lot dimensions required in the CO district and 4) reduce the minimum front and rear yard 48 setbacks required in the CO district. 49 50 i 1 2. BACKGROUND: 3 Preliminary SPARC Review 4 A 6 -lot project was reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee on a 5 preliminary basis at the April 8, 2004 meeting (See Attaclunent 6, SPARC Minutes Excerpt). 6 The Committee provided the following comments to the applicant: 7 8 • Consider the topography of the site. 9 • Could be one too many lots. Eliminating one lot would allow everything to spread out. 10 • Consider a common driveway for Lots 1, 2 and 3. This would get all of the parking away 11 from the street and eliminate the retaining walls. 12 • Consider greater setbacks of the buildings from property lines. 13 • Reconsider Lot 6- retaining wall along the entire property line with 20' of concrete, no 14 landscaping, from B Street only garage is visible 15 • Design Lot 2 to be attractive from El Rose Drive and B Street 16 17 Planning Commission Review 18 On May 24, 2005, Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 6 -lot project (See Attachment 7, 19 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes Excerpt and cityofpetaluma.net). The 20 Conunission heard public testimony, closed the public hearing and deliberated on the proposed 21 project. The public comment included support for an all residential project, as well as concerns 22 related to the density of the project; compatibility of the project's proposed setbacks, lot sizes 23 and lot dimensions with the residential neighborhoods in the area; and that the story poles did not 24 accurately reflect the project. 25 26 The Planning Commission provided the following comments to the applicant and continued the 27 item to the August 23`d hearing (See Attachment 7, Draft Minutes and cityofpetaluma.net): 28 General 29 • Project is too dense for the area and site. 30 • Residential use is appropriate for the site. 31 • Story poles need to be installed on the site in compliance with the Planning 32 Commission's Story Pole Policy. The poles installed on the site do not reflect the project 33 and need to be installed to reflect the project prior to the next meeting. 34 35 Site Plan 36 • Project should be more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of lot size, 37 setbacks, yards areas, setback from street. 38 • Problems with density may be related to too much on this site. This is evident in the lack 39 of backup distance, retaining walls, small yards, setbacks between buildings and setback 40 of the house from the street. 41 • Site is difficult due to topography and configuration of the two existing lots. Consider 42 working with the topography, designing a different house type, and smaller houses. 43 44 Findings 45 • Cannot make findings required to allow more than 10 units per acre. 46 • Cannot make findings required to approve a rezoning to PUD. 47 I I The Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the story poles to correctly reflect the 2 project and to install signage that included the public notice of the project and the project site 3 plan as required by the Planning Commission's Story Pole Policy prior to returning to Planning 4 Commission on August 23`d. Prior to the August 23rd meeting, the applicant installed the 5 additional story poles and signage. The public notice published in the Argus Courier and sent to 6 property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site stated that story poles and a 7 notice board would be installed on the site 14 days prior to the August 23rd meeting. A copy of 8 the notice was also provided to the Planning Commission. 9 10 The revised project was reviewed by Planning Commission on August 23`d. The revised project 11 included only minor modifications to the project, including increasing the lot size and setbacks 12 for Lots 1, 2 and 6 (See Attachment 7, 8/23/05 Staff Report, Page 2). The Planning Commission 13 heard public testimony, closed the public hearing and deliberated on the project. Commission 14 comments and public comments were substantially the same as those provided at the May 24`h 15 hearing. After discussions with the Planning Commission, the property owner agreed to reduce 16 the project to 5 lots and to return to Planning Commission on September 27`'. Planning 17 Commission did not require that the story poles and signage be revised to reflect the 5 -lot 18 project. 19 20 On September 27`h, the revised 5 -lot project was reviewed by Planning Commission (See 21 Attachment 5, 9/27/05 and cityofpetaluma.net). The revisions to the project included 1) 22 combining Lots 5 and 6 into a 9,267 square foot lot 2) increasing the size of the house on Lot 5 23 to 2,100 square feet 3) adding a 638 square foot accessory dwelling unit above the garage on Lot 24 5 and 4) increasing the size of the lot and rear yard of Lot 4 (See Attachment 7, 9/27/05 Staff 25 Report, Page 2 and cityofpetahuma.net). One neighbor, Karen DeMars, 23 West El Rose, spoke 26 during public comment. Ms. De Mars had the following continents: 27 28 1. Preferred the revised project with the removal of Lot 6. 29 2. Concerned about what would be allowed in the yard area between the retaining wall and 30 the rear property line of Lot 5. Concerned about drainage and allowing accessory 31 structures in this area. 32 3. Concerned about the elevations of the buildings on B Street. They may be too massive. 33 Consider reducing the height and modifying the roof lines. 34 35 The draft PUD Development Standards prohibit accessory structures, pools and grading in the 36 yard area discussed by Ms. DeMars (See Attachment 9, Page 2, Accessory Uses). 37 38 The Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Yes: Mills, Asselmeier, Kosewic, Sullivan; No: Dargie) to 39 recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve 1) a 40 rezoning to Planned Unit District and a PUD Unit Development Plan and Development 41 Standards 2) a 5 -lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and 3) a Conditional Use Pen -nit for an 42 all residential project. Planning Commission voted to include the modifications to the Draft PUD 43 Development Standards recommended by staff and added one condition of approval, agreed to 44 by the applicant, that all dwellings be pre -wired for solar. 45 46 The plans submitted by the applicant for review by City Council include the architectural and 47 civil plans for the 5 -lot project (See Attachment 10). The landscaping plan has not been revised 48 to reflect the 5 -lot project. Staff has included a draft condition of approval that the landscaping 49 plan be revised prior to SPARC review of the project (See Attachment 4, Condition #6). I The story poles and signage on the project site reflect the six lot project reviewed by the 2 Planning Commission on August 23`d and not the 5 -lot project being reviewed by City Council. 3 Planning Cormnission did not require the story poles to be revised to reflect the 5 -lot project 4 prior to City Council review of the project. 5 6 ALTERNATIVES: 7 8 a. The City Council may accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission to 9 adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the rezoning of the subject 10 property to Planned Unit District (PUD), approve the 5 -lot Vesting Tentative 11 Subdivision Map, approve the Conditional Use Permit, and approve the Unit 12 Development Plan and PUD Development Standards. The City Council may approve 13 the proposed project with modifications to the conditions of approval and/or modify 14 the conditions of approval from the Planning Commission. 15 16 b. The City Council may deny the request to Rezone the property to PUD, the Vesting 17 Tentative Subdivision Map, Conditional Use Permit, and the Unit Development Plan 18 and PUD Development Standards. 19 20 3. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 21 22 This is a private development subject to any applicable City Special Development Fees. 23 The project is subject to the cost recovery fee system; therefore, the developer is required 24 to pay all costs associated with processing the application. To date the City has collected 25 $15,560. Approximately 134 hours of staff time at a cost of $5,860 has been expended to 26 date. 27 28 4. CONCLUSION: 29 30 The Planning Commission found that the proposed rezoning to PUD, Conditional Use 31 Permit, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map would not have significant 32 environmental impacts and that the proposed project would be consistent with the 33 General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code and recommended that the City 34 Council approve the project with conditions. 35 36 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR 37 COMPLETION: 38 39 N/A 40 41 7. RECOMMENDATION: 42 43 The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance 44 Rezoning the subject property to PUD and approving the Unit Development Plan and 45 PUD Development Standards, adopt a Resolution for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, 46 and approve a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an all residential project 47 on property with a Mixed Use land use designation, and approve a Resolution for a 5 -lot 48 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of 5 residential lots conditioned (P I on the ordinance rezoning parcels 008-480-015 and 008-480-040 to Planned Unit District 3 to allow for 5 residential lots first becoming effective. 3 4 S:CC/reports/El Rose 101705 6 9 10 &, 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ATTACHMENT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE EL ROSE HEIGHTS REZONING AND SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED AT 3 EL ROSE DRIVE AND 2100 B STREET, APN 008-480-015 AND 008-480-040 WHEREAS, an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared and the results of the study indicated that the proposed EI Rose subdivision and rezoning project, as mitigated, will not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma held public hearings on May 24, August 23, and September 27, 2005, on the subject application, heard testimony and concluded that the findings and conditions as amended were adequate and recommended to the City Council approval of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the El Rose Heights Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map proposal on October 17, 2005, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning potential environmental impacts resulting from the project before rendering a decision; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the following Findings and Mitigation Measures: Findings for ADDroval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on a small site surrounded by development with none of the resources as defined in the Code. 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 1 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public 2 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, I1 English Street, 3 Petaluma, California. 4 5 MITIGATION MEASURES 6 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Subdivision 7 and Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for 8 the El Rose Heights Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 9 10 s:\cc-city council\resos\el rose rand 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ATTACHMENT DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. N.S.C. Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember REZONING TWO PARCELS TOTALLING .55 ACRES, APN 008-480-040 AND 008-480-015, TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AT 3 EL ROSE DRIVE AND 2100 B STREET 1S WHEREAS, by action taken on September 27, 2005, the Planning Commission 19 considered the proposal and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve 20 the Rezoning to PUD; and 21 22 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental 23 Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and 24 adoption of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative 25 Declaration to address the specific impacts of the El Rose Heights rezoning and 26 subdivision; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed project on October 29 17, 2005, after giving notice of said hearing, in the manner, for the period, and in the 30 form required by Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended; and 31 32 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Rezoning; 33 34 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the Rezoning to 35 Planned Unit District subject to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures, and 36 Conditions: 37 38 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and 39 rezone the subject parcels from Administrative and Professional Office (CO) to 40 Planned Unit District (PUD) will result in a more desirable use of land and a 41 better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning 42 district or combination of zoning districts. I I 2 2. The proposed uses comply with the Planned Unit District designation, which 3 allows inclusion within its boundaries of a mixture of uses, or unusual density, 4 building intensity, or design characteristics, which would not normally be 5 permitted in a single use district, and to govern the development of residential 6 projects. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of 7 the PUD -Planned Unit District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance. 8 9 3. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be 10 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and 11 rezoning the site to Planned Unit District. 12 13 Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., and based upon the 14 evidence it has received and in accordance with the findings made, the City Council 15 hereby adopts an amendment to said Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., so as to pre - 16 zone said property herein referred to. 17 18 The City Council hereby approves the Unit Development Plan and Planned Unit District 19 Development Standards subject to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures, and 20 Conditions: 21 22 1. The Planned Unit District Development Guidelines describe permitted and 23 accessory uses as well as those that would not be allowed to be established at this 24 location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any nuisance to the 25 existing surrounding uses. 26 2. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been 27 satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated 28 Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential 29 impacts generated by the proposed El Rose Heights Planned Unit District. 30 31 3. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 32 an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from Administrative and 33 Professional Office (CO) to Planned Unit District (PUD). Based upon the Initial 34 Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental impacts would 35 result. A copy of this notice was published in the Arcus Courier and provided to 36 owners and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA 37 requirements. 38 39 4. The adoption of the PUD Development Standards, as conditioned, are in general 40 conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and zoning regulations of the City of 41 Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally, the Fire Marshal 42 and Engineering Division have prepared conditions of approval to address safety 43 issues and design criteria for the design of the site. 44 0 1 5. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the 2 adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in 3 residential uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing 4 surroundings uses. The density standard under the proposed Development 5 Standards will be 9.08 units per acre which is appropriate for the site and 6 consistent with the General Plan. The development standards for the proposed 7 development present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and 8 facilities that are appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby properties and 9 adequate landscaping is included to ensure compatibility. The development 10 standards shall also be reviewed and approved by the Site Plan and Architectural 11 Review Committee. 12 13 14 MITIGATION MEASURES 15 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Subdivision 16 and Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for 17 the El Rose Heights Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 18 19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 20 All conditions adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Tentative Subdivision 21 Map are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 22 23 S:Mordinances/el rose rezone 24 25 26 27 10 1 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 ATTACHMENT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.S.C. APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EL ROSE HEIGHTS PUD AND SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW A 5 -LOT ALL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 3 EL ROSE DRIVE AND 2100 B STREET APN 008-480-015 AND 008-480-040 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N.C.S., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 008-480-015 and 008-480-040 comprising .55 acres, has been rezoned to Planned Unit District; and WHEREAS, by action taken on May 24, August 23, and September 27, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the proposal and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow an all residential project on property with a Mixed Use land use designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and adoption of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to address potential impacts of the El Rose Heights Rezoning and Subdivision project; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the El Rose Heights subdivision proposal on October 17, 2005, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning potential environmental impacts resulting from the project before rendering a decision; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Conditional Use Permit for the El Rose Heights Planned Unit District and Subdivision to allow a 5 -lot all residential project at 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street, APNs 008-480-015 and 008- 480-040, conditioned on the ordinance rezoning parcels 008-480-015 and 008-480-040 to Planned Unit District to allow for 5 residential lots first becoming effective, and subject to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval: FINDINGS 1. The project will help the City achieve its housing policies relating to housing type, location, mix or affordability. 2. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. 3. The project will not have a detrimental impact on existing infrastructure, including traffic and access to the street network. 1 4. The project will not have a detrimental impact on the City's inventory of 2 commercially developable land, but will actually benefit the community by 3 bringing residents closer to commercial and retail uses. 4 5 5. Superior project design ensures an attractive, comfortable, and healthy living 6 environment. 7 8 MITIGATION MEASURES 9 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Subdivision 10 and Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for 11 the El Rose Heights Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 12 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14 All conditions adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Tentative Subdivision 15 Map are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 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 ATACHMENT4 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.S.C. APPROVAL OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AT 3 EL ROSE DRIVE AND 2100 B STREET APN 008-480-015 AND 008-480-040 WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N.C.S., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 008-480-015 and 008-480-040 comprising .55 acres, have been rezoned to Planned Unit District; and WHEREAS, by action taken on May 24, August 23, and September 27, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the proposal and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 5 residential lots and, date stamped October 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and adoption of Resolution No. N.C.S., approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration to address potential impacts of the El Rose Heights Rezoning and Subdivision project; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the El Rose Heights subdivision proposal on October 17, 2005, and considered all written and verbal communications concerning potential environmental impacts resulting from the project before rendering a decision; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a 5 -lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map at 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street, APNs 008-480-015 and 008-480-040, conditioned on the ordinance rezoning parcels 008-480-015 and 008-480- 040 to Planned Unit District to allow 5 residential lots first becoming effective, and subj ect to the following Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval: FINDINGS 1. 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 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 sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 19) 1 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development 2 proposed. 3 4 4. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause 5 substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will 6 occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating 7 that there would be no significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts. 8 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 10 11 From the Plannine Division (778-4301) 12 13 1. Prior to approval of improvement or building permit plans, the applicant shall 14 revise the site plan or other first sheet of the office and job site copies of the 15 Improvement and Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval as 16 notes. 17 18 2. The plans submitted for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 19 shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map, Unit 20 Development Plan, and site, architectural, landscaping and fencing plans 21 submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 4 , 2005, except as 22 modified by these conditions of approval. 23 24 3. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative 25 Declaration for the El Rose Heights Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and 26 Tentative Subdivision Map project are herein incorporated by reference as 27 conditions of project approval. 28 29 4. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of 30 Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to 31 the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the 32 County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 33 34 5. Prior to approval of final map or improvements plans, the Site Plan and 35 Architectural Review Committee shall review the site plan design, the final PUD 36 Development Standards, and architectural, landscaping, fencing, and lighting 37 plans. 38 39 6. Prior to Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) review of the 40 project, the landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the 5 -lot 41 project as shown on the architectural and civil plans submitted to the Planning 42 Division and date stamped October 4, 2005. 43 44 7. Prior to Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) review, the 45 retaining walls and fencing shall be revised to comply with the Zoning Ordinance 46 requirements for fencing and retaining walls, including the following: I 2 A. Front yard fencing is limited to a maximum height of 42." 3 4 B. Adequate site distance shall be provided at all driveways. 5 6 C. Maximum height of fencing on top of or adjacent to retaining walls is limited 7 to a maximum height of 10', except within the front yard setback where it is 8 limited to a combined height of 42". 9 10 8. Prior to approval of final map and improvements plans, the CC & R's for the 11 project shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 12 13 9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre -wiring for solar facilities for 14 each dwelling and are subject to staff review and approval. 15 16 10. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 17 5:00p.m. Construction activities that generate little or no exterior noise, such as 18 painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., are permitted on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. 19 to 5:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by 20 the City of Petaluma. 21 22 11. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related 23 machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 24 25 12. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non - 26 holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 27 28 13. Machinery shall not be cleaned or serviced past 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 29 30 14. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be 31 properly mufflered and maintained. 32 33 15. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal 34 combustion is prohibited. 35 36 16. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as 37 practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All 38 such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 39 40 17. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever 41 possible. 42 43 18. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the 44 contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any 45 local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall I� I determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) 2 and take measures to correct the problem. 3 4 19. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously 5 posted at the construction site and shall be included on the improvement plans and 6 building permit plans. 7 8 20. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding 9 pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management 10 techniques for the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be 11 required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and 12 bicyclists. 13 14 21. All project lighting shall be downcast to prevent glare into pedestrians and 15 bicyclists eyes. 16 17 22. Improvement and building permit plans shall include a "Bike Route" sign and 18 sign pole along the B Street project frontage. The location of the sign is subject to 19 staff review and approval. 20 21 23. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma's Municipal Code, the applicant 22 shall pay applicable City Special Development Fees at the time of building permit 23 application, including, but not limited to sewer connection, water connection, 24 community facilities development, storm drainage impact, school facilities, in -lieu 25 housing, and traffic mitigation fees. 26 24. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its 27 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or 28 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or 29 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project 30 when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in 31 applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the 32 applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall 33 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the 34 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the 35 City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City. 36 From the Eneineerine Division (707) 778-4301 37 38 The following conditions shall be addressed at final map and improvement plan 39 application: 40 41 25. Remove and replace any broken or displaced sidewalk along the project frontage. 42 Provide a plan to permanently eliminate existing growth in the gutter and 43 sidewalk. Install a pedestrian ramp at the comer of El Rose Drive and B Street. 44 1 26. Site grading and retaining walls shall conform to the soil investigation report 2 prepared for this project. Erosion control measures shall be required during 3 construction and until the establishment of sufficient groundcover. 4 5 27. Street lights shall be required along the project frontage. 6 7 28. Maintenance agreements shall be required for all shared access and utilities. 8 Agreements shall be recorded with the final map. 9 10 29. Stairways or structures shall not be constructed within the existing 5 -foot public 11 utility easement unless allowed by the public utility agencies. 12 13 30. Driveways shall be at least 18 -feet in length from the back of the sidewalk to the 14 garage door. 15 16 31. Private storm drain easements shall be included on Parcels 4 and 5 where 17 applicable. 18 19 32. Water service shall be 1.5 inches in diameter with 1 inch meters per City 20 Standards. 21 22 33. Prepare map and improvement plans per the latest policies, standards, codes, 23 resolutions and ordinances. 24 25 34. Vehicles entering Lot 5 shall be able to park with one turning movement. 26 Vehicles exiting Lot 5 shall be able to exit forward onto B Street with two turning 27 movements. 28 29 From the Fire Marshal (707)778-4389 30 31 35. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA-13D are 32 required. Due to the projects location in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, 33 the sprinkler system shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of a fully 34 sprinklered system. This includes sprinkler protection of the attic, garage, attached 35 carports, bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet or 3 feet deep, 36 and/or other attached structural elements of the building These systems shall be 37 calculated for two -head activation for the most remote two heads. 38 39 36. Post address numbers on or near the main entry door. Numbers are to be a 40 minimum of four inches high with contrasting background and must be visible from 41 the street. 42 43 37. The address for Lot 5 shall be posted on the residence on or near the main entry 44 door and at the entrance to the driveway. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4" in 45 height and lighted or on a contrasting background. 46 lI 1 38. No parking shall be allowed in the private driveway on Lot 5. The driveway shall 2 be posted "No Parking" and/or curbs shall be painted red. A plan shall be submitted 3 to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 4 5 39. A fire flow test is required to detennine the available pressure/water to support 6 proper function of the system. 7 8 MITIGATION MEASURES 9 All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the El Rose Heights Subdivision 10 and Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration which are identified in the Initial Study for 11 the El Rose Heights Subdivision and Rezoning are herein incorporated. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ly ATTACHMENT 5 �.c_ a W , w E+. Kill f. }i W i ¢gill t �y A gj y_ a� o Q! z a 03 a 3a: N O Y V m a 0 w o u d x LL 5A E3 m� E u Ou Qa a s d a= Om 0 m y u o Q i m P?EE9Ei w TU Q u S�i g3p: U L❑ m BE] El®® ® ❑❑ ®❑L i W C7 SE o a m N 3 ��FS?6ta: ,�q f. m m i SE o a m N 3 0 a ,�q µn.YFS ,' 1 =3E Fel w FtkB$�; �P3c44$i��6 ��k�aSiFu i O m o. m E r r r VS u- .+ A o w o LL 'a c m a3 m j u m ou <a l9 O o 0 u a d x E3 m e am om o •�❑ ❑❑ [D® ® 1] mWN µn.YFS ,' 1 =3E Fel w FtkB$�; �P3c44$i��6 ��k�aSiFu i O r r r m E Ln 0 LD Y'C VN va M,2 Wm u 44 0 Ul u u 1.1 viy Ln 0 LD co va Ln 0 LD co Ul ATTACHMENT TACHMENT 6 SPARC Minutes April 8, 2004 1 ��PLtr City of Petaluma, CA Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 186 2 3 Minutes 4 Excerpt 5 Regular Meeting April 8, 2004 6 City Council Chambers 3:00 p.m. 7 City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 8 Telephone: 707-778-4301 E -Mail: cdd@ci.petaluma.ea.us 9 PAX: 707-778-4498 Web Page: http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us 10 11 12 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee encourages applicants or their 13 representatives to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item 14 need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. 15 16 Roll Call: Present: Teresa Barrett, Janet Gracyk, Mary Schearer, Jack Rittenhouse* 17 Absent: Terry Kosewic 18 *Chairperson 19 20 Staff: Irene Borba, Senior Planner 21 Lynn Goldberg, Project Planner 22 Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner 23 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary 24 25 26 Approval of Minutes: Minutes of March 25, 2004 were approved as amended. M/S 27 Rittenhouse/Barrett, 4-0, Kosewic absent. 28 Committee Members' Report: Asked re: status of warehouses on I" Street. Barrett suggested 29 sending conditions for Theater District to new historic members, Mary Shearer and Terry 30 Kosewic since they were not on the committee at the time. Janet Gracyk updated Committee 31 on the progress of reviewing the historic guidelines and flyer to distribute to homeowners re: 32 replacement windows in a historic district. 33 Correspondence: Bike Committee comments for Boulevard Apartments and Adobe Crreek 34 project were provided for Mary Shearer at her place, all other committee members received 35 the comments via e-mail. 36 Public Comment: None, 37 Leeal Resource Statement: Was noted on the agenda. 38 Anneal Statement: Was noted on the agenda 39 40 SPARC Minutes April 8, 2004 1 2 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS: 3 PRELIMINARY REVIEW: 4 5 IV. EL ROSE SUBDIVISION, 3 El Rose Drive 6 APN: 008-480-040 and 008480-015 7 File: 04 -PRE -0085 8 9 The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 10 preliminary review of a proposal for a six -lot subdivision at the corner of El Rose I I Drive and B Street. 12 13 Larry Jonas presented the project. I4 15 Committee Member Barrett: For clarification, garages that are not underneath, where are 16 they located? Is not clear on the drawings. 17 18 Lary Jonas: On the side of the house, don't know why they were not drawn. 19 20 Committee Member Barrett: Don't think it's a bad idea for this site — is compatible with 21 the neighborhood where some of the medical offices are phasing out. However, it is on 22 the entrance to Victoria so I want you to give attention to curb appeal of these houses, lot 23 2 in particular fronts onto EI Rose, however, it will be seen from B Street — needs to be 24 done well. Have concerns about 5 ft. between houses and the property line — seems 25 sparce. Lot 3 is 5 ft from either property line, giving it only 10 ft. difference with lot 4. 26 Lot 5 has 5 113 feet — is the extra tandem parking? That will change how the building 27 will look. Lot 6 — coming down a big driveway and right into the garage - cannot see 28 where the entrance to the house is — want a nice entrance to house. Like the idea of 29 parking underneath the house — do not know if I've seen it with a Craftsman style house 30 though. 31 32 Chair Rittenhouse: Need to look more at the topography of the site. Two driveway 33 accesses for lots I and 2 which are 6-8 feet below existing grade by the time you get to 34 the house. You will have retaining walls and lots of steps or the house needs to get 35 picked up somehow. Look closely at lots 1, 2 and 3 and understanding the concept of 36 what you are trying to do with small foot print homes. Look at flat pad of lot 3 — bring in 37 a common drive right down what you have as the rear of lot I and 2 you could get all the 38 parking away from the street and eliminate the retaining walls. Put each building with 39 more of a porch architecture. Believe you have I house too many. If you want to spread 40 out a little more and create some yard space, eliminate lot 6 which clearly does not work 41 because you have a retaining wall all the way up the property line, 20 feet of concrete or 42 asphalt adjacent to the property line with no landscaping and bringing you up in grade 43 about 12 ft above the street elevation. I see no design of how you get this flat lot 44 architecture on that lot. The whole thing needs to shift in a different direction, look at the 45 grades. You have to truly study the product type — I commend the small house. 46 Bungalow style may or may not be appropriate here, however, when you start attaching 2 a3 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 SPARC Minutes April 8, 2004 two car garages it loses the bungalow. It is no longer a clean historical reference. Putting the garage in the ground is not representative of Bungalow either. Committee Member Shearer: Would like to see you replicate modest homes on B Street. Do not like all the concrete — is not attractive at all. Seems as though you could do more with the site. Chair Rittenhouse: Small one -car garage in the back is more in keeping with the bungalow style. Larry Jones: What about tandem garages, it is not as obvious. Chair Rittenhouse: Is more obvious with this type of architecture — you have a long tunnel. Committee Member Shearer: Will lose the charm with all the cement. Committee Member Barrett: B Street needs more street trees — consider that at the comer lot. Chair Rittenhouse: You have a good vision — go with it. Adjournment: 8:20 3 0 ATTACHMENT 7 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM 3 4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: planning&i petaluma.ca.us 6 7 DATE: May 24, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.II 8 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 �l I1 FROM: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner--.- 12 lanner j I2 13 SUBJECT: EL ROSE HEIGHTS REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT, 6 -LOT 14 VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 15 AND UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD GUIDELINES 16 3 EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-040 & 2100 B STREET, APN 008-480-015 17 ]8 19 RECOMMENDATION 20 21 Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the project and provide direction on 1) 22 consistency with the requirements for an increase in density (See General Plan Consistency 23 below) 2) findings required for an all residential project in a Mixed Use land use designation 24 (See General Plan Consistency below) and 3) consistency with Zoning Ordinance Hillside 25 Residential Development Combining District in order to determine if the project complies with 26 the required minimum parcel size (See Hillside Residential Development Combining District 27 below). 28 29 1 PROJECT SUMMARY 91( 31 Project: Name: El Rose Heights Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map & 32 Conditional Use Permit 33 Address: 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street 34 APN: 008-480-040 & 008-480-015 35 Project File No(s). 04-ZOA-0668-CR 36 37 Project Planner: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner 38 39 Project Applicant: Steven Lafranchi, Steven Lafranchi & Associates 40 41 Property Owner: Larry Jonas 42 43 Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: Pearce Street and Hayes Lane 44 A5 Pa 1 I Property Size: .55 acres 2 3 Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and has an average slope of 16%. There are no 4 trees or other significant vegetation on the site. 5 6 Existing Use: Vacant 7 8 Proposed Use: Single -Family Residential 9 10 Current Zoning: Administrative and Professional Office (CO) 11 12 Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit District (PUD) 13 14 Current General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use 15 16 Proposed General Plan Land Use: No Change 17 18 Subsequent Actions if Project is Approved: 19 20 . City Council Review and Approval 21 . Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) Review and Approval 22 . Improvement Plans/Final Map 23 Grading and Building Permits 24 25 26 I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 27 28 The applicant is seeking approval of a Rezoning to Planned Unit District (PUD), a Vesting 29 Tentative Subdivision Map for a 6 -lot residential subdivision, and a Conditional Use Permit for 30 an all residential project on property with a Mixed Use general plan land use designation on a .55 31 acre site (23,958 square feet). The project site is located at the southwest comer of El Rose 32 Drive and B Street and is comprised of 2 separate parcels, 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street 33 (See Attachment H, Context Map and Attachment O, Full Size Plans, Sheet TM -2)). 34 35 The lots would range in size from 2,787 to 4,680 gross square feet. Each residence would be 36 approximately 1,800 square feet with an attached or tuck under two car garage. A Unit 37 Development Plan and PUD Guidelines for the project are also proposed (See Attachment N, 38 Section 1, PUD Development Standards and Section 2, Reduced Plans). 39 40 SETTING 41 The project would be located on a .55 acre in -fill site that has frontage on El Rose Drive and B 42 Street. There are medical offices and single-family residences in the immediate vicinity of the 43 project site. The parcel to the west of 2100 B Street is vacant as is the parcel to the north of 3 El 44 Rose Drive. Both vacant parcels have the same general plan land use and zoning designations as cdJ Page 2 I the subject parcels (See Attachment H). The subject property has an average slope of 16 %. 2 There are no trees or other significant vegetation located on the site. 3 4 REQUESTED APPROVALS 5 The applicant has applied to the City for approval of a rezoning of the subject property from the 6 Administrative and Professional Office (CO) to Planned Unit District (PUD), a 6 -lot vesting 7 tentative subdivision map, a Conditional Use Permit for an all residential project, and a Unit 8 Development Plan and PUD Guidelines for the El Rose Heights Planned Unit District (See 9 Attachment N, Section 1, Project Narrative and Attachment O, Full Size Plans). 10 Following Planning Commission action, the application will be reviewed by the City Council. 11 After City Council action, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee will review the 12 site, architectural, lighting and landscaping plans and Unit Development Plan and PUD 13 Guidelines for the project. 14 15 BACKGROUND 16 The project was review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee on a preliminary 17 basis on April 8, 2004 (See Attachment I). SPARC provided the following comments to the 18 applicant: 19 20 • Consider the topography of the site. 21 • Could be one too many lots. Eliminating one lot would allow everything to spread out. 22 • Consider a common driveway for Lots 1, 2 and 3. This would get all of the parking away 23 from the street and eliminate the retaining walls. 24 • Consider greater setbacks of the buildings from property lines. 25 • Reconsider Lot 6- retaining wall along the entire property line with 20' of concrete, no 26 landscaping, from B Street only garage is visible 27 • Design Lot 2 to be attractive from El Rose Drive and B Street 28 29 On November 16, 2004, a formal application was submitted to the Community Development 30 Department. The project included live/work units for Lots 3, 5 and 6 with the work space located 31 above the garage. A clear definition of what would be allowed as "work" and how the "work" 32 component of the project would be ensured, were not provided. Due to concerns related to 1) a 33 mechanism to ensure and enforce the use of the area identified as "work" as work space 2) 34 conversion of the space to an accessory dwelling unit 3) ability to rent out the space for office or 35 other commercial uses to someone other than the occupant of the residence 4) inability to 36 provide adequate parking for employees and clients and inadequate access to Lots 5 and 6 for 37 additional traffic and 5) ability to allow the proposed uses with approval of a Home Occupation 38 Permit (See Attachment M, Zoning Ordinance Home Occupation), staff recommended that the 39 project be revised to an all residential project that allows home occupations. The applicant 40 revised the project to all residential and removed the reference to "live/work." However, the 41 PUD Guidelines have not yet been revised to allow home occupations in compliance with the 42 zoning ordinance (See Attachment N, Section 1, PUD Development Standards). 43 44 45 IFJO Pave 3 I STAFF ANALYSIS 2 3 General Plan Consistencv: 4 The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use. The intent of this 5 land use designation is to allow a mix of commercial, office and residential uses. The density 6 allowed is determined by the topography, environmental aspects of the area, existing and nearby 7 land uses, proximity to major streets and public transit, and distance to parks and shopping. The 8 proposed project results in a density of 10.9 units per care. Densities of 10 to 30 units to the acre 9 are allowed when the following can be demonstrated: 10 1. Measurable community benefit is derived. 11 2. Infrastructure services and facilities are available to serve the increased density. 12 3. Superior design ensures an attractive, healthy, and comfortable living environment. 13 4. Increased density will be compatible with the major goals of the General Plan. 14 15 As part of the application materials, the applicant submitted a narrative indicating that if the right 16 of way along the project frontage was included in the parcel size, the project density would be 7.5 17 units per acre and the above determinations would not be required (See Attachment N, Section 1, 18 Use and Densities). The City has utilized a policN that allows the area of the right of way along the 19 project frontage from the property line to the center line of the street to be added to the lot area. 20 The intention of this policy was to create better consistency between the number of lots allowed 21 under the general plan and zoning. However, this policy was intended for minor subdivisions (4 22 lots or fewer). 23 The General Plan allows all residential projects on property with a Mixed Use land use 24 designation with approval of a conditional use permit. The following findings are required in 25 order to approve a CUP for a residential project: 26 1. The project will help the City to achieve its housing policies related to housing type, 27 location, mix, or affordability. 28 2. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. 29 3. The project will not have a detrimental impact on existing infrastructure- especially traffic 30 and access to the street network. 31 4. The project will not have a detrimental impact on the City's inventory of commercially 32 developable land, but will actually benefit the community by bringing residences closer to 33 commercial and retail uses. 34 5. Superior project design ensures an attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. 35 36 As part of the application materials, the applicant provided a narrative to demonstrate how the 37 project is consistent with the above findings required for approval of a CUP (See Attachment N, 38 Section 1, Statement of Findings). 39 40 The proposed project may be consistent with the requirements for an increase in density and the 41 findings required for an all residential project based on the following: 42 43 A. The project would provide 6 for sale market rate housing units that provide a smaller 44 housing type on a smaller lot size than is typically found within the City. The project would IN Page 4 I also provide housing on land that has remained vacant and undeveloped for more than 40 2 years. The applicant would also be required to pay approximately 57,919 per unit for in lieu 3 housing fees. 4 5 B. Planning Commission and City Council review of the project would ensure compatibility 6 with surrounding land uses. Single-family residences are located on El Rose Drive and B 7 Street in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Future land uses on the site would be 8 required to comply with Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards, which would regulate 9 noise, lighting, etc. and ensure that the uses did not create a nuisance. SPARC review of 0 the project would also ensure design compatibility with surrounding properties. C. The project is located in an area where utilities and infrastructure are available to support the project and the increase in density. The traffic evaluation of the project prepared by Steve Weinberger of W -Trans indicates 1) the residential project would generate 80% fewer vehicle trips than office or medical office development of the site 2) the project provides adequate access to the street network via B Street and El Rose Drive 3) the street network is adequate to support the increase in traffic that would result from the project and 4) the level of service at the intersection of El Rose Drive/Sunnyslope Avenue and D Street would not change as a result of the project. 21 D. In 1962, the property was vacant and zoned Professional and Medical Office. Since 1973 22 the project site has been vacant and zoned Administrative and Professional Office (CO). 23 The adoption of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan has provided additional opportunities 24 for new medical and administrative and professional offices. In addition, the majority of 25 new medical office uses have located on the east side of the City. 26 27 E. The project is required to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review 28 and approval. SPARC review of the project would ensure a superior design that provides an 29 attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. 30 31 The project is consistent with the following General Plan polices and objectives: 32 Housing Element 33 Policy 1.1: Promote residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary. 34 35 Policy 1.2 Encourage the development of housing on underutilized land. 36 Land Use and Growth Management Element: 37 Policy 3: It is the policy of the City to build within an agreed-upon Urban Growth Boundary. The 38 parcel to be subdivided lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and will infill an existing 39 neighborhood. 40 41 Policy 5: It is the policy of the City to discourage urban sprawl. This subdivision is within the 42 City limits and will subdivide the property at a density consistent with the General Plan Mixed Use 43 density range. 44 E Page 5 I Policy 6: Growth shall be contained within the Urban Growth Boundary. 77ie necessary 2 infrastructurefor growth will be provided within the Urban Growth Boundary. The subject parcel 3 lies within the Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits and the necessary services will be 4 extended to the new parcels as part of the subdivision improvements. 5 6 Open Space, Conservation and Energy Element: 7 Policy 25: Developers shall provide adequate drainage and erosion Control during constnrction. 8 The project sponsors will prepare an erosion control plan before the construction phase of 9 development. 10 11 Zoning District Consistencv: 12 The subject property is currently zoned Administrative and Professional Office (CO). As part of 13 the project, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to Planned Unit District (PUD). 14 Since the average slope of the property exceeds 5% and the HRD District requirements apply to 15 PUDs, the project is also subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential Combining 16 District. 17 18 The minimum lot size in the CO zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Under the current zoning 19 designation, 3.99 lots would be possible. The existing CO zoning of the subject properties 20 allows single-family residences with approval of a conditional use permit when 1) the property 21 has a Mixed Use land use designation and 2) the property has a history of residential use. Since 22 the subject parcels have a Mixed Use land use designation and the site was previously part of a 23 larger ranch, it appears that it may be possible to approve a conditional use permit for a single - 24 family residence under the current zoning. The CO zoning district would require the following 25 minimum setbacks for the project: 1) front setback from B Street for Lots 2 and 3 of 25' 2) front 26 setback for Lots 1 and 4, 5 and 6 of 15' 3) no side yard setback and 4) a rear setback of 25'. As 27 part of the rezoning to PUD, the applicant is proposing to modify the setbacks as shown on the 28 PUD Tentative Map (See Attachment 0, Full Size Plans). The maximum lot coverage allowed 29 in CO is 50%. The lot coverage for the project ranges from 23.1% on Lot 4 to 38.7 % on Lot 1. 30 31 Hillside Residential Development Combining District 32 Based on an average slope of the property of 16%, the minimum parcel size required under the 33 HRD District regulations would be 12,311 square feet. Based on this minimum parcel size, 1.9 34 units would be allowed for the project site. The HRD District allows for flexibility in the 35 minimum parcel size for properties zoned PUD in order to respond to site conditions and the 36 proposed site plan. However, the lot yield is to be consistent with the lot yield determined by the 37 Hillside Ordinance. Since the Hillside Ordinance only applies to properties with Residential, PC, 38 or PUD zoning designations, these restrictions would not apply to subdivision of the property 39 under the current CO zoning designation. 40 41 Rezoning to PUD 42 The Planned Unit Development District zoning designation is intended to allow unusual density, 43 building intensity, design characteristics, or mix of uses that would not conform to the 44 requirements of an existing zoning designation. Since the proposed project is not consistent with 45 the requirements of the existing CO zoning district (See above discussion under Zoning 46 Consistency), the applicant has applied for a rezoning to PUD to allow the following: 30 Page 6 I 1. Reduction in the minimum lot size required pursuant to the Hillside Residential 2 Combining District. 3 2. Reduction in the minimum parcel size required in the Administrative and Professional 4 Office (CO) zoning district. 5 3. Reduction of the minimum lot dimensions required in the CO District. 6 4. Reduction of the minimum front and rear yard setbacks required in the CO District. 7 5. Removal of the requirement for approval of a conditional use permit for a single-family 8 dwelling in the CO District. 9 10 Staff requests that Planning Commission determine 1) project consistency with the requirements 11 for an increase in density 2) project consistency with the findings required for approval of a 12 conditional use permit for an all residential project 3) including findings for approval of an all 13 residential project as part of the rezoning of the property to PUD or issuing a CUP for the project 14 4) if the density of the project should be calculated after including the square footage of half the 15 right of way along the project frontage and 5) if the proposed 6 lots is consistent with the 16 requirements of the HRD District for projects zoned PUD. 17 18 Parkine. Access & Circulation 19 As part of the application materials, an evaluation of access and traffic was prepared by Steve 20 Weinberger of W -Trans (See Attachment 7). The letters received from Steve Weinberger date 21 stamped February 24, 2005 and April 18, 2005 indicate that the project would result in 57 daily 22 trips, four of these would be a.m. peak hour trips and 6 would be p.m. peak hour trips. 23 Development of the site with an office or medical office use would result in an average of 283 24 daily vehicle trips. The proposed residential development of the site would result in 80% fewer 25 vehicle trips. The intersection of El Rose Drive/Sunnyslope Avenue and D Street currently 26 operates at LOS C. The project would not result in a change in the level of service at this 27 intersection. The evaluation also indicates that the project provides adequate access to El Rose 28 Drive and B Street and adequate site distance. 29 30 The project provides 4 parking spaces, 2 covered and 2 uncovered, for each residence. The parking 31 provided exceeds the zoning ordinance parking requirement by one space per unit. Therefore, the 32 project is expected to provide adequate parking capacity. 33 34 The driveways proposed for the project do not comply with the depth typically required. The 35 proposed depth of the driveways is 18'. A standard parking stall measures 19' deep and driveway 36 depth is typically 20'. The City Engineer has included a condition that the driveway depth be a 37 minimum of 18', measured from the back to the sidewalk to the front of the garage (See 38 Attachment F, Condition 28). 39 40 The backup distance for Lots 5 and 6 is 20', measured from the end of the 18' driveway to the 41 retaining wall along the south property line. The SPARC Guidelines require a backup distance of 42 26' for a standard size vehicle. As part of the application materials, two maneuvering plans were 43 submitted for Lots 5 and 6 (See Attachment N, Section 2, Back -Up Exhibits). Maneuvering Plan 44 One illustrates the backup maneuvers for two full size vehicles. The backup for Lot 6 cannot be �1 Pape 7 I accomplished without several turning movements. The backup maneuver for Lot 5 can be made 2 with one maneuver but is very tight. Maneuvering Plan Two illustrates maneuvering for one fall 3 size and one compact vehicle. The backup maneuvers for both lots are tight but can be made with 4 one movement. 5 6 Pedestrian and Bicvcle Advisory Committee Recommendations: 7 In March of 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan 8 and Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states that 9 the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 10 Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed I 1 the proposed project and provided recommendations for the project (See Attachment K). 12 13 PPBAC recommended that a curb ramp be installed on the comer of El Rose Drive and B Street. 14 The draft conditions of approval from the City Engineer require the installation of a curb ramp 15 (See Attachment F, Condition 22). The standard PPBAC conditions related to glare free lighting 16 and herbicide/pesticide use have been included as draft conditions of approval. 17 18 The Bike Map includes a proposed Class II bike lane along the B Street project frontage and a 19 Class III bike lane along the El Rose Drive frontage. No bike lane currently exists along the B 20 Street project frontage and a bike lane has not been proposed as part of the project. PPBAC 21 recommended that a "Bike Route" sign be installed along the B Street project frontage, but did 22 not recommend a bike lane. The City Engineer has evaluated the width of the right-of-way and 23 has provided a memo indicating that striping of a bike lane is not recommended for the following 24 reasons: 1) due to a lack of right-of-way width a parked vehicle would encroach into the bike 25 path 2) due to a very limited amour of development potential on B Street east of El Rose Drive 26 the path would not be extended and 3) the street narrows to 32 feet just to the east of the site, 27 making installation of a path unlikely (See Attachment L). Staff has not included a draft 28 condition for a bike lane on B Street. Staff has included a condition that a "Bike Route" sign be 29 included along the B Street project frontage. 30 31 Summary 32 Staff has identified a number of issues for which staff is requesting direction from the Planning 33 Commission, including project consistency with 1) the requirements for an increase in density 2) 34 the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit for an all residential project 3) the 35 requirements of the HRD District for projects zoned PUD and 4) allowing half the right-of-way 36 to be included in the calculation of project density.. 37 38 Should the Planning Commission choose to make a recommendation on the project to the City 39 Council, staff has included drafts of the following: 40 41 1. Findings for Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. 42 2. Findings for Approving a Rezone of the project site to the EI Rose Heights Planned Unit 43 District. 44 3. Findings for Adopting the Unit Development Plan for the El Rose Heights Planned Unit 45 District. 46 4. Findings for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an all Residential Project Page 8 1 5. Findings for Adopting the Development Standards for the EI Rose Heights Planned Unit 2 District. 3 6. Findings for Approving the EI Rose Heights Tentative Subdivision Map. 4 7. Conditions of Approval. 5 6 Story Poles 7 Staff directed the applicant to comply with the Story Pole Policy adopted by Planning 8 Commission. The applicant has installed story poles on the project site to represent the building 9 height at several building comers of the residences for Lots 1-4 as shown on the story pole 10 exhibit and in the site photos (See Attachment N, Section 2, Story Pole Site Plan & Photos). No 11 story poles were installed for Lots 5 or 6. In addition, no on site sign was installed to provide a 12 copy of the public notice, site plan, and handout information to the public as indicated in the 13 policy. 14 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENTS 17 On May 4, 2005, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier and notices were 18 mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. As of the writing 19 of this report, no correspondence had been received regarding the project. 20 EiIIIIIII 4 ZVI1 T•] Z I Ji 14 a IL IAL4471I_A'i1 22 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study of 23 potential environmental impacts was prepared (Attachment F). The potential for the following 24 significant impacts were identified: noise. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed 25 to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is 26 no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as mitigated, would have a 27 significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Mitigated Negative 28 Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been prepared (Attachment 29 G). 30 31 Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District 33 Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and 34 Planned Unit District Development Standards 35 Attachment D: Draft Findings for Approval- Conditional Use Permit 36 Attachment E: Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map 37 Attachment F: Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval 38 Attachment G: Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan 39 Attaclunent H: Context Map, General Plan Map, Zoning Map 40 Attachment I: SPARC Minutes Excerpt April 8, 2004 41 Attachment 7: Letters from W -Trans date stamped February 24, 2005 and April 18, 2005 42 Attachment K: Memo from PPBAC dated December 1, 2004 43 Attachment L: Memo from City Engineer dated May 11, 2005 01 Pa.r 9 I Attachment M: Zoning Ordinance Home Occupation Section 2 Attachment N: Project Booklet date stamped May 17, 2005 3 Attachment O: Full Size and Reduced Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan, 4 Architectural Plans, and Landscape Plan date stamped May 17, 2005 5 6 s:\planning\pc\reparts\el rase heights 3Q - Page 10 Planning Commission City of Petaluma, CA City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 / Fax 707/778-4498 E -Mail plamhingnci.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http://www.ci.pelalunna.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2005 - 07:00 Present: Pamela Asselmeier, Teresa Barrett, Keith Canevaro, Will Dargie, Stephanie McAllister, Stephen von Raesfeld, Terry Kosewic APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 10, 2005 (07:02 PM) Motion: Approve MINUTES: May 10, 2005 Moved by Teresa Barrett, seconded by Stephanie McAllister. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Page 1 of 5 Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Teresa Barrett; Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie; Stephanie McAllister; Stephen von Raesfeld; Terry Kosewic PUBLIC COMMENT:Open (07:03 PM) PUBLIC COMMENT:Closed (07:02 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None (07:02 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None (07:02 PM) CORRESPONDENCE: See specific correnspondence under New Business (07:03 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the dale of a decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Cleric Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-114-N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. (07:03 PM) LEGAL: RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in Nvriting are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petal una in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:03 PM) 35 http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.pip?view_id=5&clip_id=56 10/3/2005 Planning Commission NEW BUSINESS: Page 2 of I. WATER STREET NORTH (Poultry Street), Bem>een Washington Street and Lakeville Street City Engineer: Craig Spaulding (07:03 PM) Craig Spaulding presented the staff report (07:03 PM) Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner Barrett Commissioner Assehucier Craig Spaulding E-mail Correspondence from .Iohn Goliti PUBLIC HEARING: Open (07:11 PM) Wayne Vieler Larissa Goliti 7olrn Goliti Fred Schram Paul Andronieo PUBLIC HBARING:Closed (07:33 PM) COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS (07:32 PM) Council n)lemher Canevaro Craig Spaulding Council Member Canevaro Craig Spaulding Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner McAllister George White Commissioner McAllister Craig Spaulding htip://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php'?view_id=5&clip_id=56 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Kosewic Council Member Canevaro Commissioner Dargie Commissioner McAllister Commissioner Barrett Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner von Raesfeld Page 3 of 5 Motion: Recommend approval of the Precise Plan Line for the future right-of-way of Water Street North (Poultry Street) between Washington Street and Lakeville Street Moved by Teresa Barrett, seconded by Will Dargie. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Teresa Barrett; Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie; Stephanie McAllister; Stephen von Raesfeld; Terry Kosewic 11. EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street APN: 008-480-040 and 008-480-015 File: 04-ZOA-0668-CR Planner: Kim Gordon (08:07 PM) Kim Gordon presented [lie staff report (08:07 PM) Commissioner McAllister Commissioner Barrett Commissioner Asselmeier Connnissioner von Raesfeld Lary Jonas Steven J. Lafranchi Commissioner Barrett Comments from Neighboring Residents Letter from Angelo Leoni Letter from Charles Leoni 3� littp://petaluma.ganicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=5&clip_id=56 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 Letter from Emilio Giovanatto Letter from JoAnn Pel issetti Letter from Richard Edwards PUBLIC HEARING:Open (09:03 PM) JoAnn Pelissetti Vincent Gillis Dan Demars Karen Demars Katherine Crum Steven Lafranchi Sean Montova Larry Jonas PUBLIC HEARING:Closed (09:31 PM) COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS (09:31 PM) Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Barrett Commissioner McAllister Commissioner Dargie Commissioner Kosewic Council Member Canevaro Conmiissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Asselmeier Cormnissioner Barrett Commissioner McAllister Commissioner Dargie 3� http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=56 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Kosewic Council Member Canevaro Commissioner von Raesfeld Council Member Canevaro Commissioner McAllister Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner von Raesleld Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner McAllister Commissioner von Raesfeld George White Larry Jonas Commissioner von Raesfeld Larry Jonas George White Commissioner von Raesfeld Larry Jonas Motion: Continue to July 12, 2005 Moved by Will Dargie; seconded by Stephanie McAllister. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Teresa Barrett; Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie; Stephanie McAllister; Stephen von Raesfeld; Terry Kosewic III. LIAISON RBPOR"CS: (10:361'M) a. City Council -Council Member Canevaro (10:36 PM) b. SPARC -Commissioner Barrett (10:37 PM) c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee-Cornmisioner Asselmeier (10:45 PM) d. Tree Advisory Committee-Conmrissioner Barrett (10:48 PM) Adjournment: (10:49 PM) 31 littp://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=56 10/3/2005 ATTACHMENT 7 I CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 2 MEMORANDUM k 4 Contnuatio, Development Department, Planning Division,11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (70 7) 778-4498 E-mail: planning&i.petalun:a.ca. its 6 — — 7 DATE: August 23, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. II 8 9 TO: Planning Commission 10 I 1 FROM: Kim Gordon, Associate Planne 12 13 SUBJECT: EL ROSE HEIGHTS REZONIN 0 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT, 6- 14 LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CONDITIONAL 15 USE PERMIT, AND UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD 16 GUIDELINES 17 3 EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-040 & 2100 B STREET, APN 008- 18 480-015 Continued from May 24, 2005 19 20 ! BACKGROUND 21 22 At the May 24, 2005 hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed tentative 23 subdivision map, PUD Plan, and application for rezoning. The Planning Commission 24 took public comment and provided the following comments to the applicant (See 25 www.cityofpetaluma.net): 26 27 General 28 * Project is too dense for the area and site. 29 * Residential use is appropriate for the site. 30 * Story poles and signage need to be installed as required by the Planning 31 Commission's Story Pole Policy_ 32 33 Site Plan 34 * Project should be more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of lot 35 size, setbacks, yards areas, setback from street. There are not lots this size in the 36 area. 37 * Problems with density may be related to too much on this site. This is evident in 38 the lack of backup distance, retaining walls, small yards, setbacks between 39 buildings and setback of the house from the street. 40 * Site is difficult due to topography and configuration of the two existing lots. 41 Consider working with the topography, designing a different house type, and 42 smaller houses. 43 44 U9 I Findines 2 • Cannot make findings required to allow more than 10 units per acre. 3 • Cannot make findings required to approve a rezoning to PUD. 4 5 (Note: The plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 24'x' are available in the 6 Community Development Department). 7 8 The applicant requested that the project be continued to the September 13, 2005 hearing 9 to allow time to redesign the project and address the comments provided by the 10 Commission. Due to an opening in the Planning Commission schedule, the project was 11 moved to August 23, 2005. On August 15, 2005, the applicant submitted a revised 12 tentative subdivision map and architectural plans (See Attachments G and N). 13 14 I RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 15 16 The revised plans submitted on August 15, 2005 include the following modifications in 17 response to the comments from the Planning Commission (See Attachment G, 18 Applicant's Narrative): 19 20 Lot 1 21 • Increased front setback by 1' to 19' 22 • Increased rear setback by 5' to 23' 23 • Increased lot size 252 square feet to 3,039 square feet 24 • Decreased height of residence by 3' 2" by modifying the slope of the roof and 25 decreasing plate height by P 26 27 Lot 2 28 • Increased front setback by 1' to 19' 29 • Increased rear setback by 5' to 23' 30 • Increased lot size 245 square feet to 3,748 square feet 31 • Lowered plate height by P and added dormers to side elevations 32 33 Lot 3 34 • Modified the gable roof 35 36 Lot 5 37 • Removed the rear deck 38 • Reduced the garage from 2 car (22' x 22') to a one car garage (18' x 22') 39 40 Lot 6 41 • Increased side yard setback to Lot 5 from 1.5' to 5' 42 • Increased lot size 239 square feet to 4,551 square feet 43 • Reduced residence to one story with second story living space above the garage 44 • Reduced square footage of the residence from 1,800 to 1,372 square feet 45 s Removed exterior stairs to second story at rear of garage 2 141 1 * Removed the rear deck 2 * Reduced uncovered driveway parking from 2 spaces to I space 3 4 On August 9, 2005, the applicant installed story poles on the project site with a sign 5 board that included a site plan with story pole locations and a copy of the public notice 6 (See Attachment K, Story Pole Exhibit). As directed by Planning Commission, story 7 poles were installed on all six lots to identify the location and height of each building. 8 9 STAFF ANALYSIS 10 1I Density 12 The project density remains unchanged at 10.9 units per acre. In a Mixed Use land use 13 designation, projects of 10 to 30 units per acre are allowed when the project meets the 14 following requirements: 15 16 1. Measurable community benefit is derived 17 2. Infrastructure, services and facilities are available to serve the increase in density 18 3. Superior design ensures an attractive, comfortable, healthy living environment 19 4. Effects of the increase in density are compatible with the major goals of the 20 General Plan 21 22 Several Planning Commission members felt that they could not make several of the 23 findings required to allow the increased density proposed for the project. A 5 lot project 24 would result in a density of 9.09 units per acre and the above requirements would not 25 have to be met. 26 27 Mixed Use Land Use Desicmation 28 An all residential projection property with a Mixed Use land use designation, is only 29 allowed with approval of a conditional use permit. The following findings must be made 30 in order to approve the conditional use permit: 31 32 1. The project will help the City to achieve its housing policies related to housing 33 type, location, mix, or affordability. 34 2. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. 35 3. The project will not have a detrimental impact on existing infrastructure- especially 36 traffic and access to the street network. 37 4. The project will not have a detrimental impact on the City's inventory of 38 commercially developable land, but will actually benefit the community by 39 bringing residences closer to commercial and retail uses. 40 5. Superior project design ensures an attractive, comfortable and healthy living 41 environment. 42 43 Although all of the Planning Commission members agreed that residential was an 44 appropriate use of the site, several members felt that it would be difficult to make 45 findings #1 and 45 above. Several revisions have been made to the project, including 3 14�1 I increasing the front setbacks of Lots 1 and 2 to be consistent with the existing setbacks on 2 El Rose Drive and reducing the height of the residences Lots 1, 2 and 6. Existing Zoning The existing Administrative Professional Office (CO) zoning of the property allows single-family residences with approval of a conditional use permit. Based on the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, 4 lots would be possible under the current zoning. 9 Rezoning to Planned Unit District 10 Property with a PUD zoning is subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential 11 Development Combining District (HRD). Based on the slope of the property, the 12 maximum number of lots would be 2. The requirements of the HRD would not apply to a 13 subdivision of the property under the current CO zoning of the site. 14 15 In order to approve a rezoning to PUD, the following findings are required: 16 17 1. The P.U.D. District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to 18 one (1) or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry 19 any additional traffic generated by the development. 20 21 2. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized 22 arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to 23 adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is 24 included if necessary to insure compatibility. 25 26 3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available 27 public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. 28 29 4. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the 30 applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests 31 of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning 32 regulations of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any 33 applicable plans adopted by the City. 34 35 Several Planning Commission members stated that they did not feel they could not make 36 the findings required for the rezoning to PUD. Modifications to the -project include 37 increasing the yard setbacks for Lots 1, 2 and 6 and reducing the height of the houses on 38 Lots 1, 2, and 6. 39 40 Site Plan 41 The front and rear setbacks for Lots 1 and 2 have been increased, resulting in an increase 42 in the size of each of these lots of approximately 250 square feet. This modification 43 resulted in a reduction in the size of Lot 3 of 119 square feet and a reduction in the size of 44 Lot 4 of 470 square feet. This also reduced the side yard width of the Lot 4 from 23' to 45 17'. 46 47 The access drive from B Street to Lot 6 has been made part of Lot 5, previously this was 48 part of Lot 4. The side setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 have been increased to be a minimum of 4 43 1 5'. This resulted in a 239 square foot increase in the size of Lot 6. The modifications 2 resulted in a 99 square foot decrease in the size of Lot 5. 3 4 Residential Compact (RC) Zoning District 5 During the Planning Commission's review of the project, the project was compared to the 6 RC zoning district, which is the closest comparable zoning district within the City. The 7 following provides a comparison of the project to the RC Zoning District development 8 standards. 9 RC Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Zoning 3,000 sq. ft. 3,039 3,748 4,395 3,002 3,075 net 4,551 lot size 30' lot width 42' 35' 64.99' 44.99' 57.50' 65.61' 70' lot depth 72.36' 72.36 72' 54' 68' 68' average average 15' front to 19' 19' 19.5' 18' 20.8' 20.8' residence average average 25' front 19' 19' 21' 18' 38' 38' setback to average average garage 15' rear 23' 23' 25' 11' IQ' to 10, to setback garage garage 18' to sfd 17' to sfd 01 side 7' & 5' 5' & 19' 5'& 5' 5'& I7' 5'& 5' S' & 8.4' setback 600 sq. ft. 924 sq. ft. 865 sq. ft. 1,440 884 sq. ft. 727 sq. ft. 832 sq. ft. useable yard rear yard rear yard sq. ft. rear side yard rear yard rear yard * 350 sq. ft. yard 283 sq. ft. 262 sq. ft. side yard rear yard side yard 25' height 28' front 30' front 25' or less 29.5' 27' Less than limit ** Less than Less than on all front front/right 25' on all 25' on all 25' on all elevations 25.5' 25.25' elevations other other sides/rear rear 27.75' left side 10 I1 * As part of the application materials, the property owner submitted a table calculating 12 the useable yard area for each lot (See Attachment H, Useable Area Per Lot). The Zoning 13 Ordinance definition of useable open space has been included as an attachment (See 14 Attachment 1). 15 16 ** The height limit in the RC zoning district is 25', measured from average finish grade 17 to the midpoint of the roof. When a dormer comprises 50% or more of the length of the 18 roof, the height is measured to the midpoint of the donner. All four elevations are M 5 I required to comply with the height limit. Lots 3 and 6 are consistent with this height 2 limit. The houses on Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 exceed the height limit (See Table Above). 3 4 The project is consistent with most of the RC zoning district development standards. 5 However, the predominant zoning district located in the project area is R1-6,500, One - 6 Family zoning district with a minimum lot size 6,500 square feet. The development 7 standards for this zoning district have been included as an attachment (See Attachment J). 8 - 9 Parkine and Backun Distance 10 In response to concerns related to inadequate backup distance for Lots 5 and 6, the I1 parking for lots 5 and 6 has been reduced. The original plans provided 2 covered and 2 12 uncovered parking spaces for all lots in the project. The revised plans provide I covered 13 parking space and 2 uncovered driveway parking spaces for Lot 5 and 2 covered parking 14 spaces and I uncovered driveway parking space for Lot 6. The reduced number of 15 parking spaces is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance off-street parking requirement for 16 single-family residences of 1 covered and 2 additional spaces that are covered or 17 uncovered. The project may not provide adequate guest parking and on -street parking is 18 limited along the project frontage. No on street parking would be available along the El 19 Rose Drive project frontage and 2-3 parking spaces would be available along the B Street 20 project frontage. If the proposed parking is acceptable to Planning Commission, staff 21 recommends that the PUD Guidelines be revised to prohibit garage conversions to living 22 space in order to preserve the parking spaces provided on each lot. 23 24 The revised plans do not include an increase in the backup distance for Lots 5 and 6. The 25 applicant has submitted a revised maneuvering plan for these lots to demonstrate that 26 reducing the parking on these lots improves the maneuvering for vehicles (See 27 Attachment L, Maneuvering Plan). 28 29 PUBLIC COMMENTS 30 On August 3, 2005, a notice of public hearing was published in the Argus Courier and 31 notices were mailed to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject 32 property. As of the writing of this report, no correspondence had been received regarding 33 the project. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 R '+5 2 ATTACHMENTS 3 4 A. Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 B. Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District 6 C. Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and 7 Planned Unit District Development Standards 8 D. Draft Findings for Approval- Conditional Use Permit 9 E. Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map 10 F. Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval 11 G. Modifications to Project Description from Architect 12 H. Useable Open Space Calculations from Property Owner 13 I. Zoning Ordinance Useable Open Space Definition 14 J. Zoning Ordinance, Article 6, One -Family Residence District 15 K. Story Pole Site Plan Exhibit 16 L. Vehicle Maneuvering Plan for Lots 5 and 6 17 M. Reduced Plans date stamped August 15, 2005 18 N. Full Size and Reduced Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan, 19 Architectural Plans, and Landscape Plan date stamped August 15, 2005 20 ` 7 Fal Planning Commission City of Petaluma, CA City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E -Mail planning @i Web Page http://www.ei.petalLmia.ca.us Page 1 of 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2005 - 07:00 Present: Pamela Asselmeier, Keith Canevaro, Will Dargie, Stephen von Raesfeld, Tanya Sullivan Absent: Terry Kosewic APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 9, 2005 (07:03 PM) Motion: APPROVE MINUTES: August 9, 2005 Moved by Tanya Sullivan, seconded by Pamela Asselmeier. Vote: Motion carried 3-0. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Stephen von Raesfeld; Tanya Sullivan Abstain: Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie Absent: Terry Kosewic PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN I[i : 11140/61 iufMMOT116191017 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: (07:03 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07:03 PM) CORRI3SPONDENCE: (07:04 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Cormmission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. if no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 3002-114-N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. (07:04 PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the 41 ]nttp://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.plip?view id=5&clip_id=94 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:04 PM) NEW BUSINESS: (07:04 PM) I. PRECISE PLAN LINE FOR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CAULFIELD LANE BETWEEN HOPPER STREET AND PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH Public Works Program Manager: Mike Evert (07:04 PM) Motion: Continue to September 13, 2005 Moved by Will Dargie. seconded by Pmnela Asselmeier. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie; Stephen von Raesfeld; Tanya Sullivan Absent: Terry Kosewic OLD BUSINESS: (07:05 PM) II. EL ROSE I-IEIGLITS SUBDIVISION. 3 EI Rose Drive and 2100 B Street APN: 008-480-040 and 008-480-015 Pile: 04-ZOA-0668-CR Planner: Kim Gordon (07:05 PM) Kim Gordon presented the staff report (07:05 PM) Commissioner Dargie Kim Gordon Commissioner Asselmeier Larry Jonas --Applicant Commissioner Sullivan Larry Jonas Commissioner Sullivan Larry .ionas George White Commissioner Sullivan Larry Jonas Commissioner Sullivan Steve Lafranchi Commissioner Sullivan /t http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=94 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Larry Jonas Commissioner Sullivan Larry Jonas Commissioner Asselmeier Lary Jonas Commissioner Asselmeier Steve Lafi-anchi PUBLIC HEARING: OPEN (07:55 PM) Patty Daffurn Dan DeMars Charles Leoni Jack Murphy Peter Leoni PUBLIC HEARING: CLOSED (08:19 PM) Commissioner von Raesfeld COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS (08:21 PM) Larry Jonas Steve Lafranchi Steve Lafranchi Steve Lafranchi Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Sullivan Steve Lafranchi Larry Jonas Commissioner von Raesfeld I http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=94 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 4 of 5 Steve Lafranchi Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Dargie Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Sullivan Council Member Canevaro Commissioner von Raesfeld Council Member Canevaro Commissioner von Raesfeld George White Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Dargie Council Member Canevaro Commissioner von Raesfeld Larry Jonas Commissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Asselmeier Larry Jonas Conunissioner Asselmeier Larry .Jonas Commissioner Sullivan Conanissioner von Raesfeld Commissioner Assehneier 60 http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=94 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Larry .Yonas Steve Lafranchi Commissioner von Raesfeld George White Commissioner von Raesfeld George White Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner von Raesfeld Motion: Continue to September 27. 2005 Moved by Will Dargie, seconded by Pamela Asselmeier. Fage .) or --) Vote: Motion carried 5-0. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Keith Canevaro; Will Dargie; Stephen von Raesfeld; Tanya Sullivan Absent: Terry Kosewic Letters from concerned neighbors COMMISSION BUSINESS: (09:19 PM) III. LIAISON APPOINTMENTS (09:19 PM) IV. LIAISON REPORTS: (09:20 PM) a. City Council --Keith Canevaro (09:20 PM) b. SPARC: None e. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee --Pamela Asselmeier (09:24 PM) d. Tree Advisory Committee: None Adjournment: (09:36 PM) 6� http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=94 10/3/2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ott, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ATTACHMENT 7 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Plaiuiing Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (70 7) 778-4498 E-mail. planning@ci.petahurna.ca.es DATE: September 27, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. I TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner SUBJECT: EL ROSE HEIGHTS REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT, 5 - LOT VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PUD GUIDELINES 3 EL ROSE DRIVE, APN 008-480-040 & 2100 B STREET, APN 008- 480-015 Continued from May 24, 2005 and August 23, 2005 At the August 23`d hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed tentative subdivision map, PUD Plan, and application for rezoning. The Planning Commission took public comment and provided comments to the applicant (See www.citvofoetaluma.net). Planning Commission's comments were the substantially the same as those provided to the applicant at the May 24`h meeting and included the following: General • Project is too dense for the area and site. • Residential use is appropriate for the site. • Work with adjacent neighbor regarding the request for an easement over the project site. • Cannot make the findings for an increase in density or to approve the rezoning to PUD Site Plan • Project should be more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of lot size, setbacks, yards areas, setback from street. There are not lots this size in the area. • Problems with density may be related to too much on this site. This is evident in the lack of backup distance, retaining walls, small yards, setbacks between buildings and setback of the house from the street. �e� 1 7 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 • Site is difficult due to topography and configuration of the two existing lots. Consider working with the topography, designing a different house type, and smaller houses. Retainine Walls and Fences • Concerned that the fences on top of retaining wall would create a "hole" • Need to insure that there is adequate site distance Based on the comments from Planning Commission, the property owner agreed to reduce the project to 5 lots and to return to the Planning Commission for review of the revised project. The Planning Commission continued the project to September 27`h to allow the applicant time to revise the project. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The revised plans submitted on September 9, 2005 include the following modifications in response to the comments from the Planning Commission: Site Plan • Project has been reduced to 5 lots by eliminating Lot 6 Lot 4 • Square footage increased by 562 square feet • Rear yard setback increased to 18 feet from l Ifeet • The left rear corner of Lot 4 was "squared off' • A retaining wall has been added along the south and west property lines Lot 5 • Lot 5 was created by combining Lots 5 and 6 • An accessory dwelling has been added above the garage • The location of the retaining walls has been modified No modifications were made to Lots 1 and 2. A new retaining wall is located at the rear and side of Lot 3. The revised project, including access and maneuvering, has been reviewed by the City Engineer. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the revised access to Lot 5. The access has been determined to be adequate. STAFF ANALYSIS Density The revised 5 lot project includes 5 single-family residences and one accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units are not included in density. Therefore, the project results in a density of 9.08 units per acre. The Mixed Use General Plan land use designation allows less than 10 units per acre without making special findings. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?9 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mixed Use Land Use Desi nation An all residential project on property with a Mixed Use land use designation is only allowed with approval of a conditional use permit. Planning Commission indicated at the previous meetings that an all residential use is appropriate for the project site. In order to approve a conditional use permit for the project, Planning Commission is required to make the findings included in Attachment D. Retainine Walls and Fences The Zoning Ordinance limits the combined height of a fence on top of a retaining wall to 10'. On Sheets TM -5 and TM -7, it appears that there are areas that exceed this height limit. Staff has included draft conditions that require the fencing and retaining walls to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements, such as 1) Iimiting combined height of fences and retaining walls to 10' 2) providing adequate site distance and 3) limiting the height of front yard fencing to 42" (See Attachment F, Condition 46E). Parkine and Sackun Distance The backup distance continues to be 15', which is less than the 26' required by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines and Procedures. The applicant has provided a maneuvering plan for Lot 5 to demonstrate that there is adequate maneuvering on the site (See Attachment H). The City Engineer has included a condition that limits the number of taming movements for parking and exiting Lot 5 (See Attachment F, Condition #33). Each lot provides 4 parking spaces for the single-family residence, 2 covered in the garage and 2 uncovered in the driveway. Lot 5 provides one additional parking space for the accessory dwelling. Due to the limited amount of parking in the area, staff recommends that the PUD Guidelines prohibit garage conversions and has included a draft condition of approval (See Attachment F, Condition #613). The revised plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. The access has been determined to be adequate. Due to the site's location in the Very High Fire Severity Zone, the Fire Marshal requires all of the buildings to be fully sprinklered (See Attachment F, Condition 34). PUD Develooment Standards As part of the application for rezoning the project site to Planned Unit District, the applicant has submitted proposed draft PUD Development Standards (See Attachment G). The PUD Development Standards include the allowable uses and development standards for the project. Staff has recommended several modifications to the proposed Standards (See Attachment F, Condition 96). Easements The tentative subdivision map has been revised to include the sanitary sewer easement for the benefit for the adjacent property owner at 501 Hayes Lane (APN 008-480-063, Gillis) (See Attachments I & L Sheet TM -4). 3 -64- 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 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL Should the Planning Commission be prepared to make a recommendation to City Council, the following are the approvals requested by the applicant: 1. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Approval of a Rezoning to Planned Unit District 3. Approval of PUD Development Map and PUD Development Standards 4. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an All Residential Project 5. Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map The required findings for each of the above are included as attachments (See Attachments A-E): ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District C. Draft Findings for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and Planned Unit District Development Standards D. Draft Findings for Approval- Conditional Use Permit E. Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map F. Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval G. PUD Development Standards H. Vehicle Maneuvering Plan for Lot 5 date stamped September 9, 2005 I. Reduced Plans date stamped September 19, 2005 J. Full Size and Reduced Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Plan, Architectural Plans date stamped September 19, 2005 0 5S Planning Commission City of Petaluma, CA City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E -Mail plannin.0-v .petaluma.ca.us Web Page http:/hvwzv.ci.petahana.ca.us Page 1 of 5 Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2005 - 07:00 Present: Pamela Asselmeier, Will Dargie, Terry Kosewic, Tanya Sullivan, John Mills Absent: Keith Canevaro, Stephen von Raesfeld APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 13, 2005 (07:02 PM) Motion: APPROVE MINUTES: September 13, 2005 Moved by Tanya Sullivan. seconded by Pamela Assehneier. Vote: Motion carried 3-0. Yes: Pamela Assehneier; Will Dargie; Tanya Sullivan Abstain: Terry Kosewic; John Mills Absent: Keith Canevaro; Stephen von Raesfeld PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN (07:03 PM) PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED (07:03 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None (07:03 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07:03 PM) CORRESPONDENCE: (07:05 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal lee as specified by Resolution 2002-114-N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. (07:05 PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=106 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 2 of 5 process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:05 PNI) OLD BUSINESS: (07:05 PN/I) I. EL ROSE HEIGHTS, 3 El Rose Drive and 2100 B Street APN: 008-480-040 and 008-480-015 File: 04 -AOA -0668 -CR Planner: Kim Gordon (07:06 PM) Kim Gordon presented the staff report (07:06 PM) Commissioner Asselmeier Kim Gordon Steve Lafranchi Larry .lovas PUBLIC HEARING: OPEN (07:13 PM) Karen Demars PUBLIC HEARING: CLOSED (07:15 PM) COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: (07:16 PM) Commissioner Asselmeier George White Commissioner Asselmeier George White Commissioner Mills Commissioner Kosewic George White Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner Mills Commissioner Sullivan George White Commissioner Asselmeier q http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.pinp?view_id=5&clip_id=106 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Conmiissioner Sullivan Kim Gordon Commissioner Sullivan Shawn Montoya Conunissioner Mills Shawn Montoya Commissioner Asselmeier Shawn Montoya Commissioner Asselmeier Shawn Montoya Commissioner Sullivan Steve Lafranchi Kim Gordon Commissioner Koswic George White Commissioner Kosewic Comissioner Mills Conunissioner Kosewic Comissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner Asselmeier Steve Lafranchi Commissioner Sullivan Steve Lafranchi Commissioner Mills littp://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=106 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Shawn Montoya Commissioner Asselmeier Kim Gordon Commissioner Asselmeier Conunissioner Mills Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Mills Conunissioner Asselmeier Commissioner Sullivan George White Commissioner Sullivan Steve Laf-anchi Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Mills Commissioner Kosewic Chair Dargie George White Commissioner Asselmeier Page 4 of 5 Motion: Approve the project including 1) adoption of mitigated negative declaration 2) approval of rezoning to PUD 3) 5 -lot vested tentative subdivision map 4) conditional use permit and 5) unit plan development and PUD guidelines as conditioned in the staff report with the additional condition of solar pre -wiring as agreed to by the applicant. Moved by ]ohm Mills, seconded by Pamela Asselmeier. Vote: Motion carried 4-1. Yes: Pamela Asselmeier; Terry Kosewic; Tanya Sullivan; John Mills No: Will Dargie Absent: Keith Canevaro; Stephen von Raesfeld COMMISSION BUSINESS: (08:04 PM) 0 http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=106 10/3/2005 Planning Commission Il. LIAISON APPOINTMENTS (08:04 PM) 1V. LIAISON REPORTS: (08:05 PM) a. City Council --Keith Canevaro-None b. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee --Pamela Assebneier (08:06 PM) c. SPARC -None d. Tree Advisory Committee -None Adjournment: (08:08 PM) Page 5 of 5 http://petaluma.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=106 10/3/2005 City of Petaluma F.11 0 F1141 :INlat•lE: GOi III Iui uty ucvmUNi i ici a vUPMI It I=] n Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 7071778-4301 Initial Study of Environmental Significance ■ Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals, staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i. e., Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of Petaluma Planning Division. Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & Subdivision Map Site Address: 3 EI Rose Drive & 2100 B Street Posting Date: May 5, 2005 Lead Agency Contact: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner Applicant: Steve Lafranchi 775 Haywood Drive, Suite 312 Petaluma, CA 94952 Property Owner: Larry Jonas 515 Hayes Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 File No: 04-ZOA-0668-CR APN: 008-480-040 & 008-480-015 Comments Due: May 24, 2005 Phone: (707) 778-4301 Phone: (707) 762-3122 Project Description: The applicant, Steven Lafranchi of Steven Lafranchi and Associates, is seeking City Council approval of a rezoning from Administrative and Professional Office (CO) to Planned Unit District (PUD), a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide two parcels totaling 23,958 square feet (.55 acre) into six parcels ranging in size from 2,787 gross square feet to 4,680 gross square feet, a conditional use permit to allow an all residential project, and PUD Development Plan and Guidelines. The residences would be approximately 1,800 square feet with an attached or tuck under two car garage. The project includes the construction of the residences. There are no trees or other significant vegetation on the site. Since the project is all residential, approval of a conditional use permit is also required. Environmental Setting: The project would be located on a 23,958 square foot (.55 acre) in -fill parcel. The project site is located at the southwest corner of El Rose Drive and B Street. The property directly to the north of the El Rose side of the site is vacant. The property directly to the west of the rear of the 2100 B Street parcel is vacant. The project site is surrounded by medical office type uses south and medical office uses and single-family residences to the north, east and west. The subject property has an average slope of 16 %. The site is undeveloped with no trees or other significant vegetation. Responsible/Trustee Agencies: (Discuss other permits, financing or participation required): The project requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Planned Unit District Guidelines and Unit Development Plan. Following approval from the City Council the project will go before the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 6�y Page 1 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 2 potentially I Less than I Less Than I No Significant ficant Im Significant Signi pact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Measures The project requires Community Development Department approval of final map, improvement plans, and building permit plans. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ 1. Land Use & Planning _ 7. Noise _ 13. Utilities Infrastructure 2. Population, Employment & Housing 8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics 3. Geology & Soils 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 4. Air 5. Hydrology & Water Quality 6. Biological Resources 10. Transportation/Traffic 11. Public Services 12. Recreation Page 2 14. Mineral Resources 15. Cultural Resources 16. Agricultural Resources 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance E Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 3 ■ Determination I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a X significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of May 5 through May 24, 2005. Prepared by: Kim Gordon. Associate Planner Name CITY OF PETALUMA Title ULv G k/'{ D� / Signature Page 3 Date 0 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 4 ® Evaluation of Environmental Impacts I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer should be explained where it is based in project -specific factors as well as general standards, i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off-site as well as on-site cumulative, project - level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. M Page 4 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 5 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated ■ Environmental Analysis 1. Land Use and Plannina. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? I I X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The project would be located on an infill site located in an area that is primarily comprised of medical office uses and single-family residences. There are two vacant sites adjacent to the project site. These sites have the same general plan land use and zoning designations as the subject property. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. The General Plan land use designation of the subject property is Mixed Use. The density allowed in this designation is determined by the topography, environmental aspects of the area, existing and nearby land uses, proximity to major streets, public transit, shopping and parks. The project would result in a density of 10.9 units to the acre. A density of 10 to 30 units to the acre is allowed in the Mixed Use designation when the following can be demonstrated: 1. Measurable community benefit is derived. See.4 below 2. Infrastructure services and facilities are available to serve the increased density. See C below 3. Superior design ensures an attractive, healthy, and comfortable living environment. See E below 4. Increased density will be compatible with the major goals of the General Plan. See A below The Mixed Use land use designation allows projects that are all residential with the approval of a conditional use permit. Approval of the use permit requires the following findings to be made: I. The project will help the City to achieve its housing policies related to housing type, location, mix, or affordability. See A below 2. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. See B & E below 3. The project will not have a detrimental impact on existing infrastructure- especially traffic and access to the street network. See C below 4. The project will not have a detrimental impact on the City's inventory of commercially developable land, but will actually benefit the community by bringing residences closer to commercial and retail uses. See D below 5. Where superior design ensures an attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. See E below The project appears to be consistent with the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit and the requirements for an increase in density based on the following: A. The project would provide 6 for sale market rate housing units that provide a smaller housing type on a smaller lot size than is typically found within the City. The project would also provide housing on land that has remained vacant and undeveloped for more than 40 years. In addition, the applicant is required to pay the required in lieu housing fees. B. The project is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Part of the review of the project includes the rezoning to PUD and the conditional use permit to allow an all residential project. cv5 Page 5 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 6 PotentialI Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant SigniHcam I Impact I Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses will be reviewed as part of this process. In addition, single-family residences currently exist in the immediate area of the project site. C. The project is located in an area where utilities and infrastructure are available to support the project and the increase in density. An evaluation of the project was prepared by Steve Weinberger of W -Trans. The evaluation indicates 1) the residential project would generate fewer trips than commercial development of the site 2) the project provides adequate access to the street network via B Street and El Rose Drive 3) the street network is adequate to support the increase in traffic that would result from the project and 4) the level of service at the intersection of El Rose Drive/Sunnyslope Avenue and D Street would not change as a result of the project. D. In 1962, the property was vacant and zoned Professional and Medical Office. Since 1973 the project site has been vacant and zoned CO. The adoption of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan has provided additional opportunities for the location of medical and administrative and professional offices. In addition, the majority of new medical office uses have located on the east side of the City in the recent past. E. The project is required to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval. SPARC review of the project would ensure a superior design that provides an attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. The subject property is zoned Administrative and Professional Office (CO) and the application includes the rezoning of the properly from CO to Planned Unit District (PUD). The CO zoning designation requires a minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet, which would allow 3.99 parcels. The CO zoning district allows single-family dwellings with approval of a conditional use permit when the subject property has a Mixed Use land use designation and has a history of previous residential use. The subject property has a Mixed Use land use designation and was previously part of the Conway Ranch. The proposed PUD would consist of 6 lots ranging in size from 2,787 gross square feet to 4,680 gross square feet. Each lot would be developed with a single-family residence of approximately 1,800 square feet with an attached or tuck under two car garage. Due to the slope of the property, the project is also subject to the requirements of the Hillside Residential Combing District (HRD). Based on an average slope of the property of 16 %, the minimum parcel size would be 12,311 square feet. Based on this minimum parcel size, a maximum of 1.9 lots would be permitted. The Hillside Residential Development Combining District allows for the minimum parcel size in a PUD to be flexible in order to respond to site conditions. Planning Commission and City Council review of the project would include an assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed density on the subject parcel. Planning Commission and City Council review of the project would ensure that the project is consistent with the requirements for an increase in density as allowed in the Mixed Use land use designation and the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit for an all residential project. SPARC review of the project would ensure that the project is compatible with the surrounding area and a superior design provides an attractive, comfortable and healthy living environment. Therefore, the project would not result in an environmental impact related to inconsistency with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The project site is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan or a local coastal program. The subject property is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan; therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 2. Population. Emolovment and Housina. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Page 6 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Potential Significant Impact b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 7 Less ThanI Less Than I No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incomorated X X Discussion: The project would include the construction of 6 single-family residences. The creation of 6 new dwelling units would not substantially increase the population and is less than the number of residences possible in the Mixed Use land use designation. The subject property is vacant; therefore, no existing housing would be lost and no people would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 3. Geoloav and Soils. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. it. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? C. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? hh. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Page 7 X — - X I X X X X X Project Name: El Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM Fie No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Potential Significant Impact i. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? j. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? k. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? Less Than Less Than Significant Significant utMitigation Impact Incorporated X 947 No Impact M Discussion: A geoteclurical report prepared by Giblin Associates and date stamped November 16, 2004 was submitted as part of the application materials. The report indicates that there are no active faults on the project site and the closest active faults are the San Andreas (approximately 14 miles west) and the Rodgers Creek faults (approximately 6 miles east). The report slates that there is little risk of ground rupture during earthquakes. The report indicates that due to the proximity of active faults, it is necessary to design and construct the project in strict accordance with current standards for earthquake resistant construction. Other faults in the vicinity include the Tolay fault, however, recent studies indicate this is not an active fault. The site is not located within a presently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As part of building permit submittal, a geotechnical report is required. The recommendations included in the report are required to be incorporated into the project. Therefore, any impacts related to earthquakes or ground shaking would be less than significant. The geotechnical report indicates that the project site includes old fill, weak natural top soil, and moderately to highly expansive clay, which is recommended for removal, over bedrock. In addition, the report recommends the use of pier and grade beam construction for the residences and retaining walls. The incorporation of these recommendations as part of the building permit process would result in a less than significant impact related to expansive and unstable soils and earth conditions. Based on the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, the site would involve removal of old fill, weak natural lop soils, and removal of expansive clays. The removal of these materials would result in a modification to the topography of the site. However, since the project includes the removal of old fill from the site, any impact related to a change in the topography would be less than significant. The project site does not include any unique geologic or physical features. The project site does not include any water bodies. The Project would not expose people to any geologic hazards not typically associated with this region. Existing drainage patterns would be altered with grading, but any modifications are subject to review by the City and Sonoma County Water Agency. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on water bodies or geologic features. Project impacts related to hazards would be less than significant with the incorporation of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report as required as part of the building permit process. The review of grading, public improvements and erosion control plans by the Engineering Division will mitigate any impacts to soil erosion that may result from the proposed construction. When the individual lots are developed, the applicant will be required to submit foundation and structural designs for the proposed structures to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Uniform Building Code. With the application of the City's standard requirements such as those that follow, these impacts would be short-term. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for; site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. um Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 9 Potential( Less Than I I Less Than No j Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Final project improvement and grading plans shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer (P.E.), and accepted by City staff prior to Final Map approval. The plans shall be prepared in compliance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be prepared, paying special attention to prevention of increased discharge control plan required above shall include measures such as: a) restricting grading to the non -rainy season; b) protecting storm drainage outlets from erosion and siltations; c) use of silt fencing, and straw wattles to retain sediment on the project site or Best Management Practices (BMPs) as recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Required improvements shall be reflected on plans submitted in conjunction with the project's improvement drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Prior to City acceptance, all public improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Public Improvement Plans, construction permits and project mitigation measures/conditions of approval. All public and/or private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance. All construction activities shall comply with the Uniform Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 4. AIL Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? C. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Discussion: The increase in vehicle trips that would result from the future development of 6 single-family residences would be less than that created by the development of the site with an office project. The proposed residential use of the site would not involve the use of substantial amounts of pollutants. Emissions and pollutants that would result from the project would be less than that contemplated in the General Plan based on a Mixed Use land use designation. Since the Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Are Air Quality District Management District is based on the City's General Plan, the project is consistent with the BAAQMD plan for the area. Y n Page 9 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 10 Potential I Less Than I Less Than I No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incomorated Although there are sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site, the residential use of the site would not be expected to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. City requirements related to dust control, fireplaces, and construction emissions would reduce any pollutant concentration to a less than significant level. Per City requirement, the project would incorporate only gas -burning fireplaces or approved wood -burning fireplaces with a low particulate per hour rating as described in Ordinance 1881 effective on April 2, 1992. The proposed rezoning and subdivision of land would result in the future development of 6 single-family residences which would not result in the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Temporary short-term increases in exhaust emissions and dust would result from the use of construction equipment. However, with the application of the City's standard mitigation measures (such as watering graded surfaces to reduce dust and shutting down vehicles when not in use), these impacts would be short -tern. Per City requirement, the applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and shall clearly indicate these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. • Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Exposed soils shall be watered a minimum of twice daily during construction. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. • The construction site shall provide a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. • During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. Post -construction re -vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. • Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 5. Hvdroloav and Water Quality. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Page 10 Vi X -40 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 11 Potential Lessan ThLess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed X the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? It. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flood ng as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? I I X Discussion: Since the project is required to comply with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the project would not result in a violation water quality discharge requirements. The project would create new impervious surfaces on the site that do not currently exist. However, a portion of the site will remain as landscaping which will allow ground water recharge. The project does not involve the use of ground water. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to the depletion of ground water supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. No stream, river, or other water course is located on the project site. The project may change existing drainage patterns. However, these will not be significant alterations as all hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design shall be subject to review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the City Engineer. The project includes lot -to -lot drainage and includes private storm drain easements as required. The project with the proposed easements and storm drain system directs the surface runoff to an appropriate storm drain system as required. The subject property is not located in within a 100 -year flood hazard area and, therefore, will not place structures within a 100 - year flood hazard area. The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss associated with flooding. The project will not expose people to the risk of flooding or tsunami. In accordance with requirements set by the State Water Resources Control Board, the applicant would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout project construction and operation. The Applicant shall complete and submit an NOI and appropriate filing fee to the SWCB. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB upon project completion. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval as well as compliance with SWPPP by the Engineering Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or ef4'i Page 11 y Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 12 Potential I Less 11ranI Less 11 an I No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall comply with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutant entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The applicant shall designate on the improvement plans construction staging areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction staging areas shall be located away from any drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper containment features to prevent contamination from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak. No debris, soil, sand, cement, or washing thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the specifications. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas during the rainy season (October 1st -April 151h). The applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques. The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/herbicide use occurs, to post appropriate signs warning pedestrians. The Applicant shall be subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee. Drainage Impact Fees shall be calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a fair share portion shall be paid for each residential unit prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 6. Biolooical Resources. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Page 12 li X X to Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 13 potential Less than Less Than No Significant 5igni ficant Significant Impact Impact W/Mnigation Impact Incorporated I I d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory, fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? C. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The subject property is a vacant infill site located in an area that is developed with single-family residences and office buildings. The project site is not known to provide habitat for any special status species or to be a wildlife corridor. The project site contains no wetlands, riparian habitat, or other water sources. There are no trees or other significant vegetation on the site. No conservation plans apply to the project site. The project would not result in an impact to biological resources. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: NIA Noise. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? C. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X X X Fti X Discussion: The construction of the improvements required for the subdivision and the construction of the residences would result in a temporary and periodic increase in the noise level and ground home noise and vibration in the vicinity of the project. In order to reduce this impact to less than significant, the standard mitigation measures related to construction hours and the operation of equipment have been included. 13 Page 13 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 14 PotentialI Less Than I I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incomorated The addition of six new housing units will not increase the ambient noise level in the vicinity to levels that exceed the standards established in the City's General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards or Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards. The project will result in some additional noise associated with typical residential uses; however, it is expected that the noise levels would remain below the maximum levels considered acceptable for residential development stated in the City's general plan and all future uses are required to comply with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards related to noise. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two, miles of a public airport. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airport. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Interior work only may be performed on Saturday provided that the noise levels generated are acceptable to nearby residents. Construction is prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. 2. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on constmcrion related machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 3. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non -holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 4. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 7:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m. Monday tluough Friday. 5. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be properly mufflered and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion is prohibited. 7. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 8. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. 9. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and take measures to correct the problem. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and the location shall be included on improvements plans and building permit plans submitted to the City for review. 8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I I I X b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which I I X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Page 14 �� Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 15 Potential ( Less Than I Less Than I No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incomorated Discussion: The project site is a vacant infill site. The site is not located in an area that has been identified as a scenic vista in the City's General Plan. The project is not located within a scenic highway and there are no trees, significant vegetation, rock outcroppings, or buildings located on the subject property. The project site is located in an area that is developed with single-family residences and office buildings. The development of 6 single-family residences on the site would be consistent with the existing development pattern of the area. In addition, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the project is required. SPARC review will ensure that the visual character of the project is compatible with the site and surroundings. The project includes retaining walls with a maximum height of 6 feet. The retaining walls may be visible from B Street and El Rose Drive. SPARC review of the project would include review of the retaining walls which would reduce any visual impact related to the retaining walls to less than significant. The subdivision of the property will not create a new source of substantial light and glare. The development of the new parcels with single-family residences would increase the light and glare in the immediate area; however, the lighting would be consistent with that typically associated with single-family residences and is required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards for light and glare. In addition, the project is subject to Site Plan and Architectural Committee review and approval. Exterior lighting would be reviewed as part of the review of the project. Any new light and glare associated with the project is expected to be less than significant. Mitieation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Would the project a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located an a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Page 15 16 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Potential Significant Impact g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? It. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Page 16 Less Than I mpact Less Than I No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation I Incorporated X M Discussion: The subject property is vacant. The project would include the installation of improvements required as part of the subdivision and the construction of six single-family residences. The proposed project would not create a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, smoky chemicals, or radiation, in the event of an accident. The project will not create potential health hazards or result in an increase in fire hazards due to flammable brush, grass or trees. No storage of chemical or hazardous materials is anticipated with the use of this site, except during construction when equipment may be used requiring various types of fuel. During construction, the applicant shall comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use, handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to hazardous materials will be implemented during construction. For construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on-site, the applicant shall file a declaration form with the Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a hazardous materials storage permit. If hazardous materials are to be used or stored on-site, the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for approval by the Fire Marshal. The subject property is located within 114 mile of Petaluma High School. However, due to the residential nature of the project, no hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, waste, or materials would be expected to result from this project. The site is not listed on the Sonoma County Hazardous Waste Site List. The subject property is not within 2 miles of an airport or within an airport land use plan. The subject property is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project was reviewed by the Fire Marshal's office and the Police Department and is not expected to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. The subject property is a vacant infill site and is not adjacent to a wilderness area. The project site is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and, therefore, the residences are required to be fully sprinklered. No impact related to exposing people or structures to risks involving wildfires would result from this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 10. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? It. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Page 16 R Project Name: El Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Potential Significant Impact C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g,, farm equipment)? C. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? & Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less ThanLess nian Significant significant wlMitigation Impact Incorporated e•, No Impact X X X X X Discussion: The project was reviewed by Steve Weinberger of W -Trans. The Ietters received from Steve Weinberger date stamped February 24, 2005 and April 18, 2005 indicate that the project would result in 57 daily trips, four of these would be a.m. peak hour trips and 6 would be p.m peak hour trips. Development of the site with an office or medical office use would result in an average of 283 daily vehicle trips. The proposed residential development of the site would result in 80% fewer trips. The intersection of El Rose Drive/Sunnyslopc Avenue and D Street currently operates at LOS C. The project would not result in a change in the level of service at this intersection. The project is the rezoning of the subject property to allow a 6 -lot residential subdivision and the construction of 6 single-family residences. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project frontage does not include any hazardous design features in that the project is not located at a dangerous intersection and the project frontage and access is not located adjacent to sharp curves. The project has been reviewed by Steve Weinberger of W -Trans. The review indicates that the project provides adequate access to EI Rose Drive and B Street and adequate site distance. The project site is located in an area that consists of office and single-family uses. No impact related to hazardous design features or incompatible uses would result from the project. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and the Police Department Since the project site is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the project is required to be fully sprinklered. The project does not include a fire turnaround. However, a standard condition for projects that do not provide a fire tum around is that the buildings be fully sprinklered. Since the location of the site within the VHFHSZ requires the buildings to be fully sprinklers, the impact related to lack of a fire tum around is less than significant. The access on Lot 4 and Lot 5 ranges in width from 22' to 12' at the front of Lot 6. The access width has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and provides adequate access for an ambulance. The project provides 4 parking spaces, 2 covered and 2 uncovered, for each residence. The parking provided exceeds the zoning ordinance parking requirement by one space per unit. Therefore, the project is expected to provide adequate parking capacity. In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element, The Plan states that the City shall route development plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle/pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed the proposed project and recommended conditions of approval for the project. The Bike Plan includes a proposed Class II bike lane on B Street and a proposed Class III bike lane on EI Rose Drive. The Bike Committee did not recommend that the bike lanes be provided. The Committee did recommend that a "Bike Route" sign be installed along the B Street project frontage. The City Engineer reviewed the proposed project and has indicated that there is inadequate right-of-way to provide a bike lane that would not conflict with on street parking. In addition, to the south of the project site, the right-of-way narrows and it would not be possible to extend the bike lane. Therefore, installation of bike lanes is not required as part of the project. However, this does not prevent bikes from using the right-of-way and a "Bike Route" sign would be installed along the B Street project frontage as 11 Page 17 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning 8. TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 18 Potential I Less Than I I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated recommended by the PBAC. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted polices regarding alternative transportation. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring N/A 11. Public Services. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? I I X Schools? I X Parks? I X Other public facilities? X Discussion: The development is proposed to occur in an area that is urbanized, developed, and served by a variety of public services. Additional fire and police service calls may occur as a result of this proposal, but no more so than would be expected based on the Mixed Use General Plan designation. Since the project would result in the construction of a maximum of six single- family dwellings, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on services. The impact to other governmental services and public facilities would be less than significant as a result of this proposal. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable development fees that are assigned to all projects prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in order to address the incremental impact that the proposal presents to all public services. Mitieation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 12. Recreation a. Would the project increase the use of existing ,X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion on recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The impact of six lots that would be developed with single-family dwellings is expected to have a less than significant increase on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. The applicant will be required to pay the applicable park fees that are assigned to all projects prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in order to address the incremental Page 18 10 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 19 PotentialI Less Than I Less Than I No fica Significant Signint Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated impact to park usage. The project does not include any recreational facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of facilities that would have an adverse effect on the physical environment. Mitieation Dleasures/Monitorine: N/A 13. Utilities Infrastructure. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements needed? e. Result in a detemrination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the RWQCB. The site is already served by Pacific Gas & Electric and will have adequate water and sewer service. The City's treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow anticipated from the proposed development. The proposed project is an infill site and would require extensions of existing service lines to provide water, sewer, natural gas, electric, and storm drain utilities to the new residences. This extension is consistent with the service needs anticipated by the General Plan. The proposed development will comply with all federal, state, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling. Waste Management, Inc. will provide solid waste disposal services to the proposed project site. Solid waste from the general area is transported to the Marin County Landfill. All new development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The applicant or subsequent owner/builder shall be responsible for the payment of Sewer and Water Connection fees to offset impacts on City utilities. Water and sewer connections fees are calculated at time of building permit issuance, and are due and payable prior to final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system. Mitieation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 14. Mineral Resources. Would the project: Page 19 11 Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Potential Significant Impact a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be or value to the region and the residents or the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Page 20 Less Than I mpact Less Than I No Significant Significant Impact w/Mitigation I Incorporated VA M Discussion: There is no information about this site from the General Plan or additional studies, which indicates that this site has ever been known to be a mineral resource. The proposed project would not create a significant impact to known mineral resources. Mitieation Measures/Monitorine: N/A 15. Cultural Resources. Would the project a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in § 15064.' b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: The subject property is vacant. The 1987 General Plan map of potential archeological resources indicates that there is a low probability of archeological resources on the project site. No unique geological feature is located on the site. A standard condition of approval states that should any archeological/historical remains be encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action. The project will not cause changes, which would affect ethnic or cultural values, affect religious uses, or result in adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a historic archaeological resource. Mitieation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 16. Aarieultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? Page 20 V Project Name: EI Rose Heights Rezoning & TSM File No. 04-ZOA-0668-CR Page 21 PotentialI Less Than I Less Than I No Signific Significant ant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The project site is designated as Urban and Built Up land on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and does not have an agricultural zoning designation. The subject property is an infill site surrounded by developed property and the project proposes to rezone and subdivide the property. The Mixed Use General Plan land use designation and Administrative Professional Office zoning designation of the property would not allow an agricultural use of the site. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources would occur as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: N/A 17. Mandatory Findinas of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? it. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes No Ki M X Discussion: The project would not have a significant effect on the environment, achieve short-temr, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation Measures/Moritoring: 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide proof of compliance to die City prior to issuance of grading or building permits or approval of improvement plans. 2. The application corporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project implementation of the 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 same. Monitoring: 1. The Building Division, Planning, Engineering 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, or building permits. Page 21 q Project Name: File No. Page 22 potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated 2. Conditions required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans and conditions of approval. Construction: 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 permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 2. Conditions required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction, 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. A the project applicant, have reviewed this Initial Study and hereby agree incorporate the mitigation measures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project. 's11Q1()-7 Si e o�'Applicant Date Page 22 0 aOv City ofPetahtnza, California q Community Development Department Planning Division rasa 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Project Name: El Rose Heights Rezoning & Subdivision Map File Number: 04-ZOA-0668 Address/Location: 3 El Rose Drive & 2100 B Street Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in conjunction with project(s) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. peoartment PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division Noise Mitigation Measures 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Interior work only may be performed on Saturday provided that the noise levels generated are acceptable to nearby residents. Construction is prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. 2. There shall be no start up of internal combustion engines on construction related machinery or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. 3. Delivery of materials or equipment is limited to Monday through Friday (non -holiday) between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 4. Machinery shall not be cleaned past 7:00 p.m. or serviced past 6:45 p.m Monday through Friday. 5. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engine shall be properly mufflered and maintained. 6. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion is prohibited. 7. All stationary noise generating construction equipment shall be located as far as practical from existing nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses. All such equipment shall be acoustically shielded. 8. Quiet construction equipment, in particular air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. Requested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitorin Page 1 El Rose Heights City ofPetaliana, California Reporting/Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division 9. The project applicant shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator", such as the contractor or contractor's representative, who is responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine dre cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and take measures to correct the problem. The name and phone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and the location shall be included on improvements plans and building permit plans submitted to the City for review. Mandatory Findinas of Sianificance Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: 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 or building permits or approval of improvement plans. 2. The application corporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project. 3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project implementation of the 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 same. Monitoring: 1. The Building Division, Planning, Engineering 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, or building permits. 2. Conditions required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur with the approved plans and conditions of approval. Requested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Page 2 R M El Rose Heights Cit) of Petah naa, California Reporting/Mon itoring Record - Mitigation Measures for Approval Construction: Mitigation Measures 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 permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 2. Conditions required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction. 3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions of approval. s:\monitoring\61 Rose Heights Milgation Monitoting.doc Department PD Planning Division FM Fire Marshal ENG Engineering BD Building Division Reauested By or Due Date FM Final Map BP Building Permit CO Certificate of Occupancy SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee LTM Long -Term Monitoring Page 3 ATTACHMENT 9 EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (DRAFT) Revised 10/4/2005 1.0 Purpose of PUD Zone The purpose of this document is to provide written standards for development in the EI Rose Heights Subdivision. The overall objective is to provide specific standards and guidance for parcel development in a physically sensitive, hillside setting, which will encourage excellence of siting and design to compliment the existing natural setting. The uses and standards established by this district are designed to create a compatible development with the existing neighborhood. In addition to this document all lot owners should reference the City of Petaluma Council Resolutions and Ordinances approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUD Development Plan and Standards and the Tentative Subdivision map as well as all Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPARC) approvals for the project. 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. Uses not specified herein shall be subject to determination by the City of Petaluma Planning Director as applicable to the R-1 One Family Residential Districts. 2.0 Project Description This is a five lot subdivision of workforce housing situated on a gentle slope. The houses on Lots 1-4 will be approximately 1,800 square feet on approximately 3,000- 4,500 square foot lots. Lot 5 would be approximately 9,300 square feet with an approximately 2,100 square foot single-family residence and 640 square foot accessory dwelling unit. The smaller lots are designed for two purposes; first for affordability and secondly for the two income families who have limited time to maintain larger properties. The architectural flavor of the homes will reflect the Bungalow Craftsman style. Each home will have a complete front or rear porch that will allow for viewing the Petaluma city and Sonoma Mountains in the distance. This architecture will be compatible with the already existing older homes on B Street. The homes will be 3 bedrooms with 21/2 bathrooms. Some of the garages will be under the first floor and others will be a conventional attached garage (with habitable space above) depending on topography. This project will be an asset to the city providing market rate housing in the community and it is utilizing infill land. EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION -CC - I - "l�7 3.0 Procedures Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the site, architectural and landscaping plans and PUD Unit Development Plan and Development Standards is required prior to building permit issuance. All buyers shall be given a copy of these PUD Development Standards by the seller/developer prior to time of purchase of the property. Any future modifications, alterations, or other changes to these PUD Development Standards shall be considered as changes in the Zoning Map per Section 19A-700 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 4.0 Permitted, Accessory and Prohibited Uses The property is proposed for a residential development, with any of the following Permitted Principal or Permitted Accessory uses being acceptable, provided that it can be demonstrated that none of the activities or equipment related to such use(s) would create noise levels at the adjacent residential property line in excess of the Performance Standards established in the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Permitted Principal Uses: One -family dwelling units Small family day care facilities (as required under State Law and Zoning Ordinance Section 19A-208) Temporary sales or construction trailers by builders or developers are allowed during the sales of any lots or construction and/or sales of homes in accordance with the provisions of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and subject to and Building Permit approval. Permitted Accessory Uses: Lots 1-4: Other accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21-201 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1-4: Swimming pools and spas in accordance with the provisions of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. Lot 5: Other accessory buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21-201 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, except that no accessory building or structure shall be located in the area between the retaining wall and rear property line. Lot 5: Swimming pools and spas in accordance with the provisions of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, except that no pool or spa shall be located in the area between the retaining wall and rear property line. Lot 5: Accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot 5: No grading shall occur in the area between the retaining wall and rear property line. EL ROSE 14EIG14TS SUBDIVISION -CC -2- 1� Prohibited Uses: Accessory Dwellings on Lots 1-4 Garage Conversions Residential Care Facilities Pens, coops, cages and enclosures for the keeping of domestic flocks of chickens and other such fowl Dwelling groups, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21-402 Bed and Breakfast Inn, when adjacent or across the street from commercially zoned property and in accordance with provisions of Section 21-409 Mobile Homes Large Day Care Center Parking: Single-family Residence: 2 covered garage parking spaces and 2 uncovered driveway parking spaces. Accessory Dwelling Unit: One parking space. Items not included within this section shall default to the R-1 One -Family Residential Districts as long as they do not conflict with the provisions and intent of the PUD Development Standards. 5.0 Architectural Design Graded slopes in excess of 2:1 shall not be permitted for all proposed private landscape areas, except where steeper slopes have been approved for street grading transitions, and as approved by a geotechnical engineer. The height of exposed retaining walls and underfloor areas for buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 6'. Measurements for development of individual lots shall be based upon the final grading conditions established with the Project Improvement Plans for the subdivision. All grading and excavation shall conform to the geotechnical investigation report prepared for this project by Giblin Associates dated April 8, 2004. The project's geotechnical engineer shall approve the grading plans. All subsurface drains required for filled areas shall be within appropriate easements if not within the public right-of-way. Plans submitted for approval of individual lot development permits shall also reflect compliance with the report recommendations as it relates to the specific site and structural improvements proposed. EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION- CC - 3 - K Roofing material shall be class "A" rated or better 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. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or landscape plans. 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. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance Standards (e.g., no direct glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet in height, etc.) and shall compliment building architecture. 6.0 Lot Layouts Except where specified under these PUD Standards, all properties and uses within the PUD shall be regulated in a manner consistent with the R-1 One -Family Residential Districts. No further subdivision of these lots shall be permitted without approval of Amendment to the PUD. The maximum permitted height for all primary structures shall be thirty feet (30') from adjacent finish grade to the highest part of the roof. Maximum permitted building height for accessory structures shall be limited to 15' measured from finish grade to the highest part of the roof. Excluded from the maximum height elevations are the following: chimneys, kitchen range hood and bathroom ventilator hoods and housings, clothes dryer vents mad venting pipes for plumbing, and other architectural features as determined to be appropriate by the Planning Director. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve or minimize the impact on view corridors and scenic vistas. Development shall work with the existing topography to minimize cut and fill. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be allowed. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot then conveyed to an approved storm drain system. In order to minimize erosion, surface drainage erosion resistant swales with inlets to a pipe system shall be utilized where slopes exceed ten -percent (10%) with velocities exceeding 10 feet per second (10 fps). The individual lot owners shall maintain all private swales and private storm drains within each lot. 7.0 Landscape Design Landscaping and irrigation systems within the front yards along EI Rose Drive and "B" Street shall be approved by SPARC as part of the subdivision review process. 1" RLftafI.YJ:�prniKM1111130WTI M(.l.0 Landscaping shall 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 is encouraged. Planting of trees that block scenic views from neighboring lots within this subdivision is prohibited. Lots 1-4 shall provide a minimum of 1 tree in the front yard as a street tree in lieu of a separate street tree planter strip. Trees planted as part of the subdivision improvements and construction of the residences shall not be removed without approval from the Community Development Department. Underground utilities such as water meters, and sewer laterals shall be placed under paving or as close as possible to private driveways, to avoid conflict with street tree planting locations within the street right-of-way. Transformer vaults, fire hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows reasonable implementation of the approved street tree planting plan for the project without compromising public safety. 8.0 Fences Fencing and retaining walls shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for fencing and retaining walls. 9.0 Construction All City -authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 8:OOam and 5:OOpm, Monday through Friday. Construction activates that generate little or no noise, such as painting, electrical work, plumbing, etc., are permitted on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction work shall be permitted on City recognized holidays and Sundays. The developer shall designate a construction management person responsible for responding to any complaints generated regarding excessive noise during construction. A telephone number for contacting the designated individual shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The responsible authority shall determine the cause of noise complaints received and implement reasonable measure to resolve the issues. City staff shall monitor complaints received and take reasonable steps to resolve issues in a timely manner as they arise, including enforcement of abatement procedures to bring violations into conformance with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures. 10.0 Design Guidelines Architectural style shall be drawn from and influenced by the rich bungalow and craftsman styles of "B" Street and other West Petaluma areas. Care should be taken to compliment the areas existing style, but not create a false sense of history. up Lan MEMO. NLei iIII I ile]ILL6YLe]iS�l�.� Exterior materials shall be compatible in appearance with those used during the early turn -of -the -century construction. Colors shall be from a palette generally used during the early turn -of -the -century. All on-site electrical, telephone and other utility lines shall be underground and shall not be exposed on the exterior of any structure. 11.0 Unacceptable Uses and Practices The following uses and practices are deemed to be nuisances. No use or practice shall be permitted to exist or operate within this property so as to be offensive or detrimental to any adjacent use, property, or its occupants, including residential inhabitants of adjacent property. Visible storage of junk, trash, mechanical equipment or non -operational vehicles; unpermitted storage of prohibited materials such as petroleum, oil, pesticides, paints, medical wastes and other hazardous materials. 12.0 Exceptions to the Standards Whenever the standards contained in the PUD program do not address an aspect of physical development or use within the development, the Planning Director may regulate this development by interpreting the most comparable sections of other City Zoning Districts. The Director may also refer such questions of development standards or uses to either SPARC or Planning Commission for a decision. Any decision by the Director, SPARC, or Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council through standard appeal procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Exceptions to specific PUD Standards may be approved by SPARC provided that the overall design concept and desired quality is not compromised by the particular exception. EL ROSE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION- CC - 6 - 4