Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8.A 04/03/2006DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Comauuiit}, Development DepaiYrrient, 11 English Street, Pclahlina, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: cdd @el pelahnna.ca.as March 29, 2006 A April 3, 2006 Mike Bierman, City Manager Mike Moore, Community Development Directo City Council Agenda Item on the Processing of the Riverfront Development Application Pursuant to City Council rules and procedures, Councilmembers Healy and Harris have placed an item on the evening agenda of the regular City Council meeting of April 3, 2006, entitled "Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Processing of Riverfront Development Application." Below the title are two specific areas identified for discussion and direction: 1) related to processing the Riverfront development application while the pending at -grade railroad crossing application is before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); and 2) regarding "clarifications/interpretations/modifications" to the Smart Code, the zoning regulations adopted as part of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP) and a timetable for "final review and decision" by the City Council in June 2006. "Riverfront" is a development proposed by Basin Street Properties on approximately 39 acres located at the southern terminus of Hopper Street (see attached aerial photo). The property is within the "Lower Reach" area of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Development of the property is primarily, although not exclusively, governed by the policies of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and the development standards and regulations in the Smart Code, the adopted zoning regulations for the entire Specific Plan area. Basin Street Properties filed their development application in August of 2005. Their initial submittal can be summarized as consisting of a site development plan and related details, including access and circulation; proposed elevations for the various residential and mixed use structures on the site; civil plans; and landscaping and other related design elements. One of the purposes of adopting the Specific Plan and Smart Code was to minimize the necessity of zoning and plan amendment approvals to implement the policy direction in the CPSP. As a result, major development projects consistent with Specific Plan policies and Smart Code regulations only require Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approval. Project review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council is not required. However, Bashi Street Properties also intends to subdivide the Riverfront parcel into individual lots to accommodate the various housing and commercial unit types; therefore, a tentative subdivision map would also be required, but is not part of their initial submittal. Basin Street has elected to first apply for project approval from SPARC; and then, following SPARC approval, apply for their tentative map. Under the City's Subdivision Ordinance (which is part of the Municipal Code), approval of the proposed tentative map would require a subsequent review and action by the Planning Commission and City Council. In this particular case, that process would come after SPARC had made a project -specific environmental determination (as required by CEQA) and then reviewed and approved the project site development plan and all of the related design and architectural elements. It appears from the wording in paragraph (A)(2) of this agenda item that the City Council intends to discuss modifying the development review process that has been established by state law, the CPSP, the Smart Code, and other development related standards and regulations in order to have the Riverfront project "agendized for a Council meeting no later than June 2006 for final review and decision on the project." This would seem to presume that the Riverfront project is at a point in the process where a "final review and decision" could actually occur "no later than June 2006." However, the Council may not be aware of the current status of the project and the issues that need to be addressed in order to make the necessary findings and determinations in support of a "final review and decision." These issues are listed as follows and are discussed, in turn, in more detail, below: • Application Completeness • Vehicle and Emergency Access • Environmental Review and Determination • Central Petaluma Specific Plan and Smart Code Consistency APPlication Completeness: In accordance with state planning and zoning law, more particularly a provision lrnown as the "Permit Streamlining Act", the City is required to determine whether or not any application for development, as defined, is "complete" within 30 -days of its receipt (Government Code Section 65943(a)). A "complete" application means that the City has all of the information it requires to evaluate the project for consistency with applicable City policies, standards and regulations, as well as for purposes of CEQA compliance. If the application is determined to be "incomplete", then state law fti Cher requires that "the agency [in this case, the Community Development Department] shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant of the development project." In addition, that same section requires that "the agency's determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application." The purpose and intent of this section of state law is to not only provide the applicant with certainty that a given development application is processed in a timely manner, but also to insure that the City has sufficient information about the project to fulfill its obligation to adequately advise decision -matters and inform the public about the proposed development and its potential impacts. In the 30 -day completeness review step of the development review process, Community Development serves as the clearinghouse for all other City departments that may have a responsibility to review and comment on a given development application. All of the information submitted by the applicant is distributed to each department with a specific date by which any comments must be received. Those comments are then compiled into a letter drafted by the project planner in Community Development and sent to the applicant in conformance with state law. An applicant, upon receiving an "incompleteness" letter, will often meet with City staff in the various departments to resolve incompleteness items before their next submittal. Attached for your information are the three "incompleteness" letters sent to Basin Street Properties (September 8, 2005; November 10, 2005; February 16, 2006) in response to the initial M and subsequent re -submittal of information on the Riverfront project. The letters speak for themselves in that they clearly identify the items that make the application incomplete and what is required in order to address a particular item. Community Development has received no additional information in response to the last incompleteness letter, dated February 16, 2006. As a result, Basin Street Properties' application for Riverfront is still "incomplete" and cannot be processed further under applicable state law. The information that is lacking directly affects the City's ability to adequately evaluate the project for purposes of CEQA compliance; to adequately determine consistency with applicable City plans, policies, standards and regulations; and to adequately formulate a recommendation to decision -makers to approve the project with supporting findings of fact and conditions of approval. In other words, we (not just Community Development, but Fire, Public Works, Water Resources, Parks & Recreation, as well) are unable to fully carry out our professional obligation to the City, to the community and under state law on the pending application for the Riverfront project based on the incomplete project information that we have at this point in time. Vehicle and Emereencv Access: Currently, the Riverfront property is only accessible by Hopper Street; a narrow, substandard public street that now serves Shamrock Materials, Pomeroy and City's corporation yard, animal shelter, sewer treatment plant and homeless shelter (the Mary Isaak Center). An application is pending before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that would close the existing Hopper Street at -grade railroad crossing in return for creating a new at -grade crossing where Caulfield Lane would be extended to serve potential development, including Riverfront, on the west side of the railroad tracks. The CPUC has granted a conditional approval for an at -grade crossing at Caulfield. However, the condition of approval would require a subsequent review of the crossing at such time as any passenger rail service commenced on the existing rail line. The CPUC has been asked to further clarify its position regarding the Caulfield at -grade crossing and that determination is pending. Until the CPUC decision is final and acceptable to the City, the only access to the Riverfront property — Hopper Street — is inadequate to serve the proposed Riverfront development. The agenda item on April 3 indicates that Council would discuss allowing Riverfront "to proceed on parallel track" and "final project approval to be conditioned on CPUC authorization acceptable to the City Council." This is problematic for two reasons: 1) Public Works and Fire Department completeness comments have stated that access to the property is presently inadequate due to the lack of a confirmed primary access (the extension of Caulfield Lane with an approved, unconditional at -grade crossing), as well as no confirmed secondary or emergency vehicle access for a project of this size; and 2) the current lack of adequate vehicle and emergency access (as identified in the completeness comments by the Public Works and Fire Departments) are potential significant impacts under CEQA. Before a project can be approved, an appropriate environmental determination, pursuant to CEQA, must be made by the decision -malting body. The proposal to condition the approval of the Riverfront project "on CPUC authorization acceptable to the City Council" cannot be done consistent with CEQA because the potential impact — the lack of adequate vehicle access to the project via Caulfield Lane and the proposed at -grade crossing — cannot be feasibly mitigated through project changes under the control of the applicant. In other words, "CPUC authorization acceptable to the City Council" must happen before a decision on the Riverfront project can be made so that the CEQA impacts related to access to the project via Caulfield Lane across an at - grade crossing can be adequately assessed and appropriate mitigations determined. The incompleteness comments from Fire and Public Works also clearly identify the public safety risks to prospective Riverfront residents due to the absence of an identified secondary access route or adequate emergency vehicle access. As pointed out by the Fire Department and Water Resources, the proposed emergency vehicle access would traverse the City's corporation yard and sewer treatment plant, which pose potential public safety problems regarding response times and emergency evacuation, and would interfere with the daily operations of the treatment plant. In addition, there has been no confirmation from the Riverfront applicant that the City has agreed to permit an emergency vehicle access through City property. As with the confirmation of an unconditional, at -grade crossing at Caulfield Lane, secondary or emergency vehicle access would have to determined prior to any processing leading to a final decision in order to satisfy CEQA. Environmental Review and Determination: As mentioned previously, one of principal purposes of the completeness process is to insure that the City has adequate information to comply with CEQA. With most applications subject to CEQA, complete information typically results in a an environmental determination of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, which essentially means that identified environmental impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated by allowing the applicant to modify the project. Riverfront is a "project" as defined by CEQA and, therefore, an environmental assessment (an Initial Study) and determination must be made before the project can be approved. Primarily because of the identified lack of adequate access to the project site, an environmental assessment done based on the current status of the project would result in the identification of potential significant impacts related to traffic and emergency vehicle access, thereby requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Typically, staff works closely with applicants to get the information necessary to avoid the need for an EIR, wherever possible and consistent with the law. However, should the Council decide to proceed with the approval of Riverfront in the manner proposed by the Agenda Item, the Council would either have to reconcile the current status of the project with the applicable provisions of CEQA; proceed with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and then adopt a statement of overriding considerations if there was still no satisfactory and feasible mitigation of the identified significant impacts; or deny the project. Another important point to clarify relates to the certified EIR for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and its place in the review of this project. The CPSP EIR is what is known as a "program" EIR under CEQA. It's purpose is to address environmental impacts and mitigations at the broader, program level of the Specific Plan and its policy direction, and does not get to the level of analysis that may be necessary for a given development project, like Riverfront. The value of having a certified program EIR for the Specific Plan area is that it allows applicants for new development, consistent with the CPSP, to utilize the data and analysis in the Specific Plan EIR as a basis for the environmental review for a given project. It does not eliminate the need to do project -specific environmental review; but depending on the issue, it can change the scope or focus of the analysis and simplify the process. Central Petaluma SDecifle Plan and Smart Code Consistencv: The incompleteness letters for Riverfront identify a number of inconsistencies with or violations of CPSP policies and Smart Code regulations. As the adopted zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area, we are obligated to apply the regulations to affected projects, such as Riverfront, as adopted. The Smart Code does provide some authority for staff and SPARC to make interpretations; however, in order to insure that all applicants are treated as consistently and fairly as possible, we have conscientiously kept interpretations to a minimum and only in areas of the Smart Code where interpretation is appropriate. Having said that, we have also acknowledged to Basin Street and other developers in the Specific Plan area that there are regulations and standards in the Smart Code that could be modified and clarified to work better, while implementing the policy vision and goals of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and Smart Code inconsistencies and violations identified in the Riverfront project are too many and vaned to leave solely to the interpretation of staff or SPARC. To resolve all of the inconsistencies and violations in the Riverfront project in its current configuration through some combination of staff and SPARC would put us in the role of making new policy for the Specific Plan area. That is not our role, nor should new policy and regulations be made for the benefit of any one particular applicant. There are two options to address this situation: 1) Basin Street could redesign their project to address the identified inconsistencies and violations with the plan and Smart Code; or 2) the inconsistencies and violations can be basis for amending the Specific Plan and Smart Code so that the policies, regulations and standards work better for all prospective applicants and property owners in the CPSP boundaries, while maintaining the adopted community vision for the area as embodied in the plan. An amendment process that focuses only on one project and does not allow the time and effort to develop better, clearer and more effective regulations will only create a precedent for every subsequent applicant, who claims that they are unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of the Smart Code. Instead of bringing more certainty to the development review process, it will likely lead to extended and unsatisfactory (for both the City and the applicant) discussions about what is an interpretation; what is an inconsistency; what is a violation. The resulting uncertainty undermines the vision of the Specific Plan by focusing decision-making on the particular benefit to a given applicant, instead of the community's interest. More importantly, it creates a much more subjective regulatory environment that will make development review susceptible to the imposition of ad hoc procedures and other inefficiencies. I hope that the preceding analysis and the attached incompleteness letters and memos are helpful in understanding some of the complications associated with the Riverfront project and where it currently stands in the development review process. It should also be noted that this memo represents a brief summary of the most critical issues associated with the processing of the Riverfront project to date, and that because of the "incompleteness" of the project, a thorough evaluation for CEQA compliance and on the merits of the project, as would be done in anticipation of a public hearing and decision on the project, has not been completed. As everyone associated with the development review process knows, that step could result in the identification of other issues that are not part of the completeness evaluation. I think 1 can speak on behalf of the other City departments in saying that any of us are available should you have any questions or require additional information on this matter. Attachments Aerial Photo Location Map September 8, 2005 "Incompleteness" Letter October 11, 2005 Response from Basin Street November 10, 2005 "Incompleteness" Letter December 7, 2005 Response from Basin Street January 18, 2006 Supplemental Response from Basin Street February 16, 2005 "Incompleteness" Letter w/ Attachments February 21, 2006 Memo from Michael Ban March 29, 2006 Memo from Jim Carr c: Eric Danly, City Attorney Chris Albertson, Fire Chief Michael Ginn, Fire Marshal Vince Marengo, Public Works Director Craig Spaulding, City Engineer Frank Peary, Traffic Division Manager, Public Works Mice Ban, Water Resources and Conservation Director Jim Carr, Parks & Recreation Director George White, Ass't. Director of Community Development Kim Jordan, Project Planner (n Power -11 RIVERFRONT LOCATION MAP City of Petaluma California Sum ZOOO Air photo Road Names ED Parcel outlines 10 Rivet petaloma.sid Omit) class nlapor Keith Conevaro Mike Harris Mike Healy Karen Nan Mike O'Brien Pameta Toriiatt Cmmcrlmemhers Community Development Department t t English Enect Petalunm, CA 94932 E -Mart cdd(lD,n Petaluma co us Code Enforcement Phone (707) 778-4469 Fax (707) 778-4498 E -Mail codeenforcemenr(uj ct Petaluma ca us POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 September 8, 2005 Vin Smith Basin Street Properties 201 First Street Suite 100 Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR) Dear Mr. Smith: Your application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of the Riverfront Project for the 39.1 acre site located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, is incomplete. Please address the following items so that the City is able to continue to processing your application. Engineering From the Planning Division (Kim Gordon) (707) 778-4301 Phone (707) 778.4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 G.I.S I. The Cost Based Fee System form was not submitted with the application Phone (707) 778-4301 materials. Please complete, sign and return the attached Cost Based Fee Fax (707) 778-4498 System form. Housing Division Phone(707)778-4535 2. Please provide the following items related to environmental review of Fax (707) 778.4586 , E -Mar the project: rgoehler(u)n petahtma,ca.us Inspection Services A. Completed Environmental Impact Questionnaire (EIQ) Phone (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778.4498 To Schedule/nspecbon.r, R. Traffic Studv- The traffic study needs to include all of the items Phone (707) 778-4479 indicated in the Responsibilities for Traffic Impact Studies and the Permits items requested by Cal Trans in their letter dated June I0, 2004. Both Phone (707) 778.4301 are included as attachments. Fax (707) 778-4498 Planning C. Noise Studv- At a minimum, the noise study shall include an Phone (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778.4498 assessment of the impacts of 1) railroad lines used for freight and passenger service 2) Highway 101 and 3) existing noise conditions. The study shall also include recommended mitigation measures to wa: address any identified impacts. [auuxousw gwoxruwn D. Bioloeical Evaluation- Provide an evaluation of sensitive plan and animal species. The plant survey shall follow the Department of Fish and Game's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. The evaluation of animal species shall specifically address the Salt March Harvest Mouse. E. Arborist Report- If the site includes any trees with a diameter of 4" or more that are located on the project site or that have a dripline located on the project site. If there are no trees on the site or no trees that meet this criterion, please indicate this in your resubmittal materials. F. Air Oualitv Assessment- The Air Resources Board has provided draft guidelines (Draft Air Quality and Land use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective) for locating residential uses in proximity to freeways. The guidelines recommend that residential uses be located at least 500' from a freeway. Please provide an air quality assessment using the criteria from the Air Resources Board. G. Hazardous Materials Assessment H. The wetlands delineation prepared by WRA identifies the project as "Riverwalk." The project name in the application is "Riverfront." Please clarify. 3. The single access from Hopper Street proposed for the project is not adequate. Hopper Street is not improved to a level that would accommodate the additional traffic and intensification of use of the at grade crossing at Hopper Street may not be permitted by the P.U.C. The "design summary report" states that the project requires a second access and that plans are being developed for discussion with neighboring property owners. Where is the intended second access to the site? Does this involve an additional at grade crossing? 4. Please address the following items related to the Smart Code Zoning Map for the project: A. The project site is located in a "Conceptual Boundary." Although street layout and zoning designations within the boundary are conceptual, the project description should provide some indication as to how the proposed project is consistent with the intention of the recommended street layout and zoning designations and their located. B. The conceptual plan appears to recommend that the site be approximately 40% T-6 (Urban Core). The project provides far less T-6 than this. The proposed single-family homes and townhomes are prohibited in T-6. C. The conceptual plan recommends that the uses surrounding the civic space be T-6. Only half of the area surrounding the civic space is proposed to be T-6. The live/work units proposed in the T-5 zone surrounding the civic space would require a conditional use permit in the T-6 zone that was recommended in the conceptual plan. D. The project site includes the "Preferred Location for Parking Structure" designation. The project does not include a parking structure. E. The Lower Reach Area includes a "Transit Stop" designation. How does this project support the creation of a transit stop in this location? F. The Conceptual Plan includes a grid pattern of streets. The project proposes a curvilinear street pattern which is inconsistent and more suburban in nature. S. The project is inconsistent with the SMART Code Urban Standards Table in the following ways: A. Block Perimeter — Please provide the perimeter of each block. The partial block that is proposed in the southeast corner of the site may exceed the maximum block perimeter. If the partial block is consistent with the maximum block perimeter, it appears that the completion of the block that would occur with development of the adjacent parcel would not be consistent with the maximum block perimeter. B. Lot Area- Since a tentative map is not proposed at this time, consistency with the minimum lot area cannot be determined. Please be aware that there is a minimum lot area per live/work unit. Please provide the square footage of each block so that the lot area per unit can be estimated. C. Lot Coveraec- Since a tentative map is not proposed at this time, consistency with this requirement cannot be determined. Please provide the coverage per block so that the coverage can be estimated. D. Building Placement- The single-family residences appear to have an Edge Yard configuration which is prohibited in T-5 and T-6. If the lot lines will be located in such a way that the single-family residences have only one side yard, this still would not provide a yard configuration that is permitted by the CPSP. See Page 13 and Urban Standards Table E. Building Setback — Due to the curvilinear block design, there are several areas where the building(s) are setback more than the maximum 14' from the front or side property line(s). Since a tentative map is not proposed at this time, compliance with this requirement in most areas cannot be determined. However, it does appear that due to the curvilinear block design it will be difficult or impossible in some areas to create front and side yard setbacks that comply with the 14' maximum front and side yard setbacks. F. Frontaee Tvoe I) The paseo design of the site plan for single-family residences and townhomes, that presents a side elevation to the street, docs not provide an approved frontage type on the street. See Page 14 and Urban Standards Table 10 2) The single-family residences that do have frontage on a street do not provide an approved frontage type. The plans identify a stoop. However, the frontage type appears to be more consistent with a Common Yard or Porch and Fence frontage. Both of these frontage types are prohibited in T-5 and T-6. See Page 14 and Urban Standards Table G. Buildine Frontase Percentaee — Since the project area is within the conceptual plan boundary, the applicant is able to propose principal and secondary building frontage locations. The conceptual plan does include several areas of primary building frontages where the minimum building frontage is 75% for T-5 and 90% for T-6. Please indicate if the intent is to provide/propose principal building frontage areas or if all of the frontages are proposed to be secondary frontages. H. Parkins- Please provide a parking plan that shows the location of all parking for the commercial space located in the Mixed Use buildings. Since the intent of the plan is to allow the conversion of buildings from one use to another over time, the live/work units need to be fully parked as commercial space. Include the location of these parking spaces on the parking plan. 6. The project is inconsistent with the SMART Code Thoroughfare Standards in the following ways: A. In the project area, Hopper Street is required to be a Two Way Edge Drive with Railroad Tracks on One Side. The detail provided for this street is inconsistent with this standard. See CPSP Section 5.10 B. In the project area, the street along the river is required to be a Two Way Edge Drive with Open Space on One Side. The detail provided for this street, Neighborhood Street Variable Row, is not consistent with this standard. See CPSP Section 5.10 C. The section for Caulfield Lane is not consistent with the CPSP section. The Plan does include any one way streets. See CPSP, Page 24 D. The Neighborhood Street section provided is not consistent with the CPSP Neighborhood Street section. The CPSP section does not include on street parking and requires the sidewalks to be 12' wide with tree wells. See CPSP, Page 34 E. Most of the alleys proposed for the project are not consistent with the CPSP alley sections. The Fire Truck Accessible Ally appears to be consistent with the CPSP section. However, the Residential Alley is not consistent with the required 10' travel lanes and 5' sidewalk or driveway apron on each side. See CPSP, Page 31 F. The Thoroughfare Map includes several locations of Terminated and Deflected Vistas. How does this project comply with these designations? G. The Thoroughfare Map shows a grid street pattern for the project site. Rather than providing a grid street pattern, the project proposes a curvilinear street pattern, which is more suburban in nature. This street pattern is also creating inconsistencies with the front and side yard setback requirements. The paseo site design for townhomes and single-family residences is not consistent with the grid pattern of streets shown on the Thoroughfare Map. Although all streets, other than those indicated in items A & B above, within the project area are recommended streets, the street sections for the project need to be consistent with an approved CPSP street section(s). Since the project is proposed on undeveloped land, the project should be able to comply with the CPSP approved street sections. 7. The project is inconsistent with the following requirements for Live/Work Units: A. A live/work unit may have no more than 49% of the floor area dedicated to living space. All of the proposed live/work units exceed the 49% maximum. See CPSP Section 4.70.020(EI) B. Since the lot size is unknown, it cannot be determined if the project is consistent with the requirement that one live/work unit requires a minimum of 1,000 square feet if lot area. See CPSP Section 4.70.020(D) 8. Please address the following items related to providing the required parking for the project: A. Please provide a parking plan that includes the location of all on street parking provided by the project. The parking plan needs to include the following: 1) The 6 "open parking" spaces indicated on Sheet P-1. 2) The on street parking required for the commercial component of the Mixed Use buildings. 3) The parking required for the live/work units. The project needs to demonstrate that the entire square footage of the live/work unit can be parked. B. Please evaluate the access to and provide a maneuvering plan for the garage parking spaces. 9. The project appears to be inconsistent with the following sections of the Land Use Chapter of the Plan: A. The project site has a Mixed Use land use designation. This land use designation does not require that a specific parcel be mixed use. However, the area must have a mix of uses. Given the size of the project site and the mix of T-5 and T-6 shown on the Conceptual Plan for the site, the project may not provide an adequate mix of uses to be consistent with what the Plan intended for this site. B. Goal 2: Provide for a mic of new uses. The Plan envisioned a mix of uses on vacant and underutilized parcels. The project has limited T-6, which only allows residential uses as part of a mixed use building or (� as live/work units with approval of a conditional use permit, to a small area surrounding half of the civic area located in the center of the project. The reduction in T-6 severely limits the potential for a mix of uses within the project. The commercial uses permitted in both T-5 and T-6 have not been included in the project to create the envisioned mix of uses for this site. Rather, the proposed increase in the amount of the site zoned T-5 has been used to create a suburban development of townhomes and single-family residences which is not supported by the goals, objectives and policies of the Specific Plan or the conceptual plan which included far less T-5 for the site. C Goal 3: Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. The plan envisioned development that was more intense than elsewhere in the City. The proposed project does not appear to be more intense or dense than other projects approved in the City or the McNear development located on the opposite site of the river. Part of the intent of the intensification of development within the Plan area is to create development that supports the proposed transit locations and bike and pedestrians connections. D. Objective 5: Expand the Lower Keach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river -dependent industrial uses. 'The proposed project site comprises a substantial portion of the Lower Reach area. The "Preferred Parking Structure Location" on the project site and the "Transit Stop" designation in the proximity of the site support this objective. The uses proposed do not provide a center of employment or regional serving commercial opportunities. Since the development of this site has the potential to influence the development of the adjacent site through the continuation of uses established with this project, the opportunity to achieve this objective could be lost. E. Policy 5.2: Locate a transit station in the vicinity of the Caulfield Lane extension. In order to create opportunities for transit, the necessary intensity of uses must be created within a reasonable distance of the proposed transit center. The low density proposed for the project and the lack of commercial uses and an employment center within the project do not provide the level of activity and intensity of development necessary to support transit. F. Policy 5.3: Allow for an intense Mixed Use development on land not utilized for industrial purposes. The plan states that the project site has not been used by Pomeroy and could be considered for new development. The new development indicated in the Plan includes an "employment destination." This section encourages incorporating housing, restaurants, cafes, banking, and child care services. The proposed project lacks the envisioned "employment destination." 13 10. The project appears to be inconsistent with the following sections of the Circulation Chapter of the Plan: A. Goal 3: Reinforce the role of Central Petaluma as a center for transit and non- vehicular modes of travel. The Bike Plan and the River Access and Enhancement Plan include paths around the site. The project proposed one path along the river walk, one off-site path, and one temporary path along the river side on the project site. This is inconsistent with supporting non -vehicular modes of travel. The project does not provide the "employment center" envisioned in the land use section of the Plan, which would support the creation of travel by transit. B. Goal 4: Complete the urban pattern with a pedestrian -scaled grid pattern ofstreets. The curvilinear street pattern does not provide the grid pattern envisioned in the Plan. Consistent with this goal, the Thoroughfare Map and Zoning Map both show a grid pattern of streets. The project proposes a curvilinear block pattern that is more suburban in nature and inconsistent with this goal. The paseo site design of the townhomes and single-family residences is inconsistent with the grid pattern envisioned for the plan. C: Objective 1: Improve and promote transit service. The Pian includes policies to create transit hubs around rail stations. The employment center envisioned for the project site would help to create the envisioned transit hub. D. Policy 1.3: Provide a transit station in the vicinity of Caulfield Lane. The employment center envisioned for the project site would provide the needed concentration of people to help support the transit station. E. Policy 4.1: Encourage structured parking facilities. The plan encourages structures parking facilities that would be phased in over time. The project site includes a "Preferred Parking Structure Location" designation. The project does not include a parking structure and development of the site as proposed could eliminate the possibility of a parking structure in this area. 11. Please address the following items related to the civil plans: A. Sheet C-1 shows the location of several easements. The project proposes to do construction in several of these easements (sanitary sewer easement, industrial use easement, and construction easement). Please explain how the project intends remove these easements or the project needs to be revised to avoid work within these casements. B. The detail for the Hopper Street street section is unclear. On Sheet C-2, Note 2 indicates that the right of way is 56'. The detail shows the right of way is 60'. The plans scale to 56'. Please clarify. The Thoroughfare Street Sections require a 57' right of way. C. Sheet C-5 is labeled Surrounding Uses/Bicycle Plan. The uses are identified by initials. If the initials are intended to identify the General Plan land use designations, the page needs to be revised to reflect the General Plan land use designations approved as part of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. It is recommended that the designations be spelled out rather than abbreviated or that a key to the abbreviations be provided. D. Sheet C5.1 shows a bike path that is off site and identified as "Future Path by Others." Please explain. Also, please note that the Bike Plan includes a Class I off- street path adjacent to the project site's eastern property line. E. Sheet C5.1 shows a bike path located adjacent to front of the houses that front the southern property line and identified as "Temporary Bike Path." Why is this bike path temporary? This bike path is not part of the Two Way Edge Drive with Open Space on One Side street section. 12. Please address the following items related to the landscaping plans: A. The trees listed as the proposed street trees are not included on the City's Approved Street Trees List. Please revise the street tree planting pian with trees from the Approved Street Trees List. B. Sheet L3.01 shows two Community Mail Buildings. Please provide elevations of these buildings. C. Provide details of the trellises, fence and planters referenced on Sheet L3.01. 13. Please address the following items related to the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan: A. The Access and Enhancement Plan includes a Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail along the property line adjacent to Highway 101, along the river, and along the Hopper Street. The project identifies a path adjacent to the Highway 101 property as a "Future Path by Others" and the path on the project site proximate to the property line with the river as a "Temporary Bike Path." The paths included in the Access and Enhancement Plan need to be included and constructed as part of this project. B. The Access and Enhancement Plan includes a "tentative Long Term" trail along the west property line of the project site. The project does not provide this trail. C. The bike and pedestrian paths adjacent to the river and Highway 101 also include an area identified as "Combined Buffer and Restoration Zones." Please indicate how the project is consistent with this zone. 15 D. The Access and Enhancement Plan includes a proposed water access location along the project frontage at the river. This does not appear to be included as part of the project. E. Please provide the additional information related to the details of the conceptual River Walk that are referenced in the project description. From Public Facilities and Services (Craig Spaulding. City Engineer) (707) 778-4301 14. Obtain final approval for the railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane. 15. All existing easements on the subject property in conflict with the proposed development shall be removed or quitclaimed. 16. Provide evidence that the proposed Caulfield Lane design within the development is consistent with the Caulfield Lane Extension Plan Line Study. 17. Obtain the necessary easement on the City treatment plant property for the proposed intersection and access road. 18. Indicate whether the streets, other than Caulfield Lane, are proposed to be private or public. 19. Show alley sections with at least a 20 -foot paved section for vehicular travel and at least a 26 -foot backup distance for vehicles entering and exiting the garages. 20. Show vehicular turnaround at the end of dead end alleys and the river frontage road. 21. Indicate the dedication or proposed future ownership of the parcel adjacent to the river. 22. Indicate whether the sanitary sewer system and storm drain system are proposed to be public or private. 23. Provide a plan that indicates the surface flow directions for the entire surface water treatment system (from inlets, through treatment facilities and discharge points). Provide permission or justification for constructing treatment facilities and directing surface flows onto adjacent properties. Provide pre -project and post -project surface water flows to adjacent property if applicable. Indicate maintenance responsibility of the storm drain and surface water treatment system. From the Fire Marshal's Office (Stuart Blakeslev) (707) 778-4389 24. The following comments will be lacking locator points such as lot numbers and street names: A. Several fire hydrants will require relocation as indicated on the attached documents. (See pages 4-3.) B. The roads widths appear too narrow on the attached sheet (page 1). Redesign both roadways to allow passage of the ladder truck (49351). C. The current plan indicates only one legitimate access point off Hopper St_ Two separate access points shall be provided for this development per the California Fire Code. 25. Please provide locator points, such as lot numbers and/or street names, on the revised plans submitted for review. From Public Facilities and Services (Alan Tilton) 26. Provide a traffic study as indicated in the attached Responsibilities for Traffic Impact Studies. The TIS also needs to include an evaluation of the following: A. The Caulfield Lane Extension Plan Line Study, and any changes proposed to the plan line will need to be documented. Of particular concern will be the capacity impacts of this project to the Caulfield -Southern Crossing as a major collector street. The Caulfield Lane-Southem Crossing is expected to have a demand of 13,000 or more vehicle trips per day and the project circulation system will need to accommodate this projected demand. B. The project circulation system will need to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation envisioned in the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan as well as the City General Plan and CPSP. C. The intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield, Caulfield/Hopper, Caulfield/Payran, Lakeville[US 101 SB Ramp, Lakeville/US 101 NB Ramp and PBS/Caulfield will need to be evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours. The potential impacts of the proposed project will need to be measured based upon existing traffic conditions as well as General Plan buildout to the year 2025. D. The Pomeroy site is now being considered for development. The Riverfront project should, to the extent possible, take into consideration the potential development of the Pomeroy site with respect to traffic impacts and access issues. From Water Resources and Conservation (Imad Baiyasi) (707) 778-4304 27. The plans show an 8 -inch water main extension along Hopper Street. A 12 " water main loop to Lakeville Road shall be constructed as per the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Please revise plans accordingly to show the water loop system. 28. The design of the storm water treatment measures shall comply with Attachment 4 of the State Storm Water General Permit Phase I1 issued to the City of Petaluma in 2003. Please confirm that the Storm Water Treatment Report you provided is consistent with design standards included in Attachment 4 (copy enclosed). 11 24. Provisions for maintenance of the proposed storm water measures (vegetated swales and bio retention area) must be provided. Homeowners Association or other funding mechanism dedicated to this task must be provided. 30. Verify existing and future utilities that may occupy the 36' construction casement and other easements fronting the property. This information is needed to determine whether the City can vacate this existing construction easement. 31. Verify if the extension of Hopper Street fronting the property is to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma. If Hopper Street is a private street, easements for water, sewer and storm drain lines must be provided. Show easements on the utility plans. 32. The proposed Hopper Street and Caulfield Lane intersection and realignment, Sheet C-6, appears to conflict with the access to the treatment plant facilities for operation/maintenance and vehicular access. Any necessary modifications or improvements to accommodate the ongoing activities of the treatment plant will need to be included as a part of the Hopper Street improvements. Our specific comments include the following: A. The Hopper Street/Caulfield Lane proposed intersection is confusing: 1) Appears that curbing will block access to Pond Influent Pump Station (PIPS) roadway. 2) Roadway left of gate needs to be clearly outlined. B. Placing fencing on the edge of PIPS roadway could limit access of heavy equipment to the station. This roadway is narrow at this time. Unlimited access to the PIPS must be maintained. C. It appears that roadway access next to existing grit and screenings building is being eliminated. Unlimited access must be provided until the plant is decommissioned. D. The storm water swale on the north side of Hopper Street is a part of the permitted sample location and under the areas maintained by the plant. The plan for the Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street intersection should provide sufficient details regarding any revisions to the drainage pattern? Please provide details. 33. The project shall have a zero net impact on water demand. Adequate measures to show how incorporating on-site and off-site water conservation measures will offset the increased water demand must be provided. I The following are not incompleteness items. The information is provided for your information and consideration prior to submitting revised plans and information. From the Planning Division (Kim Gordon) (707) 778-4301 1. The following issues related to the partial block proposed adjacent to the west property line should be considered prior to resubmittal: A. The continuation and expansion of this block onto the adjacent property is likely to create a block perimeter that exceeds the maximum allowed in the T-5 and T-6 designations. B. Typically, the development pattern of single-family homes would be continued through to the end of the block. However, the adjacent property has a River Dependent Industrial zoning designation, which defaults to T-6. Single-family homes and townhomes are not permitted in a T-6 designation. 2. On the revised plan submitted for review, please provide some type of identification for blocks, lots, streets, etc. so more specific comments can be provided. Sonoma Countv Water Aeencv 3. On November 9, 2004, the Board adopted a resolution directing the preparation of a new EIR for the Water Supply, Transmission, and Reliability Project (Water Project). The Agency issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Water Project in February 2005. The Water Project consists of separate components that together would meet the project objective of providing a safe, economical, and reliable water supply to meet the defined current and future water supply needs in the Agency's service area. The Agency anticipates a draft EIR would be released for public review in May 2006 with the final EIR completed by May 2007. EIR certification and project approval would occur in summer 2007. One component of the Water Project is the Cotati-Kastania pipeline which would deliver potable water from the Agency's diversion facility along the Russian River to the Kastania storage tanks south of the city of Petaluma. The Riverfront project is located within the same area as the Agency's proposed Cotati- Kastania pipeline. The Cotati-Kastania pipeline would consist of a 48 -inch to 54 -inch pipeline to transfer potable water from Russian River diversion facilities to the Kastania tank. An alternative route being considered by the agency would locate the Cotati- Kastania pipeline along the eastern border of the Riverfront project, west of the existing Caltrans Right -of -Way. If this route is ultimately selected by the Agency's Board of Directors, a minimum 50 -foot right-of-way at the eastern edge of the project site would be required for installation of the Cotati-Kastania pipeline. 4. For site-specific improvements, Agency staff recommends that the drainage design for the project be in compliance with the Agency's Flood Control Design Criteria. 5. In planning for water supply, please be aware that there are several constraints regarding the implementation of the Agency's Water Supply and Transmission System Project R (WSTSP). Under the WSTSP, the Agency's water rights would be expanded from the current permit limit of 75,000 acre-feet per year (afy) to up to 101,000 afy. However, due to various constraints, the Agency cannot implement the WSTSP at this time. For further information regarding this issue, please refer to the letters sent to the Agency's water contractors, customers, and water diverters under the Agency's water rights, on August I 1 and August 28, 2003. In addition, in May 2004, demand on the Agency's water transmission system was approximately 75 million gallons per day (mgd). This is a significantly higher rate of delivery than in May of the prior year. Due to the possibility that summertime demands on the transmission system may exceed the reliable capacity of the transmission system, the Agency sent a letter to water transmission system customers on June 14, 2004 warning them of these potential shortfalls. This letter requests all water customers to implement water conservation measures, recycled water projects and/or increase the use of local ground water supplies immediately to reduce demand on the Agency's transmission system throughout this summer. The above-mentioned letters are available through SCWA upon request. The comments from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Department of Fish and Game have been included as attachments. Any additional comments received from referral departments and agencies will be forwarded to you once they are received. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (707) 778-4301 or k rordon(ri.�ci.netaluma.ca.us or you may contact the reviewing department directly. Sincerely, Kim Gordon Associate Planner Attachments: Cost Based Fee System Form Environmental Impact Questionnaire (EIQ) Responsibilities for Traffic Impact Studies State Storm Water General Permit Phase 11, Attachment 4 Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District Letter dated 8/24/2005 Department of Fish and Game Letter dated August 24, 2005 PBAC Comm n C ,--,tb` t cJtrn � c: File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR -esti-- S:plandepVlettersfnverfr nLspanc 1 _�n RECEIVED OCT 11 2005 PLANNING DIVISION BAs1NSTREET October 11, 2005 Ms. Kim Gordon City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC - 0488 -CR) Dear Kim: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 2005. This letter contains our response to your comments. Please note that we have elected to resubmit the entire package of project materials with this letter, rather than individual sheets. For your convenience, we have labeled all revised sheets with a revision date so that you can tell which sheets have been revised and which sheets are unchanged. Before moving to our responses themselves, we have a couple of comments. First, please note that the SPARC members and Ms. Borba agreed at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that density, land use and similar matters would be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. Second, please note that the Riverfront Project is located within the redevelopment area and, upon completion, will have a market value in excess of $250,000,000. As such, the Redevelopment Agency will receive at least $1,200,000 annually from the completion of the project. Accordingly, we ask that you and your team work together with us to make this exciting project a reality as soon as possible, as every month of delay will cost the City of Petaluma approximately $100,000 in lost revenue. Set forth below are our responses to your comments. For your convenience we have utilized your numbering scheme. RN Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 Page 2 From the Plannine Division (Kim Gordon) (707) 778-4301 We have enclosed a Cost Based Fee System form with this letter. 2. A. EIQ Form. We have enclosed a EIQ form with this letter. BASINSTREET B. Traffic Study. We previously submitted a letter from John Dowden dated August 11, 2005, which showed that traffic volumes from the proposed project are well below the traffic thresholds established in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Central Petaluma Specific Plan ("CPSP") dated April 2003 ("FEIR"). As such, further review of traffic impacts generated by the project is not necessary, and is neither permitted under Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines nor consistent with the purpose of preparing a program environmental impact report for the CPSP area. C. Noise Studv. Please note that the CPSP recognized the existing noise conditions in the CPSP area and thus Policy 3.1 exempted private outdoor spaces such as decks, balconies and patios from the General Plan goal of 60 dBA Ldn. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 10-1 requires submission of a noise study "with the Building Plans during the Building Permit process" rather than during the approval process. Nonetheless, we have enclosed a noise study with this letter. D. Biolouical Evaluation. We have enclosed a Biological Assessment dated August 26, 2005 from WRA Environmental Consultants with this letter. The Salt Mouse Harvest Mouse is addressed in the assessment. E. Arborist Report. We are not proposing construction near or removal of any trees over 4" in diameter. F. Air Oualitv Assessment. As noted above, the proposed project falls within the traffic and other thresholds established by the FEIR. In addition, we intend to comply with mitigation measures 11-1 and 11-2 in the FEIR. As a result, further review of air quality impacts generated by the project is unnecessary, and is neither permitted under Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines nor consistent with the purpose of preparing a program environmental impact report for the CPSP area. G. Hazardous Materials Assessment. We have enclosed a Phase II Soil and Groundwater Investigation dated January 17, 2001. Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 BASINSTREtiT Page 3 H. Wetlands Delineation. The project name is "Riverfront". The delineation mistakenly utilized the name "Riverwalk". 3. Second HODuer Street Access. The project includes two access points. The first will be over a new at -grade crossing connecting Caulfield Lane with Hopper Street. Hopper Street will then be extended eastward into the project. The second access will be provided for emergency vehicles only "EVA Access"), and will connect Hopper to D Street. This EVA Access is shown on the submitted drawings and does not cross the railroad tracks. In addition, a third access point will be provided when the City of Petaluma allows for the construction of the Caulfield Extension through the corporation yard located immediately to the west of the project site. 4. SMART Code Zonine Mau Issues. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. As a point of clarification with respect to item "E", please note that the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District ("SMART") has eliminated the proposed transit stop at Caulfield from consideration. 5. SMART Code Urban Standards Table. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. 6. SMART Code Thorouehfare Standards. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. Live/Work Units. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff f, Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 BAStNST[tBLT Page report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. Parking Requirements. We have enclosed a parking plan per your request (sheet P-5 in architectural set). Please note that (i) all of the residential units (including live/work units) except ten have a minimum of one garage space per unit, for a total a total of 760 garage spaces, which exceeds the 424 spaces required by the Urban Standards Table (one space per residential unit, including live/work units), (ii) the ten residential units without covered parking have designated street parking as shown on the parking plan, (iii) there are 89 on -street parking spaces in and around the central green serving the dedicated retail space as well as the live -work commercial space (this latter space does not require additional parking under the CPSP, but we have nonetheless provided one additional space per live/work unit), and (iv) there are an additional 109 on -street parking spaces throughout the Riverfront project. 9. Land Use Chapter. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22nd SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. Again, please note that SMART has eliminated the proposed transit stop at Caulfield from consideration. 10. Circulation Chanter. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22"d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. Again, please note that SMART has eliminated the proposed transit stop at Caulfield from consideration. 11. Civil Plans (12 Sets, Y Scale). A. Easements. The private easements will be modified or eliminated as necessary. We propose to replace the construction easement for the existing force sewer main with a construction and permanent sewer easement within the extension of Hopper Street. We are in discussions with the Water Resources Department regarding this issue. aH Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 I3ASINSTRELT Page 5 B. Honner Street Section. Our resubmittal package includes a revised Sheet C-2 C. Surrounding Uses/Bicvcle Plan. Our resubmittal package includes a revised Sheet C-5 with this letter. D. Bike Paths. Our resubmittal package includes a revised Sheet C-5.1 with this letter. E: Bike Paths. Our resubmittal package includes a revised Sheet C-5.1 with this letter. 12. Landscape Plans (12 Sets. Y Scale). Our resubmittal package includes revised landscape plans addressing these issues. 13. Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plart. We have enclosed revised landscape plans addressing these issues. Our intent is to provide bicycle access to and from the river in a variety of locations throughout the project site, including roadways. Please note that we do not intend to install a separate path along the eastern edge of the project or to include a water access location at the river. From Public Facilities and Services (Craie Snauldine, City Engineer) (707) 778-4301 14. Railroad Crossing. As you know, the City's application for the relocation of the Hopper Sheet railroad crossing to the extension of Caulfield Lane is pending before the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"). We anticipate a favorable decision from the PUC in the near future, and are not opposed to having PUC approval included as a condition of project approval. We do not believe that resolution of a City application for the crossing relocation is an appropriate completeness item. This is especially true given that the extension of Caulfield Lane is under construction and the location of the new crossing is included in the CSPS and has been included in the City's General Plan for many years. We have been told by PUC staff that a draft decision approving the crossing application is due to be issued on or about October 19, 2005. 15. Existing Easements. See response I I(A) above. 16. Caulfield Lane Extension Plan Line Study. We do not understand your request. The study is simply that—it does not establish any design standards to which we can be consistent. We can tell you, however, that we have located the horizontal and vertical connection points at the river and at the Pomeroy property in cooperation with City staff. In any event, we do not believe this issue relates to completeness of the Riverfront submittal project. 17. Easement through City Treatment Plant. See response 3 above. R6 Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 BA S t N S T RE E T Page 6 18. Public vs. Private Streets. All streets are intended to be public, and all alleys are intended to be private. 19. Alley Sections. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22°d SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. 20. Vehicular Turnarounds at Dead End Alleys and Streets. We have submitted revised plans with this letter to address this concern. Please note that all dead end streets and alleys longer than 60' have been modified to include a turn around. Signage is proposed to be included indicating that the street or alley does not provide through access. 21. Ownershin of Riverfront Park. This land will be dedicated to the State of California as part of a settlement with the State Lands Commission. The State Lands Commission will in turn lease it to the City of Petaluma at no cost. We propose to provide perpetual funding for maintenance through a landscape assessment district or homeowner's association dues. 22. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Systems. These systems are intended to be private in alleys and public on all other roadways. 23. Surface Flow. We have enclosed a Storm Water Quality Plan which addresses this concern (two copies including calculations). As you will see, we have not increased the flow rates onto the neighboring parcels. Lastly, we intend for the City to maintain the storm drain system and for the Homeowners' Association to maintain the surface water treatment system. From the Fire Marshall's Office (Stuart Blakeslev) (707)778-4389 24. A. Relocation of Fire Hydrants. The enclosed plans include the requested relocations (see Civil Engineering Sheet C-7). B. Road Widths. The enclosed plans include the requested road widening. C. Access from Honner Street. See response 3 above. Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 BASINSTREET Page 7 25. Locator Points/Lot Numbers. We plan to submit this information with our application for a tentative map for the project. From Public Facilities and Services (Alan Tilton) 26. A. Caulfield Lane Extension Plan Line Study. We do not understand your request. The study is simply that—it does not establish any design standards to which we can be consistent. Nor has it been adopted or otherwise approved by the City Council. We can tell you, however, that we have located the horizontal and vertical connection points at the river and at the Pomeroy property in cooperation with City staff. In any event, we do not believe this issue relates to completeness of the Riverfront submittal project. B. Proiect Circulation System. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP, the General Plan and the Bicycle Plan. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code and such other governing regulations, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22°6 SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process. C. Intersection Studies. This analysis was provided in the EIR for the CPSP. In addition, see response 2(B) above. D. Pomeroy Site. We have no information regarding the potential development proposed by Pomeroy, if any, nor what the City Council might approve for this site. In any event, no rezoning could be approved for the Pomeroy site unless and until a full environmental analysis had been conducted and an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration had been adopted by the City Council. Please note, however, that we have established a grid street pattern on the project site that will allow—but not require—a continuation of the grid street pattern into the Pomeroy site. From Water Resources and Conservation (Imad Baivasi) (707) 778-4304 27. Size of Water Main. We understand that our engineers met with Mr. Baiyasi following the issuance of your letter. During the meeting, Mr. Baiyasi reviewed our calculations regarding water usage and is now comfortable with an 8" water main. R� Ms. Kim Gordon October 11, 2005 BASINSTREET Page 8 28. Desien Standards. Again, our engineers met with Mr. Baiyasi following receipt of your letter and we believe this issue has been resolved to Mr. Baiyasi's satisfaction. 29. Maintenance of Storm Water Measures. The vegetated swales and bio retention areas will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 30. ExistinH and Future Utilities. The requested information has been provided to Mr. Erickson and Mr. Ban for their review (see "easement exhibit"). The plan and cross section is also enclosed with this letter for your records. 31. Honer Street Status. The extension of Hopper from the railroad crossing is intended to be a public street, and Sheet C-1 has been revised accordingly. 32. Honer Street Design. Our resubmittal package includes a revised Sheet C-6 to address these concerns. 33. Water Demand. We are not aware of any City ordinance requiring a "zero net water demand". In any event, such an ordinance would not appear to be legal as it would require the cooperation of third parties that are outside of our control. Kim, we appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this project. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to discuss any issued addressed in this letter. Lastly, please note that we believe the revised submittals included with this letter make our application for the Riverfront project complete. If you believe otherwise, we respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with us as soon as possible rather than sending another request for additional information. Best regards, VINCENT C. SMITH, AICP VICE PRESIDENT BASIN STREET PROPERTIES PAA/jt CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOA 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 David Class Mayor November 10, 2005 Keilb Canevaro Mike Harris Mike Healy Karen Nao Vin Smith Hike O'Brien Pamela Torliall Basin Street Properties Cauncdmembers 201 First Street Suite 100 Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Community Development Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR) Department 71 English Street Petaluma, CR 94957 F. -Mart cdducr Petaluma ca us Dear Mr, Smith: Code Enforcement Your application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of Phone (707) 7784469 the Riverfront Project for the 393 acre site located at the terminus of Hopper Fax (707) 778-4498 E -Mail Street, APN 136-010-025, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, is incomplete. cadeenforcemant@ Please address the following items so that the City is able to continue to ct Petaluma in us processing your application, Engineering . Phone (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 At our meeting on November 7'h, you indicated that a more detailed response to cJ.S the SMART Code and Specific Plan inconsistency items included in the Phone (707) 778-4301 incompleteness letter dated September 8'h would be provided. Since this Fax (707) 778-4498 information has not yet been provided for review, we feel obligated to send this Housing Division incompleteness letter. Phone (707) 778-4555 Fax (707) 778-4586 E-n4a,l From the Plannine Division (Kim Gordon) (707) 778-4301 ebler@n.petaluma.co us Inspection Senkes 1. Please address the following items related to the Noise Study prepared Phone (707) 778-430/ Fax (707) 778-4498 by �' Illin worth and Rodkin: ro Schedule Inspection Phone (707) 778-4479 A. Provide a site plan that shows the location of the noise Permits measurements. Phone (707) 778-4301 Far (707) 778-4448 B. The noise study should assess whether or not the project and project Planning Phone (707) 77R-430Irelated construction would result in noise impacts on the residential Fax (707) 778.4498 developments in the area, including those located on the opposite side of the river (McNear Landing). The EIQ indicates that construction would last for 3 years. evuuxvusme vrrvnruxnr C. Relate the study to the CEQA — will the project result in any impacts related to noise as defined by CEQA? If so, provide recommended mitigation measures. D. The study states that some private and public outdoor areas would fall within the Conditionally Acceptable category. Is this a noise impact under CEQA? Can this be mitigated? If so, provide recommended mitigation measures. Identify these locations on the site plan. Page 7 E. The noise from the freeway should reflect the widening of Highway 101 adjacent to the project site. F. The study states that since the project site is not adjacent to an at -grade rail crossing, there would be no impacts related to train homs. Although there are no rail crossings adjacent to the project site, there would be an at grade crossing at Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street. The noise study should assess whether this will result in a noise impact. G. The study states that the plan would be generally compatible with the Noise Element of the General Plan. How is the proposed plan compatible? Are any noise impacts identified consistent with those analyzed as part of the CPSP EfR? Page 7 H. If the study identifies any potential noise impacts, provide recommended mitigation measures. I. Provide a recommendations and conclusions sections. 2. Please address the following items related to the Phase Il Soil and Groundwater Investigation: A. Provide a readable location map (Plate 1). B. Provide the appendices, plates and tables shown in the table of contents. C. Provide Plate 2 referenced in the table of contents. 3. Please revise the plans to reflect the widening of Highway 101 adjacent to the project site. 4. Revise the plans to include the required Class i paths on the project site along the east, west and south property lines. These paths are required as part of the Bike Plan and River Access and Enhancement Plan (Previous incompleteness items 13 A and B). 5. Please address the following items related to on -street parking and plan consistency: A. Sheet P3 shows on street parking on both sides of Hopper Street (GO' right of way). The street section on Sheet C-2 of the civil plans indicates that there is parking on one side of the street. �o B. Sheet P3 shows that there is parking on both sides of the street around the central green. The street section on Shee1C-2 of the civil plans indicates that there is parking on the building side of the street only. C. On Sheet P5, for each mixed use building identify the number of garage parking spaces and the gross commercial square footage. The required parking for each building is required to be provided on the site or along the project frontage. SMART Code Section 6.10.010 (hBI) D. On Sheet P5, parking is labeled as "open." This appears to be on street parking. Please clarify. E. Provide the total square footage of the live/work units. Since the entire square footage of the units could be converted to commercial use, the project needs to demonstrate that parking can be provided at the ratio of I parking space for every 300 gross square feet. F. It appears that the width of the on street parking spaces varies. Is the width as shown on the street section included in the civil plans? G. What is the length of the on street parking spaces? 6. Please provide an evaluation of the access to the garages. Depending on the width of the garage door, the turning maneuver required and the backup distance provided, access to the garages may be restricted. Please Note: Other projects have been required to increase the width of the garage door or increase the backup distance in order to provide access to the garage. 7. Provide the following information related to the Mixed Use Buildings: A. On the development plans, label the buildings MU 1, MU 2, etc. B. Provide the number of dwellings in each mixed use building C. Provide the gross commercial square footage in each mixed use building D. Provide the number of garage parking spaces in each mixed use building E. Provide floor plans and elevations for each mixed use building 8. Please address the following item related to the civil plans: A. The land use designations shown on Sheet C-5 are incorrect. The designations need to reflect the land use designations shown on the CPSP Land Use Map, Page 29, 9. Please address the following items as part of the architectural plans: A. Provide all 4 elevations for each plan type for the single-family dwellings. B. Identify the plan types used for the single-family street scene (Sheets SFA -5 and SFB-5). 31 C. Provide elevations of the community mail buildings referenced on Sheet L3.01. D. Provide floor plans and elevations for each mixed use building. E. Please clarifv if the townhomes are "Urban Townhomes A" and "Urban Townhomes B" or "Urban Townhomes" and "Row Townhomes." F. The urban townhome buildings appear to range from 3-9 units per building. Provide floor pians and elevations for each building (3 unit, 9 unit, 12 unit, etc.). G. On the development plan, identify the plan type for each unit (single-family) or building type (7 unit mixed use, 7 unit townhome, etc.). 10. Please address the following items related to the landscaping plans: A. Provide details of the trellises, fence and planters referenced on Sheet L3.01 (Previous incompleteness item 12C). B. Will the landscaping for the project include more plantings (shrubs, perennials, ground coverers, etc.) than what is shown on the landscaping plans? If so, please provide detailed landscaping plans for formal SPARC review of the project. 11. Provide the net square footage of each block or other similar information so that the density can be estimated. Please be aware that the SMART Code definition of density is based on the net square footage. Please number the blocks or provide some type of reference for each block. 12. The additional traffic information submitted on November 2, 2005 is currently being reviewed by staff. Comments will be sent once staff has completed their review. 13. The resubmittal on October 11, 2005 did not address the comments from Parks and Recreation. Since addressing the comments from Parks and Recreation could result in modifications to the project, the comments from Parks and Recreation should be addressed as part of the next submittal. 14. The following items were included in the incompleteness letter dated September 8, 2005 and have not yet been addressed: A. Provide an evaluation of the Air Quality for the site as requested in the previous incompleteness letter dated September 8'2005. The final report (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: Community Health Perspective) from the California Air Resources Board was previously provided. Item 2F B. The single access from Hopper. There has been an indication that there may be a "secondary" and/or EVA for the project. Please include this on the plans. Provide an expanded site plan and sections as necessary. Item 3 C. Items 4A- 4F related to the SMART Code Zoning Map 3� D. Items 5A -5G related consistency with the SMART Code Urban Standards Table E. Items 6A -6G related to consistency with the SMART Code Thoroughfare Standards F. Items 7A & 7B related consistency with the requirements for live/work units G. Items 13A -E related to consistency with the River Access and Enhancement Plan From Public Facilities and Services (Craig Soaulding. Citv Engineer) (707) 778-4303 15. Obtain final approval for the railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane, 16. Obtain the necessary easements on the City treatment plans property for the proposed intersection and road. 17. Show the alley sections with at least a 20 -foot wide paved section for vehicular travel and at least a 26 -foot backup distance. 18. Provide additional tum around movements in locations where the maneuvers interfere with parking and planter areas. From the Fire Marshal's Office (Stuart Blakeslev) (707) 778-4389 19. The intersection at Caulfield/Hopper will require a new design. The reduced vehicle access on Hopper is of concern since this is the only access to the development. 20. The proposed fire lanes shown on the attached sheet C7 are not wide enough. Redesign these lanes. 21. Final approval of the development is unlikely to be approved without an appropriate and adequate secondary access. Currently, there is not secondary access. From Water Resources and Conservation (Imad Baivasi) (707) 778-4304 22. The City currently holds a 30 -foot wide sewer construction and maintenance easement, and an adjacent 30 -foot wide sewer construction easement across the northerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by both easements. The development proposal shows numerous improvements encroaching into both easements. 23. The City currently holds a sanitary sewer outfall casement to the Petaluma River across the westerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by this easement. 24. The development plans propose re -alignment and widening of Hopper Street over the top of the existing sanitary sewer vault at the treatment headworks. The applicant must provide thorough evaluation of this facility by a structural engineer to confirm its ability to safely carry traffic loads, or identify all necessary modifications or improvements for carrying such loads. All required modifications and improvements are the responsibility of the developer. 25. The designer needs to make sure that the sewage vault manhole cover is not straddling the proposed roadside curb. Provide revised drawings. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (707) 778-4301 or kt,,ordon(Oci.netaIuma.ca.Lis or you may contact the reviewing department directly. Sincerely, Kim Gordon Associate Planner c: File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR S:plandepLAciterslnverfronl.spcinc'2 3� December 7, 2005 Ms. Kim Gordon City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 BASINSTREET DEC 0 7 2005 PLANNING DIVISION Re: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC - 0488 -CR) Dear Kim: Thank you for your letter of November 10, 2005. Set forth below are our responses to your comments. For your convenience we have utilized your numbering scheme. From the Plannine Division (Kim Gordon) (707) 778-4301 Noise Studv. A -I. Please note that the CPSP recognized the existing noise conditions in the CPSP area and thus Policy 3.1 exempted private outdoor spaces such as decks, balconies and patios from the General Plan goal of 60 dBA Ldn. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 10-1 requires submission of a noise study "with the Building Plans during the Building Permit process" rather than during the approval process. Nonetheless, we previously enclosed a noise study and we will update or modify as necessary through the building permit process. 2. Phase II Soil and Groundwater A. The location map is included with this letter. B. The appendices, plates and tables shown in the table of contents were provided to you on Thursday, November 10, 2005 C. Plate 2 is included with this letter. Ms. Kim Gordon December 6, 2005 Page 2 M BASINSTREET 3. We currently have no details on the construction of the new south -bound on-ramp for State Highway 101. Therefore we are unable to show the improvements on our plans. If possible, we will provide an updated aerial or some other plan showing the progress of this improvement prior to or as part of the formal SPARC hearing. In any event, the air quality study enclosed with this letter shows compliance with applicable air quality standards. 4. As stated above, attached to this letter is a "Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis" document that discusses the improvements provided along Hopper Street (north side of the site) and the Riverfront Park (south side of the site). With regard to your request for trails along the east and west side of the site, it should be noted that: i) the western trail referred to in the River Access and Enhancement Plan was a "Temporary Long Tenn Trail" which was never established and is now replaced with full Class II and III bicycle access on all streets within Riverfront; and, ii) the eastern trail is shown within the Cal Trans property to the east of Riverfront. As a reminder, past communications from Cal Trans to the City of Petaluma note that the area suggested for a trail in the River Access and Enhancement Plan is reserved by Cal Trans for potential future habitat improvements. We believe the River Access and Enhancement Plan has been superceded by the specific street standards provided in the SmartCode. We have provided bike/pedestrian access along Hopper Street (consistent with the requirements of the CPSP and SmartCode) terminating at the eastern property line. We have also provided bike/pedestrian access within the Riverfront Park in a manner that can be further continued onto the Cal Trans property to the east and the Pomeroy property to the west. 5. A. Sheet P3 has been modified to be consistent with Sheet C-2. We will submit these sheets following the 12/8/05 SPARC meeting. B. The street section on Sheet C-2 has been modified to show parking on both sides of the loop street around the Central Green. C. The architectural plans attached to this resubmittal show the garages numbered to the residential units. With regard to parking for the commercial space, the parking around the loop street is provided for the commercial spaces on the plan; however, in practice, all street spaces (except for the 10 spaces reserved for 10 units within the Mixed Use (1) buildings) are "open" and available with no other reservations. D. The Parking Plan lists categories and provides a graphic key for location purposes; however, as stated above, except for the 10 reserved spaces, all on - street spaces are intended to be "open" and unrestricted. The reference to "open" spaces is simply to quantify the on street parking that is not suggested for the commercial spaces or the Riverfront Park for instance. cJ� Ms. Kim Gordon December 6, 2005 Page 3 M BASINSTREET E. The previously designated "Live/Work Units" have been changed in name only to Mixed Use (2). Architecturally and functionally these units remain the same (see discussion in attached Consistency Document). F. It is true the width of the on -street parking spaces varies but this is a function of following the SmartCode standards. The width of the on -street parking spaces for each of the street sections is consistent with the SmartCode standards. G. The length of the on -street parking spaces is currently shown at 24 feet; however, we are currently changing this to 22 feet per City Code. 6. We are currently preparing a separate graphic showing the worst case garage access scenarios within Riverfront. We will be submitting this plan following the 12/8/05 SPARC meeting. A - D. The development plans are currently being revised to reflect your requested additional information. We will be resubmitting these plans following the 12/8/05 SPARC meeting. E. At the December 8, 2005 hearing we will be requesting of SPARC the ability to provide plans and details for each application of an architectural style on each building type. For instance, if there are two architectural styles proposed for the Mixed Use (1) buildings, we will provide two sets of floor plans (if necessary) and two sets of elevations showing each of the architectural styles. Furthermore, if there are 3 styles suggested for the Row Townhomes, 3 sets of elevations will be provided. We believe Staff can review any future Building Permit plans showing the architecture applied to a similar building. A. Sheet C-5 has been corrected and now shows the accurate Land Use designation for Riverfront. 9. A. We are currently preparing side and rear elevations for all single family plan types. We will be submitting these as part of the formal SPARC hearing packet. B. The homes on the Street Scene Plan are now properly identified. C. The community mail buildings have been removed from the plan. D. Please see the discussion under 7.E. above. E. The Urban Townhomes and the Row Townhomes are now the only two terms used for description purposes. F. Please see discussion under 7.E. above. G. We have now identified each building on the development plan. 10. A — B. Conceptual Landscape Plans have been submitted. More details will be added prior to the formal SPARC hearing. 3� Ms. Kim Gordon December 6, 2005 BAS I N S T RE E T Page 4 11. The previously provided Net Acreage calculation is 9.75 acres. Based on this total project net acreage, the project density is approximately 44 units per acre. 12. We anxiously await comments on the traffic information submitted on November 2, 2005. Please note that the information was submitted over 30 days ago and the City has provided no response or comments. 13. Mr. Carr raises three issues in his communication: i) placing roads around the Central Green is a concern of his; ii) the smaller parks on the west side of the project may be too small; and, iii) there is a desire to have public access provided to the River. The design team has been very aware that the CPSP SmartCode Plan suggests a civic space at the center of the Riverfront site. The Central Green is such a civic space and furthermore, the Central Green emulates other Petaluma Parks such as Walnut Park, Wickersham Park, and Eagle Park where streets define the park's edges. With regard to the smaller parks, these were provided at the suggestion of SPARC and are designed to allow for alternative open space areas within the plan as well as address other recreation needs than will be provided in the Central Green. Finally, with regard to access to the River, it is our intention to pursue access with the City's assistance. We have decided to make this a separate pursuit given the permitting and agency coordination needed. 14. The following items were included in the incompleteness letter dated September 8, 2005 and have not yet been addressed: A. An Air Quality Analysis is attached. B. Graphics have been provided, and are attached, showing the EVA access to "D" Street extending from Hopper Street. C — G. The Attached Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis is provided by way of response to the issues related to SmartCode and CPSP consistency. From Public Facilities and Services (Craie Soauldine. Citv Eneineer) (707) 778-4303 15. Railroad Crossing. As you know, the City's application for the relocation of the Hopper Street railroad crossing to the extension of Caulfield Lane is pending before the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC"). We anticipate a favorable decision from the PUC in the near future, and are not opposed to having PUC approval included as a condition of project approval. We do not believe that resolution of a City application for the crossing relocation is an appropriate completeness item. This is especially true given that the extension of Caulfield Lane is under construction and the location of the new crossing is included in the CSPS and has been included in the City's General Plan for many years. We understand that a PUC Hearing will be taking place in December of this year. ■ Ms. Kim Gordon December 6, 2005 Page 5 nO BASINSTREET 16. Easements. We have coordinated our design with the field personnel at the Water/Sewer Treatment Plant and have received verbal agreement that use of a small amount of the land is acceptable for the Hopper/Caulfield intersection improvements. We do not believe that obtaining the necessary easements is an appropriate completeness item. 17. Allev Sections. We believe the Riverfront project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistency with the SMART code, we have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. We do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfront submittal package. Indeed, the SPARC members agreed with Ms. Borba at the September 22nd SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearing process, We have provided further discussion of this design issue in the attached Consistency Analysis Document {see Alley}. 18. Tuminu Movements. Please see Number 6 above for response. From the Fire Marshal's Office (Stuart Blakeslev) (707)778-4389 19 — 21. The Caulfield/Hopper intersection, Fire Lane and Alley width, and secondary access provided from the extension of Hopper to "D" Street have all been discussed with Fire Marshal Michael Ginn. We believe these concerns have been addressed by the current design and no modifications are necessary. From Water Resources and Conservation (Imad Baivasi) (707)778-4304 22 & 23. We propose to replace the construction easement for the existing force sewer main with a construction and permanent sewer easement within the extension of Hopper Street. 24 & 25. We are currently examining the location of the sanitary sewer vault and the sewage vault manhole to ensure the proposed design satisfies City requirements. We agree to a condition of project approval to that affect. Kim, we appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this project. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to discuss any issues addressed in this letter. 37 Ms. Kim Gordon December 6, 2005 Page 6 ro BASINSTREET Lastly, please note that we believe the revised submittals included with this letter make our application for the Riverfront project complete. If you believe otherwise, we respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with us as soon as possible rather than sending another request for additional information. Best regards, VINCENT C. SMITH, AICP VICE PRESIDENT BASIN STREET PROPERTIES Enc: Riverfront CPSP Consistency Document Plates 1 and 2 of the Phase H Environmental Assessment Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin dated 11/21/05 Railroad Freight Yard Plan prepared by BKF dated 12/27/01 Architectural Plans (12/8/05 packet) L0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Alleys Block Perimeter ..................................................... Building Frontage Percentage Building Height Building Placement Building Setback Caulfield Lane ....................................................... Civic Spaces Conceptual Boundary (see Zoning Designation) FrontageType ....................................................... Goals & Policies .................................................... Grid Street Pattern Hopper Street ............................... Lot Area ....................................... Lot Coverage Mixed -Use Units ....................................... Mixed -Use Zoning (see Zoning) Parking, ............................................................................ Parking Location Parking Requirements Paseos/Pedestrian "Green Streets" (see Block Perimeter) Shopfront and Awning (see Frontage Type) Side Yard (see Building Placement) Stoop (see Frontage Type) Transit Stop Zoning.............................................................................. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis RECEIVED DEC 0 7 2005 PLANNING DIVISION .................2 3 ................. 10 11 14 15 17 18 19 Page / Alleys All alleys within the Riverfront project are 30 feet from building face to building face, consistent with the alley standard set forth in Section 5 of the Thoroughfare Standards of the SmartCode. We have, however, reduced the travel lane from the 20 feet set forth in the standards to 16 feet. This change was made to provide an additional two feet of landscape area (for a total of seven feet) between driveway aprons. We believe this represents an improvement to the project, but we will defer to SPARC should SPARC wish to limit the landscape areas to five feet as contemplated in the standards. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page qa- Block Perimeter The SmartCode defines Block Perimeter as "the lineal feet along the frontage line around the perimeter of the Block". The Frontage Line is defined as "the lot line or back of sidewalk easement line that abuts a public open space or a thoroughfare that is not an alley". Furthermore, public open space is defined as "available for unstructured recreation or located along a path leading to a terminus". The SmartCode limits blocks within the T-5 and T-6 districts to a maximum of 1,700 linear feet. Exhibit A-1 shows that all blocks within Riverfront are well under 1,700 linear feet maximum and in fact the largest block perimeter is 1,650 feet. It should be noted that some blocks are defined by a pedestrian "green -street" located either between the units or as the front door access to a series of units. Utilization of green -streets to define the limits of a block is supported by the fact that the pedestrian green -streets can be defined as "public open space". Specifically, green -streets are publicly accessible, will remain unrestricted, will have pockets of open landscaping and are defined by a sidewalk. River&ont CPSP Consistency Analysis Page q3 3 A SUMMARY Hopper Street- E Extension �iI E• z. Caufie�a Lane , jt t Extension s r�— 5' yi I . -- F jrY'• FF* C ,t, 7AC t I{ .ter T,r I trN Gr,� 7T® ®rV Q Ptnk�Cenb pp Mixeboa © Liuc/Wori @o Urban Torte, Q Row Tam -1 QF single Fan @Neig%tar{ji OO Rivu+wlt Linea f t. of Frontage 720 480 1185 550 870 550 1150 540 865 830 540 790 750 680 950 1650 800 700 570 830 710 Boo 730 860 P,,,d ey LEGEN Delco BLOCK PLAN DEPv Builders a Developers, Inc. 7T® ®rV Q Ptnk�Cenb pp Mixeboa © Liuc/Wori @o Urban Torte, Q Row Tam -1 QF single Fan @Neig%tar{ji OO Rivu+wlt Linea f t. of Frontage 720 480 1185 550 870 550 1150 540 865 830 540 790 750 680 950 1650 800 700 570 830 710 Boo 730 860 P,,,d ey Sncet nue sneer A-1 BLOCK PLAN DEPv — - PTs P e.ex o.cn ,�r a..,..•m o+ X o.o esr SisR q,nairn 9 Propcl Address: Pretecl game. Rmff,..f �_••,_ r rmm�s Sncet nue sneer A-1 BLOCK PLAN DEPv — - PTs P Building Fronta;ze Percentage This term is not defined in the SmartCode, but presumably is intended to measure the percentage of lineal frontage of a parcel that is covered by a building fagade. Based on this definition, the Mixed Use (1) buildings, Mixed Use (2) buildings and townhomes in the Riverfront project are all at or near 100% (well in excess of the 75% to 90% required for T-5 and T-6 zoning, respectively). The single-family homes typically occupy 75% of the frontage, consistent with the standard for principal frontages in the T-5 zoning district and well in excess of the 50% required for secondary frontages in the T-5. Attached are the Architectural Plans sheets Al through A7. The Building Frontage Percentage has been provided on sheets A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7. Provided below is a summary of Building Frontage Percentages by building typology. Building Zoning % Bldg % Bldg % Bldg % Unit Type District Frontage Frontage Frontage , Frontage - Required Provided' Average Mixed Use T-6 90% 97% 97% 97% Buildings (1) Mixed Use T-5 75% 97% 97% 100% Buildings (2) Tandem T-5 75% 97% 97% 100% Townhomes Row T-5 75% 95% 95% 100% Townhomes Urban T-5 35% 65% 74% 65-80+% Homes l This number represents the smallest percentage within the development. Z Unit frontage is the calculation for each individual unit comprising an entire building. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page IJ Building Height The commercial buildings (located on the north half of the town green) are three story buildings, which is permitted in both T-5 and T-6 zoning. The rest of the buildings in the project are either two stories with a loft, or three stories, both of which are permitted in T-5 zoning. Thus, the project is consistent with the CPSP building height requirements. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page r Buildin>? Placement Building placement is described in Section 4.30 of the SmartCode and the permitted standards are included in the Urban Standards Table in Section 4.10. The following table shows that all building types in Riverfront are consistent with the permitted Building Placement standards for the T-5 and T-6 Districts. Building Type Zoning Building Permitted/Prohibited Consistent District Placement Mixed Use T-6 Rear Yard Permitted Consistent Buildings Mixed Use T-5 Rear Yard Permitted Consistent (incubator space) Tandem T-5 Rear Yard Permitted Consistent Townhomes Row T-5 Rear Yard Permitted Consistent Townhomes Urban Homes T-5 Side Yard* Permitted Consistent * The Urban Homes have been designed and located consistent with the "sideyard" definition such that "a party wall defines the edge of the yard and the front setback is minimized" for stoop access (see SmartCode Section 4.30). Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 41 Buildinl? Setback The standards for building setback are listed in the Urban Standards Table in Section 4.10. The following table shows that the building setbacks for each building type are consistent with the SmartCode standards. Building Zoning Required Front Required Side Required Alley Type District Front Setback Side Setback Alley Provided Setback Provided Setback Provided Mixed Use T-6 0-5 ft O ft 0-10 ft O ft 15 ft 15 ft Buildings (1) Mixed Use T-5 0-10 ft O ft 0-10 ft 2-5 ft 15 ft 15 ft Buildings (2) Tandem T-5 0-10 ft O ft 0-10 ft 0-5 ft 15 ft 15 ft Townhomes Row T-5 0-10 ft 5 ft 0-10 ft 2-5 ft 15 ft 15 ft Townhomes Urban T-5 0-10 ft 2-5 fit 0-10 ft 4-8.5ft 15 ft 15 ft Homes Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page qu Caulfield Lane Caulfield Lane extends into the site from west at the common property line with the Pomeroy property and the southern property line of the Petaluma Corporation Yard. Caulfield is then split into a one-way loop around the Riverfront Central Green. The combined right-of-way for Caulfield (both sides of the loop) is 112 feet. The section of the loop street is as follows: one 12 -foot travel lane, 6 foot bike lane, 8 foot parking parallel parking lanes on the inside and outside of the loop road and 12 foot sidewalks. This combined right-of-way is in excess of the 72 -foot section shown within the SmartCode. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page �q Civic Spaces All civic spaces listed in the Urban Standards Table (SmartCode Section 4.10) are permitted within Riverfront. Of the permitted civic spaces, Riverfront includes the following: Nature Park: The improvements installed along the Riverfront Park are consistent with the SmartCode definition of Nature Park as well as consistent with the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan. Riverfront Park will be available for unstructured recreation containing paths, trails and meadows following the Petaluma River. In addition, restorative improvements consistent with the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan and the State Lands Commission will be installed within the Nature Park. Square: The Central Green will be available for civic purposes and defined by the Mixed Use buildings. This new civic park is centrally located at the intersection of the main thoroughfares through the site. The Central Green is approximately 1.5 acres. Playground: There are three playgrounds in Riverfront. Each of the three is less than one acre and will have climbing/play equipment for the recreation of children. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 5� Frontave TVDe There are several frontage types permitted within Riverfront. The frontage types proposed for each of the building types are described below. Each type proposed within Riverfront is a permitted frontage type for the building and the zoning district. Mixed Use (1) Buildings: These buildings have been designed utilizing the Shopfront and Awning frontage type. The building fagade is aligned close to the frontage line (within 5 feet) and the building entrance will be at grade with the sidewalk (see Architectural Sheets A2 through A2.1). Mixed Use (2) Buildings: These buildings have been designed utilizing the Shopfrom and Awning frontage type. The building fagade is aligned close to the frontage line (within 5 feet) and the building entrance will be at grade with the sidewalk. The potential workspace within these building will have separate access from the residential unit (see Architectural Sheets A3 through A3.1). Tandem Townhomes: These buildings have been designed utilizing the Stoop frontage type. Pursuant to the definition provided in Section 4.4 of the SmartCode, the building will be aligned close to the frontage line (within 5 feet) with the first floor elevated above the public space (sidewalk, pedestrian corridor, civic space). Exterior stairs and small landings will serve this building type (see Architectural Sheets A4 through A4.1). Row Townhomes: These buildings have been designed utilizing the Stoop frontage type. Pursuant to the definition provided in Section 4.4 of the SmartCode, the building will be aligned close to the frontage line (within a maximum of 5 feet) with the first floor elevated above the public space (sidewalk, pedestrian corridor, civic space). Exterior stairs and small landings will serve this building type (see Architectural Sheets A5 through A5.1). Urban Homes: These buildings have been designed utilizing the Stoop frontage type. Pursuant to the definition provided in Section 4.4 of the SmartCode, the building will be aligned close to the frontage line (within 10 feet) with the first floor elevated above the public space (sidewalk, pedestrian corridor, civic space). Exterior stairs and small landings will serve this building type (see Architectural Sheets A6 and A7). Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page '51 Goals & Policies Riverfront proposes ground floor commercial space around the entire Riverfront Central Green (approximately 44,840 total square feet). This commercial space is divided into two categories, Mixed Use (2) buildings at the south end of the green and traditional Mixed Use (1) buildings at the north end of the green. Given that there is nearly 45,000 square feet of new commercial space proposed for the site organized around a new central green, we believe the amount, or ratio, of commercial space to residential use is an appropriate balance. In response to specific Goals, Objectives and Policies listed in a Staff communication, the following provides analysis of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies. Goal 2: Provide for a mix of uses. We believe that providing nearly 45,000 square feet of commercial space surrounding an approximately 1.5 acre central green is an appropriate amount of commercial space. We do not believe that comparing the area designated as T-5 versus T-6 is an accurate assessment of whether this project has the appropriate mix of uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted commercial uses on ground floor space within the T-5 and T-6 districts are nearly identical; however, the T-5 district does not limit the ground floor space to only commercial like the T-6 district does. By designating the southern half of the central green as T-5, we provide flexibility for the ground floor space to be used either solely as a commercial space or in connection with the residential space. Goal 3: Encourage intensification appropriate to the area's central location. Riverfront is a 39.38 acre development site. Of that acreage, 9.75 acres are utilized for the proposed buildings, 11.23 acres are roads and alleys, and 18.40 acres are dedicated for open space and parks. In addition to the nearly 45,000 square feet of possible commercial space, the net density for Riverfront, as defined by the CPSP, is nearly 44 units per acre. Given the circumstance of the site discussed in the Transit Stop sections and sections below, we believe that the amount of potential commercial space and the density for Riverfront is appropriate for this site. Goal 5: Orient activities to the Petaluma River Riverfront focuses its attention and architecture to the Petaluma River. The buildings face the River, pedestrian paths lead from the north end to the south end to get pedestrians to the River, and the main roadways provide vehicular, bike and pedestrian access to as well as long range views to the river. In addition, a 120+ foot wide open space area with walking trails and meadows will be provided along the River's top of bank. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 5a Objective 5: Expand the Lower Reach area as a center of employment, mixed use and region serving commercial activity consistent with maintaining river -dependent industrial uses. Although this appears as a policy in the CPSP, it is important to note SMART has removed this transit stop from their plans for which they are currently preparing an EIR/EIS. The basis for this policy lies in the original "Planning Concepts" developed at the outset of the CPSP and included as Chapter 1 of the CPSP. Specifically, the third concept is to "Encourage Diversity in Transportation Modes" which includes discussion about planning for "a second passenger rail transit stop in the southern portion of the planning are near Caulfield Lane" (p 9 CPSP). The language goes on to say that "both of these stations are planned as focal points within larger mixed-use districts surrounding the stations that would integrate the transportation terminals into the life of the city". It is important to note that without the transit stop, the "focal point' is absent, making the Riverfront site an unlikely candidate for an "employment center". Also, See the discussion on "Transit Stop" Policy 5.2: Locate a transit station in the vicinity of the CaulSeld Lane extension See "Transit Stop" Policy 5.3: Allow for an intense Mixed Use development on land not utilized for industrial purposes Please see discussion under Goal 3 above. River&ont CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 53 Grid Street Pattern The Riverfront circulation system is substantially similar to the circulation system suggested in the SmartCode. Riverfront extends Hopper Street into the site, consistent with the only "Required Street' shown on the Thoroughfare Standards Key Map (SmartCode Section 5.10). In addition, Riverfront locates a civic space at its center, which is defined and surrounded by a grid of intersecting streets. In specialized areas the Riverfront road network includes a curving street to respond to the unique shape of the property, its relationship to the River and to maximize density. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page S1 Hopper Street As stated above, Riverfrom extends Hopper Street into the site consistent with the Thoroughfare Standards Key Map. In addition, where Riverfront controls/owns the land to accommodate, Hopper Street is designed with a section consistent with the "Two -Way Edge Drive with Railroad Tracks on One Side" standards contained in Section 5of the SmartCode. Specifically, two I0 -foot travel lands, two 8 -foot parking lanes, a 12 foot wide pedestrian zone with street trees on the project side of the street and a 12 foot dedication of land that can accommodate future sidewalk improvements on the Railroad side of the street. It should be noted that the 8 -foot wide parking lane on the Railroad side of the street has been shown as a 6 -foot bike lane plus 2 -foot shoulder. We believe this side of the street is better served for bike access than parking; however, should SPARC determine that parking along this frontage would be more appropriate, the necessary space has been provided to accommodate this alternative. Within the section of Hopper Street where Riverfront does not control/own land to accommodate the full width of improvements called for in the SmartCode, Riverfront provides two 10 -foot travel lanes, one 6 -foot bike lane with 2 -foot shoulder on the Railroad side of the street and a 5 -foot sidewalk on the City Corporation side of the street. We believe this street section provides the vehicular capacity needed for Riverfrom as well as properly locates a sidewalk where pedestrians are directed to a controlled intersection. Should the City of Petaluma decide to provide additional land to widen this street section, Riverfront will install the improvements within the land provided up to the street section shown in the SmartCode. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page S5 Lot Area The CPSP SmartCode requires a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet within the T-5 and T-6 Zoning Districts. The CPSP and the SmartCode also encourage higher density development at densities up to 60 units per acre in these two districts. As the table below shows, the Mixed Use (1) and Urban Homes are consistent with the Lot Area standards; however, the higher density Urban and Row Townhomes, and the Mixed Use (2) units do not conform when evaluated on a per-unit basis (the Urban and Row Townhomes as well as the Mixed Use (2) units are for -sale units). If Lot Area is calculated by buildings (i.e. the number of units in a given building for each of the building typologies) the buildings as a whole conform to the Lot Area standard. It should be noted that the Mixed Use (2) units are at a density of 24 units per acre, the Urban Townhomes are at a density of 34 units per acre, and the Row Townhomes are at a density of 31 units per acre. Building Type Zoning Minimum Lot Area Lot Area Density District Lot Area by Unit by Units Per Building Acrel Mixed Use Buildings (1) T-6 2,000 sf 16,988 sf 16,988 sf 48 Mixed Use Buildings (2) T-5 2,000 sf 1,742 sf 14,378 sf 24 Urban Townhomes T-5 2,000 sf 1,307 sf 11,325 sf 34 Row Townhomes T-5 2,000 sf 1,307 sf 8.276 sf 31 Urban Homes T-5 2,000 sf 2,352 sf n/a 14-16 I'Mis is the lowest density found in the project for the representative building typology. Other buildings in this typology have higher densities. Given that Riverfront is a high density project (44 units per acre) and the building types are all permitted by the SmartCode, and in some cases the proposed Riverfront building types are the same as those used to describe development standards, there appears to be a conflict with the CPSP and the SmartCode. For example, SmartCode Section 4.30 provides that a Rear Yard building placement "in its residential form is the rowhouse". It does not appear that limiting the lot area is consistent with the CPSP's desire to achieve higher densities within the urban core of the City. We believe an appropriate interpretation of this code requirement is to calculate the area of a building rather than individual units in the case of multifamily/attached for -sale housing. River&ont CPSP Consistency Analysis Page C 2 Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 1 5 1 Lot Coveraize The following table lists the maximum Iot coverage for each of the building types. As proposed. River&ont is consistent with the Lot Coverage standards of the SmartCode. Zoning I Maximum ( Lot Coverage Building Type Permitted Lot District Maximum 1 Coverage Mixed Use Buildings (1) T-6 100% 77% Mixed Use Buildings (2) T 5 80% 76% Urban Townhomes T-5 80% 65% ( Row Townhomes T-5 80% 58% Urban Homes T-5 1 80% 35-45% i Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 1 5 1 Mixed Use (2) Units Previously Live -Work Units As defined by the SmartCode (Section 4.70.020) true Live/Work Units are intended to be "occupied by business operators who five in the same structure that contains the commercial activity or industry". Although we originally labeled these units as "Live/Work", we have selected to rename them Mixed Use (2) due to the severe restrictions on Live/Work Units (see Section 4.70.020). Specifically, the regulations limit: (i) the permitted size of the residential units (not to exceed 49% of the commercial space); (ii) the use of the ground floor space for commercial purposes only; and, (iii) the minimum size of the ground floor space can be no smaller than 2,000 square feet (Lot Size requirement). We have made no changes to the overall unit design from earlier versions reviewed by SPARC; however, these tight regulations and our desire to achieve a for -sale unit with a generous ground floor commercial space and a quality and livable residential unit are at cross-purposes. These units will retain the T-5 zoning classification and are designed with architectural elements found in commercial mixed use buildings (i.e. shopfront/awning frontages, higher ceilings, etc). In addition, the ground floor potential commercial space has separate at -grade front door access and the second and third floor residential space has separate access both from the front of the unit as well as the rear of the unit where a one car garage is provided. Due to concerns expressed by staff that the second and third floor of these units could be converted to commercial use, we agree to limit the use of the two upper floors of each of the 26 units to residential use only. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page ' 5g Parking Parkin£ Location Parkine Reouirements The SmartCode standards require a total of 424 parking spaces for the 424 housing units (1 space per unit) and 150 parking spaces for the approximately 45,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space (I space/300 square feet). Riverfront has provided a total of 1,292 spaces. The parking plan for Riverfront (Exhibit P-5) provides a summary of the parking spaces provided for each building type and, designates parking spaces on the site plan. The Row and Urban Townhomes, and each of the Urban Homes have two -car garages in either traditional side-by-side configuration or in tandem configuration. The Mixed Use (2) Units each have and one car garage and, with the exception of 10 units, the Mixed Use (1) units each have a one -car garage. For the ten units that do not have a one -car garage, there are ten on -street "Designated Residential Spaces" conveniently located for these units. These spaces will be signed and remain reserved for the residential units. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page ' '59 Transit Stop The CPSP established a policy of locating a transit stop in the vicinity of the Caulfield Lane extension. See Policy 5.2 of the Land Use section of the CPSP. Such policy was based upon a study commissioned by the Sonoma -Marin Transportation Authority. This study was commissioned prior to the legislature's creation the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District ("SMART"). That agency was formed with the purpose of establishing passenger rail service along the 101 corridor. Initially, SMART considered a second transit stop in the vicinity of the Caulfield Lane extension. However, after further consideration and study SMART elected to proceed with a single transit stop to be located in the vicinity of the existing Depot buildings. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page 1� Zoning Designation The CPSP established the City of Petaluma corporation yard and the Riverfront project site as falling within a "Conceptual Area Boundary". See Section 2.10 of the CPSP. Such area "is conceptual and only for the purposes of determining recommended zoning designations and street layouts." In contrast, all other areas within the CPSP boundary have fixed zoning designations. As such, the CPSP intentionally provided SPARC with the flexibility to select different zoning designations and street layouts as it deems appropriate, following full public review and comment.' Whether SPARC chooses to make use of that inherent flexibility is yet to be determined, but it should be noted that the recommended zoning designations, street layouts, and retail areas (these latter areas being located on the Caulfield Extension between Lakeville and the southern boundary of the City corporation yard) in the Conceptual Area Boundary, as well as the recommendation that an "employment center" be included in the Riverfront project, were clearly based on an assumption that SMART would install a secondary transit stop at Caulfield and Lakeville. SMART, however, eliminated such proposed transit from consideration following the adoption of the CPSP. ' This flexibility would logically extend to SPARC establishing a modified zoning designation for the project where appropriate to improve the project. For example, SPARC could establish the majority of the project site as T-5 but eliminate the typical requirement that a live/work unit have less than 50% of its total space devoted to residential use should SPARC determine that more living space is desirable under the circumstances. Riverfront CPSP Consistency Analysis Page no BASINSTREET January 18, 2006 Ms. Kim Gordon City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025 (File 405 -SPC - 0488 -CR) Dear Kim: This letter is intended to supplement my December 7, 2005 letter responding to your letter of November 10, 2005. We recognize that you may have spend considerable time reviewing the December 7°i letter, so changes and/or additions reflected in this letter are shown in Italics and Bald. Where there are no changes from the December 7"' letter, the responses are shown in Italics only. For your convenience I have provided the language in your letter followed by responses. From the Plarmine Division (Kim Jordan) (707) 778-4301 Your application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of the Riverfront Project for the 39.1 acre site located at the terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, is incomplete. Please address the following items so that the City is able to continue to process your application. At our meeting on November 7"', you indicated that a more detailed response to the SMART Code and Specific Plan inconsistency items included in the incompleteness letter dated September 8 would be provided. Since this information has not yet been provided for review, we feel obligated to send this incompleteness letter. Please address the following items related to the Noise Study prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin: A. Provide a site plan that shows the location of the noise measurements. B. The noise study should assess whether or not the project and prcjepT1r@E#FD construction would result in noise impacts on the residential developments inthe JAN 1 8 2006 01 lGl': 'ii'lirli ��e�Iirin1;uii DTIT'i,P,. !lC'C`�� Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 Page 2 BASINSTREET area, including those located on the opposite side of the river (McNear Landing). The EIQ indicates that construction would last for 3 years. C. Relate the study to the CEQA — will the project result in any impacts related to noise as defined by CEQA? If so, provide recommended mitigation measures. D. The study states that some private and public outdoor areas would fall within the Conditionally Acceptable category. Is this a noise impact under CEQA? Can this be mitigated? If so, provide recommended mitigation measures. Identify these locations on the site plan. Page 7 E. The noise from the freeway should reflect the widening of Highway 101 adjacent to the project site. F. The study states that since the project site is not adjacent to an at -grade rail crossing, there would be no impacts related to train horns. Although there are no rail crossings adjacent to the project site, there would be an at grade crossing at Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street. The noise study should assess whether this will result in a noise impact. G. The study states that the plan would be generally compatible with the Noise Element of the General Plan. How is the proposed plan compatible? Are any noise impacts identified consistent with those analyzed as part of the CPSP EIR? Page 7 H. If the study identifies any potential noise impacts, provide recommended mitigation measures. 1. Provide a recommendations and conclusions sections. A -L• Please note that the CPSP recognized the existing noise conditions in the CPSP area and thus Policy 3.1 exempted primate outdoor spaces such as decks, balcolries and patios from the General Plan goal of 60 dBA Ldn. For this reason, Mitigation Measure 10-1 requires submission of a noise study "with the Building Plans during the Building Permit process" rather than during the approval process. Nonetheless, we previously enclosed a noise study and we will update or modify as necessary through the building permit process. 2. Please address the following items related to the Phase II Soil and Groundwater Investigation: A. Provide a readable location map (Plate 1). The location map is included with this letter. B. Provide the appendices, plates and tables shown in the table of contents. The appendices, plates and tables shown in the table of contents were provided to you on Thursday, November 10, 2005. C. Provide Plate 2 referenced in the table of contents. Plate 2 is included with this letter. �3 Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BA S i N S T R E L- T Page 3 3. Please revise the plans to reflect the widening of Highway 101 adjacent to the project site. We have added a graphic of the 101 widening to skeet C-2.0 (attached). It should be noted that the air quality study enclosed with the December 7`6 letter shores compliance with applicable air quality standards. 4. Revise the plans to include the required Class I paths on the project site along the east, west and south property lines. These paths are required as part of the Bike Plan and River Access and Enhancement Plan (Previous incompleteness items 13 A and B). As stated above, attached to this letter is a "Riverfr•ont CPSP Consistency Anal vsis" document that discusses the improvements provided along Hopper Street (north side of the site) and the Riverfr•ont Park (south side of the site). iVith regard to your request for trails along the east and west side of the site, it should be noted that: i) the western trail referred to in the River Access and Enhancement Plan was a "Temporary Long Term Trail " which was never established and is norw replaced with f ill Class II and III bicycle access on all streets within Riverfr•ont; and, ii) the eastern trail is shown within the Cal Trans property to the east ofRiverfr•ont. As a 1en7i77der, past coni nnnications from Cal Trans to the City ofPetaluna note that the area suggested for a trail in the River Access and Enhancement Plan is reserved by Cal Trans for potential frtture habitat in7provements. ilre believe the River Access and Enhancement Plan has been super•ceded by the specific street standards provided in the SmartCode. TEe have provided hike/pedestrian access along Hopper Street (consistent with the requirements of the CPSP and Sn7ar•tCode) tern7inatir7g at the eastern property line. T'Ve have also provided bike/pedestrian access within the Riverfr•ont Park in a manner that can be further continued onto the Cal Trans property to the east and the Pomeroy properly to the west. In addition to the previous continents provided on December 7h, attached as Sheet C-2.0 & C-3.2 rve show the Hopper Street details. This plait provides the suggested 12 foot wide sidewalk along the north (railroad) side of Hopper Street for pedestrian and bicycle access (see Page 35, Thoroughfare Standards). It should also be noted that the River Access and Enhancement Plan standard width for a multi-rtse path is 12 feet. 5. Please address the following items related to on -street parking and plan consistency: A Ms. Kim Gordon 41010. January 18, 2006 BASINSTR7 ET Page 4 A. Sheet P3 shows on street parking on both sides of Hopper Street (60' right of way). The street section on Sheet C-2 of the civil plans indicates that there is parking on one side of the street. Sheet C-2.0 & G3.2 shows the final details for Hopper Street (attached). Parking on both sides of the street is provided, consistent with the SmartCode standards. B. Sheet P3 shows that there is parking on both sides of the street around the central green. The street section on Sheet C-2 of the civil plans indicates that there is parking on the building side of the street only. Sheet C-2.0 shows the final details for the street around the Central Green (attached). Parking on both sides of the street will be provided C. On Sheet P5, for each mixed use building identify the number of garage parking spaces and the gross commercial square footage. The required parking for each building is required to be provided on the site or along the project frontage. SMART Code Section 6. 10,010 (hB1) The architectural plans attached to this resubmittal shorn the garages numbered to the residential Units. Nl'ith regard to parkingfor the commercial space, the parking around the loop street is provided for the commercial spaces on the plan; however, in practice, all street spaces (except, for the 10 spaces reserved for 10 units within the Mixed Use (1) buildings) are 'open" and available with no other reservations. D. On Sheet P5, parking is labeled as "open." This appears to be on street parking. Please clarify. The Parking Plan lists categories and provides a graphic key for location pill poses; however, as stated above, except for the 10 reserved spaces, all on -street spaces ore intended to be "open" and unrestricted The reference to "open "spaces is simply to quantify the on street parking that is not suggested for the cortmrercial spaces or the River f rorni Park for instance. B. Provide the total square footage of the live/work units. Since the entire square footage of the units could be converted to commercial use, the project needs to demonstrate that parking can be provided at the ratio of 1 parking space for every 300 gross square feet. The previously designated "Live/iVork Units " have been changed in name only to Adixed Use (2). Architecturally and, functionally these units remain the some (see discussion in attached Consistency Document). ,E Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BASINSTREET Page 5 The total square footages of the previously labeled Live/Work units, now referred to as Mixed Use II Units, have been provided on the Development Summary Sheet P- 1. F. It appears that the width of the on street parking spaces varies. Is the width as shown on the street section included in the civil plans? It is brue the width of the on -street parking spaces varies but this is a function of following the SmartCode standards. The u,idtlz of the on-sd,eet parking spaces for• each of the street sections is consistent with the SmartCode standards. G. What is the length of the on street parking spaces? The length of the on -street parking spaces is currently shown at &1 feet; however, we are currently changing this to 22 feel per City Code. 6. Please provide an evaluation of the access to the garages. Depending on the width of the garage door, the turning maneuver required and the backup distance provided, access to the garages may be restricted. Please Note: Other projects have been required to increase the width of the garage door or increase the backup distance in order to provide access to the garage. Please see attached Sheet C-7.0 thru 7.7 which address car and fire truck turn around movements throughout the project. Provide the following information related to the Mixed Use Buildings: A. On the development plans, label the buildings MU 1, MU 2, etc. B. Provide the member of dwellings in each mixed use building C. Provide the gross commercial square footage in each mixed use building D. Provide the number of garage parking spaces in each mixed use building E. Provide floor plans and elevations for each mixed use building A - D. The development plans have been revised to reflect your requested additional information. Please see the attached plans, specifically Sheet RI and the Mixed Use I Plans. Please address the following item related to the civil plans: A. The land use designations shown on Sheet C-5 are incorrect. The designations need to reflect the land use designations shown on the CPSP Land Use Map, Page 29. 210 Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BA S I N S T RE E T Page 6 Sheet C-5 has been corrected and now shows the accurate Land Use designation for Riverfront. Please see attached Sheet G5. 9. Please address the following items as part of the architectural plans: A. Provide all 4 elevations for each plan type for the single-family dwellings. Please see attached Architectural Packet for the requested elevations. B. Identify the plan types used for the single-family street scene (Sheets SFA -5 and SFB-5). Please see attached Architectural Packet for the requested elevations. C. Provide elevations of the community mail buildings referenced on Sheet L3.01. The conununity mail buildings have been removed frons the plan. D. Provide floor plans and elevations for each mixed use building. Please see attached Architectural Packet for the requested floor plans and elevations. E. Please clarify if the townhomes are "Urban Townhomes A" and "Urban Townhomes B" or "Urban Townhomes" and "Row Townhomes." The Urban Townhmnes and the Rory Townhomes are now the only two terms used for description purposes. The urban townhome buildings appear to range from 3-9 units per building. Provide floor plans and elevations for each building (3 unit, 9 unit, 12 unit, etc.). As discussed at the December Preliminary SPARC Meeting, we have submitted representative floor plans, elevations and details for each of the Building Types and each of the Architectural Styles. G. On the development plan, identify the plan type for each unit (single-family) or building type (7 unit mixed use, 7 unit townhome, etc.). T,Ve have now identified each building on the development plan. 10. Please address the following items related to the landscaping plans: 0 Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BAS I N S T R E E T Page 7 A. Provide details of the trellises, fence and planters referenced on Sheet L3.01 (Previous incompleteness item 12C). Sheet L3.01 has been modified to remove the trellises, fence and planters. The new details are provided within the revised Landscape Architectural Packet attached to this letter. B. Will the landscaping for the project include more plantings (shrubs, perennials, ground coverers, etc.) than what is shown on the landscaping plans? If so, please provide detailed landscaping plans for formal SPARC review of the project. A Plant Palette is included on each of the landscape plan sheets. The Palette inchndes species and size of shrubs, perennials, ground covers, and trees. 11. Provide the net square footage of each block or other similar information so that the density can be estimated. Please be aware that the SMART Code definition of density is based on the net square footage. Please number the blocks or provide some type of reference for each block. The previously provided Net Acreage calcidation is 9.75 acres. Based on this total project net acreage, the project density is approximately 4=1 units per acre.. 12 The additional traffic information submitted on November 2, 2005 is currently being reviewed by staff. Comments will be sent once staff has completed their review. Ifle anxiously await connnents on the traffic information submitted on November 2, 2005. Please !rote that the information !vas submitted over 30 days ago and the City has provided no response or comments. As of the date of this letter, ive have received no response from the City on the data provided or: November 2, 2005. 13. The resubmittal on October 11, 2005 did not address the comments from Parks and Recreation. Since addressing the comments from Parks and Recreation could result in modifications to the project, the comments from Parks and Recreation should be addressed as part of the next submittal. Mr. Carr raises three issues in his convnunication: i) placing roads around the Cenb-al Green is a concern of his; ii) the smaller parks oil the !vest side of the project naay be too small; and, iii) there is a desire to have public access p•ovided to the River. The design team has been very mvare that the CPSP SmartCode Plan suggests a civic space at the center of the Riverfi•ont site. The Central Green is such a civic M Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 Page 8 BASINSTREET space and fin-thermore, the Central Greerr emulates other Petaluma Parks such as iValnut Park, TVickersharn Park, and Eagle Park where streets define the park's edges. With regard to the smaller parks, these uvere provided at the suggestion of SPARC and are designed to allow. for alternative open space areas within the plan as well as address other recreation needs than Trill be provided in the Central Green. Finally, with regard to access to the River, it is our intention to pursue access ivilh the City's assistance. Dile have decided to make this a separate pursuit given the permitting and agency coordination needed. 14. The following items were included in the incompleteness letter dated September 8, 2005 and have not yet been addressed: A. Provide an evaluation of the Air Quality for the site as requested in the previous incompleteness letter dated September 8 2005. The final report (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: Community Health Perspective) from the California Air Resources Board was previously provided. Item 2F An Air Quality Analysis is attached. B. The single access from Hopper. There has been an indication that there may be a "secondary" and/or EVA for the project. Please include this on the plans. Provide an expanded site plan and sections as necessary. Item 3 Graphics have been provided, and are attached, sholving the EVA access to "D " Street extending from Hopper Street. In addition, we have again provided Sheet C-5.0 & C-5.1 showing the EVA to "D" Street extending from Hopper Street through the City of Petaluma Corporation Yard. C. Items 4A- 4F related to the SMART Code Zoning Map D. Items 5A -5G related consistency with the SMART Code Urban Standards Table E. Items 6A -6G related to consistency with the SMART Code Thoroughfare Standards F. Items 7A & 7B related consistency with the requirements for live/work units G. Items 13A -E related to consistency with the River Access and Enhancement Plan. C -G: The Attached Riverfr•ont CPSP Consistency Analysis is provided by way of response to the issues related to SmartCode and CPSP consistency. From Public Facilities and Services (Craig Spaulding. Citv Engineer) (707) 778-4303 15. Obtain final approval for the railroad crossing at Caulfield Lane. V Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 Page 9 BASINSTREET Railroad Crossirnz As you know, the City's application for the relocation of the Hopper Stz•eet raih•oad crossing to the extension of Caulfield Lane is pending before the Public Utilities Commission ("PUC'). We anticipate afavorable decisionfi•om the PUC in the near.firture, and are not opposed to having PUC approval included as a condition ofpr•oject approval 117e do not believe that resolution of a City application for the crossing relocation is an appropriate completeness item. This is especially true given that the extension of Caulfield Lame is under consi•uctiorn and the location of the new crossing is included in the CSPS and has been included in the City's General Plan for many years. We zozderstand that a PUC Hearing will be taking place in December of this year. It should be noted that the draft decision released on January 12, 2006 approves relocation of the crossing and due to its late release; the PUC hearing was continued to Februahy. 16. Obtain the necessary easements on the City treatment plans property for the proposed intersection and road. Easements. TI'e have coordinated our design with the field personnel at the i11'ater/Sewer Treatment Plant and have received verbal agreement that use of a small amount of the land is acceptable for the Hopper/Caulfield intersection improvements. lT'e do not believe that obtaining the necessary easements is an appropriate connpleteoess item. 17. Show the alley sections with at least a 20 -foot wide paved section for vehicular travel and at least a 26 -foot backup distance. Allev Sections. We believe the Riverfr•onl project as proposed is consistent with the CPSP. As SPARC is the appointed body responsible for determining consistence with the SAMRT code, ive have no objection to you raising these issues in your staff report. T1'e do not believe these issues relate to completeness of the Riverfr•ornt submittal package. bndeed, the SPARC members agreed with AIs. Borba at the September 22nd SPARC hearing that such matters will be determined by SPARC through the hearingprocess. lVe have provided f other discussion of this design issue in the attached Consistency Analysis Document (see Alley). 18. Provide additional turn around movements in locations where the maneuvers interfere with parking and planter areas. Please see attached Sheet C-7.0 thru 7.7 which address car turn around movements throughout the project. —10 Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BA S I N S T R E• E T Page 10 From the Fire Marshal's Office (Stuart Blakeslev) (707) 778-4389 19. The intersection at Caulfield/Hopper will require a new design. The reduced vehicle access on Hopper is of concern since this is the only access to the development. See sheets C-5.1 for off site vehicle circulation. 20. The proposed fire lanes shown on the attached sheet C7 are not wide enough. Redesign these lanes. See sheets C-7.0 thru C-7.5 for supplemental fire access information. These exhibits were reviewed with Stu on 1-6-06 and found to be adequate except for the 20 emergency access lanes along the eastern side's top of bank. We have since increased the ividth to give a 2 foot clearance on both sides for the fire truck. !Ve have also included sectional views requested by the Fire Department during our plat review. 21. Final approval of the development is unlikely to be approved without an appropriate and adequate secondary access. Currently, there is not secondary access. The Caulfreld/Hopper intersection, Fire Lane and Alley ividth, and secondary access provided from the extension of Hopper to "D" Street have all been discussed with Fire Marshal Michael Ginn. Me believe these concerns have been addressed by the current design and no modifications are necessary. See sheets C-5.1 for off site vehicle circulation. From Water Resources and Conservation (Iniad Baivasi) (707) 778-4304 22. The City currently holds a 30 -foot wide sewer construction and maintenance easement, and an adjacent 30 -foot wide sewer construction easement across the northerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by both easements. The development proposal shows numerous improvements encroaching into both easements. lVe propose to replace the construction easement for the existing force sewer main ivith a construction and permanent sewer easement within the extension of Hopper Street. 23. The City currently holds a sanitary sewer outfall easement to the Petaluma River across the westerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be Ms. Kim Gordon January 18, 2006 BASINSTREET Page 11 modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by this easement. As agreed upon daring a conversation with Lead on 12-1, the sanitmy selver outfall easement will be relocated within the public right mvay and a new sanitary sewer line and outfall leading to the Petaluma River will be installed along the with the site improvements. The new sanitary sewer line is shown on sheet C-4.0. 24. The development plans propose re -alignment and widening of Hopper Street over the top of the existing sanitary sewer vault at the treatment headworks. The applicant must provide thorough evaluation of this facility by a structural engineer to confirm its ability to safely carry traffic loads, or identify all necessary modifications or improvements for carrying such loads. All required modifications and improvements are the responsibility of the developer. As agreed upon during a conversation with Iniad on 12-1, this continent will be added as a condition to the Tentative Map. 25. The designer needs to make sure that the sewage vault manhole cover is not straddling the proposed roadside curb. Provide revised drawings. As agreed upon during a conversation with Lead on 12-1, this continent will be added as a condition to the Tentative Map. Kim, we appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this project. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to discuss any issues addressed in this letter. Lastly, please note that we believe the revised submittals provided to you on December 7°i and 3included with this letter make our application for the Riverfront project complete. If you believe otherwise, we respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with us as soon as possible rather than sending another request for additional information. Best regards, INCENT C. SMIT?CP VICE PRESIDENT BASIN STREET PROPERTIES Enc: Architectural Plans (1/17/06) — 15 half -scale & 15 full size Civil Engineering Plans (1/16/06) — 4 half -scale & 4 full size Landscape Architecture Plans (1/16/06) — 15 half scale & 15 full size id, CITE' 4F PETALUMA POST OFFICE BOX 61 PETALU MA, CA 94953-0061 David Glass RE: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review Major February 16, 2006 Keith Canevaro Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC -04$8 -CR) Mike Harris Mike Healy Karen Na"Vin Smith Mike O'Brien Dear Mr, Smith: Pamela Torliatt Basin Street Properties Councdmembers 241 First Street Fax (707) 778-4498 E -Mad Suite 100 codeerfnrcemeni@ Petaluma, CA 94952 Planning Sincerely, Phone (707) 778-4301 / Fax (707) 778.4498 L " v _® Kim Jordan e�xaavq Associate Planner onnnrvxert RE: Application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review and approval of the Riverfront Project located at the terminus of Hopper Community Development Street, APN 136-010-025 (File #05 -SPC -04$8 -CR) Department II English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 E-A1ad cddcucr Petaluma, ca us Dear Mr, Smith: Code Enjorcemenr Your application for Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval of Phone(707)778-4469 the Riverfront Project for the 39.1 acre site located at the terminus of Hopper Fax (707) 778-4498 E -Mad Street, APN 136-010-025, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, is incomplete. codeerfnrcemeni@ The comments from the reviewing departments are 'included as attachments. cr petaluma ca us Engineering After two previous incompleteness letters (September 8 and November 10, Phone (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778.4498 2005) and based on numerous meetings and conversations with City of Petaluma department heads and staff reviewing the project and the incompleteness items cls Phone (707) 778-4301 stated in the attached memos, the project cannot move forward as designed. In rax (707) 778-4498 order for the project to proceed, the applicant should seriously consider a Housing Division comprehensive redesign to comply with the requirements of the Central Phone (707) 778-4555 Petaluma Specific Plan, SMART Code and to address the issues identified in the Fax (707) 778-4586 E -Mail department comments or, as an alternative, apply for an amendment to the bgoebler&rpoulumaca.us Specific Plan and SMART Code to accommodate the project. This Inspection services determination has been made in consultation with Mike Moore, George White Phone (707) 778-4301 and the department representatives indicated below. Fax (707) 778-4498 To Schedule Inspections. Phone (707) 778-4479 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at Permits (707) 778-4301 or ki!ordontidci.Detalum i.ca.us or you may contact the Phone (707) 778-4301 reviewingdepartment directly. p Fax (707) 778.4498 Planning Sincerely, Phone (707) 778-4301 / Fax (707) 778.4498 L " v _® Kim Jordan e�xaavq Associate Planner onnnrvxert Attachments: Memo from Cliff Kendall, Chief Building Official Memo from Craig Spaulding, City Engineer Memo from Mike Ginn, Fire Marshal Memo from Imad Baiyasi, Water Resources and Conservation Memo from Frank Penry, Traffic Engineer Memo from Kim Jordan, Planning Division SMART Code Compliance Tables c: Mike Moore Mike Ban Chris Albertson Vince Marengo Eric Danley Craig Spaulding Frank Penry George White Mike Ginn Imad Baiyasi Cliff Kendall File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR S:plandepUletters/ri verfront.spe in 03 1� City of Petaluma, California Memorandum Public Narks, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4474 Fax (707) 776-3602 E-mail. publieworks@dpetaluma.ca. its DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: Kim Gordon FROM: Frank Penry SUBJECT: Riverfront, Terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025, 05SPC0488 Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the latest submittal of the subject application and the following items need to be addressed to complete the application. 1. A traffic study addressing all items noted in the September 8, 2004, along with items requested at subsequent meetings needs to be submitted. Responsibilities for Traffic Impact Studies has been sent under previous correspondence. Focused analysis of project trip generation and "future" circulation with respect to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan does not adequately address the project as it is proposed. Note that the project as proposed does not include the extension of Caulfield Lane to the project site, nor does it include the complete the extension of Caulfield Lane as the "southern crossing". 2. Per guidelines set forth by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a functional circulation system should follow a hierarchy of movements. From primary movement to collection and distribution, then onto local access and finally termination. The project proposes to provide primary access and distribution from minor public streets. The typical sections of Hopper and Public Street "A" do not adequately address function as the primary conveyance. Based on the presence of Caulfield Lane extension beyond Hopper Street in the Specific Plan analysis, I don't believe Hopper Street or it's typical section was ever envisioned to function in that manner. Also note that the typical section shown on C-2.0 does not match the plan line drawings. 3. Additionally, ITE guidelines state that the number of dwelling units served a single point access, as the project access is proposed, would be limited to 25-50 units. Although a second access is proposed for emergency access only, it does not meet the basic requirements of the Traffic Division with respect to number of units served from a terminating roadway. A second vehicular access must be provided for the number of units in this application. 4. The intersection of Caulfield Lane and Hopper Street is depicted on the plan set as having an all way stop control, although the previous analysis provided shows traffic signal control. The PUC application also states that the railroad crossing will have a four lane section, which is not depicted correctly on the plan set. 5. Bike lanes on Hopper Street and Public Street "A" are not adequately addressed with proposed sections. 6. Typical section for Caulfield Lane, one-way, around the business district is now being proposed with a single travel lane and parking on both sides. The previous design had two travel lanes and parking on one side. It is believed that the capacity of the single lane 16 I6 will be severely reduced with parking maneuvers taking place on both sides. Provide two travel lanes. S:\TmMc Division Folder\Development Rcvtew\Mennos\05SPC0488 End or Hopper-Ldoc City of Petaluma, California Memorandum Public Works, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4474 Fax (707) 776-3602 Eanail. puhlicworks&ipetalruna.ca. its DATE: February 14, 2006 TO: Kim Gordon FROM: Craig Spaulding zz SUBJECT: Riverfront, Terminus of Hopper Street, APN 136-010-025, OSSPCO488 Development Engineering has reviewed the latest submittal of the subject application and the following items need to be addressed to complete the application. 1. Obtain final approval for the rail road crossing at Caulfield Lane. 2. Obtain the necessary easements on the City treatment plant property for the proposed intersection and access road. 3. Show alley sections with at lease a 20 -foot wide paved section for vehicular travel and at least a 26 -foot backup distance for vehicles entering and exiting the garages. 4. Some of the turnaround movements in the private alleys still overlap planter areas. Additionally, turning movements, provided with the latest submittal, were reviewed. Although not a completeness item, having to negotiate three turning movements to access a garage is not acceptable. Conditions of approval will likely state that a single turning movement is required for access to garages. 59Engineenng DivisionWemos\05SPC0488 End of Hopperldoc 1� CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Commruriry, Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mailcdd @ci.petaluma.ca.its DATE: January 23, 2006 TO: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner FROM: Cliff Kendall, CBO SUBJECT: Riverfront Building Division comments for the attached Single Family Dwelling units: • Projections from exterior walls shall not extend beyond property lines. 2001 CBC, Section 503.2.1 • Combustible projections located where openings are not permitted shall be of one hour fire resistive construction or heavy timber. 2001 CBC, Section 705 • Usable space projections such as chimney chases and living space pop outs shall not extend beyond property lines. • Stairways shall not extend beyond property lines. • If the area of these projections are to be deemed public property or that is true public property, there shall be no projections eight feet or less measured from grade. ug&40 9l -thaw 7AVAn,Lle^5s a�e 5�1111ZC • Ten percent of the units on kAs shall comply with Senate Bill 1025. 1. The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route. 2. At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route and shall comply with the provisions of section 1109A. 3. All rooms oi• spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route and shall comply with the provisions in this chapter. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways. 4. Common use areas shall be accessible as required by this chapter. City of Petaluma, California lr l•�._►1 �u Fire Marshal, 17 English Street, Petahmia, CA 94952 (707) 778-4389, F&r (707) 776-3642 DATE: February 13, 2005 TO: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner FROM: Michael A. Ginn, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Riverfront Subdivision Terminus of Hopper Street followup O5 -SPC -0488 -CR This project is not in substantial conformance with emergency vehicle access, water supply, and other Fire Department conditions. Incomplete Conditions Multiple Access Points/EVA Final approval of the development is unlikely to be approved without an appropriate and adequate secondary means of access to the project. Currently, there is no secondary access for normal vehicular traffic circulation. The Fire Code authorizes the Chief to require this when more than 25 dwelling units are proposed for a new subdivision. Providing an alternative EVA through Hopper Ave is marginal and does not adequately address the need to design a secondary ingress/egress point for both traffic circulation and emergency vehicle access. Given the total daily average traffic demand for a project of this size, it requires a legitimate secondary means of access. The intersection at Caulfield/Hopper will require re -design to permit emergency vehicles the capability to have sufficient room to negotiate around vehicles that may be backed up in the intersection, especially during peak congestion times. The reduced vehicle access on Hopper is of concern since this is the only access to the development. Basin Street's response to comment 419 (1/18/06 letter to Kim Gordon) refers to circulation via the "Vehicular Access Plan" on Sheet C-5.1. This plan does not address the actual design of the intersection with respect to circulation and potential traffic congestion. Utilization of the proposed EVA as an alternate means of access to the intersection congestion is not a viable alternative because normal day-to-day operations for emergency vehicles responding to the site will dictate they approach and commit to the intersection. Should heavy congestion be encountered, it will require sufficient room to negotiate around the traffic and/or permit room for drivers to yield to emergency vehicles so they can pass or tum around. Again while the EVA may work in theory as a true secondary access point, there are limitations and assumptions (i.e., the one described herein) that are real to emergency responders. In the unlikely event that they could know in advance that there was congestion at the intersection, their reaction time to consider utilizing the EVA as an alternate route would be limited, given the short distance between the downtown fire station on D Street and the EVA entrance. Also, assuming the EVA is used .Riverfront Subdivision Memo 2/13/06 — Page 2 by emergency responders, there will be measured increases in response times that also must be considered. Future design(s) would be better served by having a coordinated meeting with both the Fire Prevention Bureau and the City Traffic Engineer. • The proposed secondary EVA via D Street to Hopper Avenue through the sewer plant will require re -design to meet the conditions stipulated by Fire Chief Albertson during a walk- through with the developer and City staff on 2/7/06. • After consultation with the City Traffic Engineer, the Fire Prevention Bureau was informed that there is a proposal for a railroad switching yard/tracks for the area near the comer of D Street and Hopper Avenue, the proposed EVA through the switching yard and terminating at D Street may not provide unobstructed emergency vehicle access. Please clarify. • The ladder truck turning radius EVA near units 307/308, 321/322, and 333/334 does not provide sufficient room for an unimpeded turning, especially in the driveway between the buildings. • All mid block and intersection "choke points" (for traffic calming) within the project must be a minimum of 20'. The choke points at the intersections of the one-way loop road and other intersections must be increased to provide adequate turning for fire apparatus. • All rear alley thoroughfares must provide a minimum of 20' clear, unobstructed access for use by fire department pumper trucks. The plans appear to show curb protrusions (planter boxes) beyond the garage entrances that reduce this width requirement. • The alley at Unit 376 is a 500' dead end. Provide an approved turnaround or EVA to adjacent street (Street B) for fire department access. • All dwelling units with front doors that face paseos (sidewalk access that does not face the street) will require full fire sprinkler protection. Future submittals should include a notation that "dwelling units with front doors facing paseos will require full fire sprinkler protection in accordance with fire department standards. As of this writing, the following units are designated as fully sprinklered: • 1-20 128-131 238-240 • 35-53 220-232 314-333 0 111-114 229-232 340-350 Proposed fire hydrant locations will require some relocation, as well as additional hydrants in some of the alley/thoroughfares. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specified locations. • Designated "No Parking" locations required in areas that accommodate the turning radius for the Fire Department's ladder truck and at the fire hydrant locations are nearly acceptable, but will require additional consultations with the Project Engineer as final street designs are developed. J:\Development Review CotnmentsTire Marshal\Riverfront terminus off lopper- followup.doc (M CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM (Vater Resources and Conservation Department, 11 English St., Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4304 Fax (707) 776-3635 E-mail: dwrc@cipetaluma.ca.us DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: Kim Gordon FROM: Imad Baiyasi SUBJECT: Riverfront - SPARC approval of the Master Plan We consider this nroiect to be incomplete based on the following incompleteness items. Until these items are satisfactorily addressed. no further consideration will be given to this pronosal. The City currently holds a 30 -foot wide sewer construction and maintenance easement, and an adjacent 30 -foot wide sewer construction easement across the northerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by both easements. The development proposal shows numerous improvements encroaching into both easements. The city will consider vacating the construction easement if an additional fare main is installed across the frontage of the property adjacent to the existing force main. This may eliminate the need to retain this easement for the future construction of a new fare main. Applicant shall revise the preliminary utilityplan to show the proposed alignment of the second force main and appurtenant easements. 2. The City currently holds a sanitary sewer outfall easement to the Petaluma River across the westerly portion of the applicant's property. The proposed development plans shall be modified, as necessary, to not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of the rights granted by this easement. The developer may propose a new alignnnent for this outfall easement and install a new discharge piping to the outfall location, as per city approval. This may be an acceptable solution to keeping the current alignment. 3. As per the City of Petahuna Recycled (Pater Master Plan, a recycled water (RTV) line is proposed an Hopper Street fronting the property. The installation of this RJV line will be the responsibility of the developer. Applicant shall revise the preliminary utilityplan to show the proposed location and alignnnent of the RW line as per the city's recycled water nnaster plan. M 4. The existing sewage treatment plant adjacent to the Riverfr�ont propert), is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2005. It must be noted that some parts of the treahnent plant will remain in its current location. Possible odor and noise (due to generators that need to regularly exercised) may still continue at the current treatment plant site even after the plant is decommissioned. In addition, the existing site may be utilized for fit tire water recycling facility. The city feels that this information needs to be disclosed to perspective buyers of the Riverfr ont property for liability reasons and developer should indemnify the City of Petaluma regarding any future issues with odor and noise. Further, applicant may be required to provide funding for additional odor and noise control facilities due to the close proximity of sensitive receptor sites in the new development. 5. The proposed location of the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is through the existing wastewater treatment plant. The developer shall submit plans and specifications showing design details of this EVA for City review and approval. t Mike Ban Dean Eckerson Craig Spaulding 1) S�— CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Deparhnen4 320 No. McDow n Blvd, Rdaiuma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4380 Fax (707) 778-4473 DATE: December 20, 2005 TO: Kim Gordon, Associate Planner FROM: Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Riverfront Project The Recreation, Music and Park Commission reviewed the Riverfront Project and they made the following comments which pretty much follow the comments I sent to your office in a memo dated September 8, 2005. I. The Commission recognized that the proposed park is Iocated in the middle of Caulfield Lane, in what appears to be a round -about. With Caulfield Lane being the main access road into the subdivision, the idea of a park in the middle of this busy street, especially with no designated parking, is not acceptable. Also, with Caulfield Lane to be the access for the future southern crossing of the Petaluma River, this road way will become even busier. Again, not a good location for a park. All small park -like parcels are to be included with the larger designated park parcel, with the proposed park located in the south west corner of the property, adjacent to the Petaluma River. 2. A river access to be developed for small craft such as kayaks and canoes, including a small pier and parking area with at least 6 spaces along the river. 3. A connector to be developed between the Bay Ridge Trail off of Hopper Street and the River Trail along the Petaluma River, which is a part of this project. 4. Be cognizant that Caulfield Lane will break up the band of land that State Lands claims along the Petaluma River. 5. Recognize that the river frontage reflected in this project is required by State Lands and is not considered park. �1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Far (707) 778-4498 E-mail: eddCavi.petaluma.ca.« s DATE: February 16, 2006 TO: File #05 -SPC -0488 -CR FROM: Kim Jordan, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Riverfront SPARC Application APN136-010-025 The following are the incompleteness items for the project: I. The items identified in the two previous incompleteness letters (September 8 and November 10, 2005), including but not limited to, the noncompliance with the Specific Plan and SMART Code. 2. Provide a Noise Study that includes the items indicated in the previous incompleteness letters. The Specific Plan EIR only defers the noise study for attached residential units to building permit submittal. 3. The River Access and Enhancement Plan requires combined bike and pedestrian trails along the north, east and south side of the site. The project does not provide the trails along the north or east sides of the site. 4. Provide the following information related to the number of parking spaces required and the location of required parking: A. For each Mixed Use I building, provide the number of residential units, gross commercial square footage, and the number of garage parking spaces for each building. On the parking plan show the number of parking spaces located along the frontage. B. For each Mired Use II building, provide the gross commercial square footage for each unit. 5. The following are the blocks identified for the project. Provide the lineal footage for each block. For blocks with internally structured parking, the maximum lineal footage is 2,000 feet. A. Areas identified as I & 2 with the garden walkways B. Area identified as 4, neighborhood park, & 6 C. Areas identified as 8, neighborhood park, & I 1 D. Areas identified as 7 & 10 with the cut through �� E. Areas identified as 9 & neighborhood park F. Areas identified as 12 & 13 G. Areas identified as 15 & 17 with the cut through H. Areas identified as 18 & 20 with the cut through I. Areas identified as 16, 19, 21, 22,24 with the garden walkways 6. Address the following items related to the Civil Plans: A. The plans indicate that there are 18 civil sheets. Thirteen sheets were submitted. Please provide all the civil plan sheets for the project. B. On Sheet C5.0, the McNear Landing land use designation is incorrect. The correct land use is Urban High, 7. Address the following items related to the Architectural Plans: A. Identify each building by Plan Type/Number, B. Revise the Parking Summary (Sheet Al). The Mixed Use II building is required to park the commercial square footage at I space per 300 gross square feet. C. It appears that sonic of the overhangs, stairs, and awnings/canopies may encroach into the public right-of-way. On the plans, clearly identify the front and street side property lines and or right-of-way lines and show the encroachment. D. Identify the material for the transom windows. E. The unit numbering on the architectural plans (Sheets A8 and A9) is not consistent with the unit numbering on the civil plans (Sheet C2). F. Provide all four elevations and floors plans for each of the single-family homes. G. Provide elevations and floor plans for each building- . 8. Address the following items related to the Parking Plans: A. For each individual Mixed Use I building indicate the number of residential units, number of parking spaces, and gross commercial square footage. B. For each individual Mixed Use II unit indicate the number of residential units, number of garage parking spaces, and gross commercial square footage. C. The response letter dated 1 /1 812 00 6 states that the parking plan is being revised to reduce the length of the parallel parking spaces to 22'. Provide the revised parking plan for staff review. 9. Address the following items related to access to garage parking spaces: A. The SPARC Guidelines require a minimum backup distance of 26'. The majority of the project does not provide this backup distance. B. The access maneuvers provided are based on a Taurus. Provide backup maneuvers for a larger vehicle. C. The information provided does not address access for the Mixed Use buildings or the urban townhomes. D. Provide exhibits for exiting the garage spaces. E. Based on previous experience, the 7' wide garage doors for the townhomes shown on the architectural plans may allow vehicles to enter and exit the garage, t ra . 10. The landscaping plans submitted do not include front yard or street side yard landscaping plan. The plan notes state "front yard/side yard." 11. See attached tables for a summary of violations of the SMART Code requirements. The following items are not completeness items. The information is provided for your consideration prior to submitting revised plans and information: 1. The River Access and Enhancement Plan states that the City Council has recommended that development of the subject property should be coordinated with the surrounding properties through the preparation of a Master Plan. 2. Sheet 5.0 of the civil plans (Land Use Map and Context Plan) should also identify the required principal street frontages and the recommended focus point of terminated or deflected vista shown on the Thoroughfare Map. 3. On the landscaping plans, Sheet L1.0 and Sheet 3.0 are not consistent for the treatment of the "neighborhood park" at the end of Caulfield Lane. S:plandept /me mos/ri verfrontsparc 3 0 Based on the information provided in the January 18, 2006 submittal, the following table identifies the SMART Code violations. SMART Code Violation Possible Violation Requirement Block 2,000 ft. for Areas identified as 16, 7 & 10 with cut Perimeter internal structure 19, 21 ,22 & 27 with through; parking garden walkways 12 & 13 with cut through; 15, 17 with cut through; 18 & 20 with cut through Building Prohibited- Edge Detached single-family Placement Yard have an Edge Yard, Frontage Type Prohibited- Detached single-family Common Yard homes have a Common Porch & Pence Yard frontage. "Pasea " Han:es present a side condition to the street, Units 229 & 232 present a side condition to the street. Units 230 & 231 have no street frontage. Front Setback 0-10 feet, 21-24, 554, 63, 65, 67, Additional units may measured from 69, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 83, not comply. Due to property line to 85, 87, 89-96, 99, 100, the scale of plans building wall 103, 105, 108-110,116- compliance for some 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, units cannot be 133, 135, 137-142, 146, determined. 147, 150, 168, 170, 172, 174,192,194,195,197- 199,201,209,2I1,213, 215, 217, 225, 238, 248, 249,252,255,256,263- 49,252,255,256,263- 267,270,274,276,278, 267,270,274,276,278, 280, 282, 286, 288, 290, 292, 294, 298-300, 303- 307,373-375 Alley Setback 15' minimum to 61, 74, Building 75, 76, center line of the 77, 88, Building 97, 120, alley 126, Building 127, 143, 207, 229-232, 308, 321, 345,350-376 Building Principal Frontage- Public Street G Additional streets Frontage 75% minimum are required to have principal frontage. Detached single- Parking Location Parking Requirements Thoroughfare Standards Caulfield Lane Two -Way Edge Drive w/ Open Space on One Side Two- Way Edge w/ Tracks on One Side Alley Required onsite or along frontage I for each residential unit I for every 300 gross square feet of commercial 2 10' travel lanes 2 Tparking lanes 2 6' bike lanes 2 12' sidewalks Street along the river is a required Two Way Edge with Open Space Hopper Street is required to be Two Way Edge w/ Tracks Mired Use I- all of the required parking for residential and commercial uses are not provided on site or along the project frontage Mixed Use II- all of the required parking for commercial uses is not provided on the site or along the project frontage Mixed Use I- 52 spaces required for residential units & 68 spaces for commercial*. 43 garage and 26 frontage spaces provided Mixed Use IT 88 spaces required for commercial*. 26 spaces provided along frontage. Caulfield Lane at the square has been reduced to one travel lane One sidewalk reduced to 10' Riverjronr Streel�i does not provide the minimum 9' sidewalk along the river side Hopper Street does not provide the required sidewalk with tree wells on the track side 30' width, 1-5; 31, 45, 62-74; including 2 10' Buildings 75, 97, 127 travel lanes (Mixed Use 1), 154-160, 166, 207 (Mixed Use 2) 229-232;308,321,345, 350-376 Residenlial alleys * Commercial square footage provided appears not to include lobby space. The par cing required for commercial space is based on gross square footage. This would require additional parking for the lobby and any other square footage deducted from the commercial family homes may not comply with 75% frontage. space. Based on the lot lines shown on Sheet C2.0 submitted January 18, 2006, the following are the violations of the SMART Code that would apply to the submittal of a tentative subdivision map: SMART Code Violation by Lot # Possible Violation Requirement Lot Size 2,000 square feet. 2-93; 107-120; 122, 123, 94, 95, 164, 165, 190, Does not include 125: 128-135; 137-141; 206,371 areas used for 145, 146; 150-152; 167 - access 175; 183-189; 192; 203- Additional units may 205; 208-216; 224, 246, not comply. Due to 247, 269, 270, 297-300, the scale of plans 303, 306, 309, 310, 312, compliance for some 313, 316-320; 323-326; units cannot be 329-332; 334-339; 341- determined. 365; 368-370; 373-376 Building All detached single - Placement family have an Edge Yard building placement Front Setback 0-10 feet, 21-24, 55-60, 63, 65, 67, Additional units may measured from 69, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 83, not comply. Due to property line to 85, 87, 89-96, 99, 100, the scale of plans building wall 103, 105, 108-120, 122, compliance for some 123, 125, 126, 128-131, units cannot be 133, 135, 137-142, 146, determined. 147, 150, 168, 170, 172, 174, 192, 194, 195, 197- 97- 199,201,209,211,213, 199,201,209,211,213, 215, 217, 225, 238, 248, 249, 252, 255, 256, 263- 63- 267,270,274,276,278, 267,270,274,276,278, 280, 282, 286, 288, 290, 292, 294, 298-300, 303- 307, 329-333, 373-375 Side Setback 0-10', measured 143 from property line to building wall Building Principal Frontage- Public Street G Additional streets Frontage 75% minimum are required to have principal frontage. Detached single- family homes may not comply with 75% frontage. Parking Required onsite or Mixed Use!- parking Location along frontage located along the lot frontage could change with the property lines. Mixed Use M - parking located along frontage would change with property lines. Some units may not have parking located along the frontage. 0 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Delnutinent of il'arer• Rusanrccc aril Canscrrrttion, 11 English Street, 11atalGasa, Cd 91953 (7117)7-8-4304 l,ity(705)?%6-3635 E-mailanban:a.cipetaluma.ca. its DATE: February 2l. 2006 TO: Ylichael Bierman — Citi \7tmager FROM: Michael Ban. P.E. -- Director Water Resources & Conservation"— SUBJECT: Riverthunt Development Project I have the following comments regarding the Riverfront Development Project and its impacts on the City's wastewater treatment facility: Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). The development proposes to construct an EVA lane through the wastewater treatment plant. The service roads at the treatment plant are used f'or a variety purposes, including personnel accessing the facility, personnel conducting maintenance and repairs, trucks delivering equipment and supplies (including sodium hypochlorite and diesel fuel), septagc haulers discharging wastewater, and industrial transport hauling biosolids and grit. These uses are not compatible with it dedicated EVA. Therefore the EVA should not be constructed through the wastewater treatment plant. hopper Street Extension. Widening I-lopper Street will result in the elimination of the service road that runs parallel to Hopper Snect from the entrance to the treatment plant to the Pond Influent Pump Station. This service road is used to access the aeration basins, the soil filter bed, and the Pond Influent Pump Station. Without this service road there is no other vehicular access to these facilities. Elimination of the service road is not acceptable. Compatible (INC. The development proposes to locate residential units immediately adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant, which poses several problems. In the near term, the site will continue to function as a wastewater treatment plant, as it has since 1935. Activities consistent with wastewater treatment will continue to result in occasional issues related to noise, odors and dust. Though the City makes every effort to mitigate these issues, there are times when they can't be prevented. These issues will become extremely acute if residential housing is located immediately adjacent to the facility with no setbacks. In the long term, the site will continue to experience industrial activity. 1VI raw wastewater will continue to be pumped front the site via the Pond influent Pump Station. In the future the City may wish to construct a satellite water recycling facility to provide recycled water to the west side of town. The City must preserve its right to construct this facility. The proposed residential development is not compatible with the existing or future use ufthe facility, CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Department, 320 No. McDowell Blvd., Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4380 Fax(707)778-4473 DATE: March 29, 2006 TO: Mike Moore, Director of Community Development FROM: Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Riverfront Project I first reviewed the Riverfront Project and sent your staff a list of comments dated September 8, 2005.The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission then reviewed the Riverfront Project at their meeting in December of 2005. They had a lengthy discussion about the project and reiterated the five recommendations which I had originally made and are Iisted below. 1. The Commission recognized that the proposed park (Center Park) is located in the middle of Caulfield Lane, in what appears to be a round -about. With Caulfield Lane being the main access road into the subdivision, the idea of a park in the middle of this busy street, especially with no designated parking, is not acceptable. Also, with Caulfield Lane to be the access for the future southern crossing of the Petaluma River, this road way will become even busier. Again, not a good location for a park. All small park -like parcels are to be included with the larger designated park parcel, with the proposed park located in the south west corner of the property, adjacent to the Petaluma River. 2. A river access to be developed for small craft such as kayaks and canoes, including a small pier and parking area with at least 6 spaces along the river. 3. A connector to be developed between the Bay Ridge Trail off of Hopper Street and the River Trail along the Petaluma River, which is a part of this project. 4. Be cognizant that Caulfield Lane will break up the band of land that State Lands claims along the Petaluma River, 5. Recognize that the river frontage reflected in this project is required by State Lands and is not considered park. Upon the request of Landscape Architect Larry Reed of the SWA Group, the Commission reviewed the project again at their meeting of January 18, 2006. Following discussion the Commission was unanimous in their request that the original recommendations be submitted as originally specified. In addition the recommendations are to be modified in the sense that the Commission supports the concept of a civic gathering point (Center Park) as proposed in the plan submittal, but in addition, a 2 -acre minimum athletic field is to be located in the south west corner of the property, adjacent to the Petaluma River. The park should back up to the Pomeroy Property so that in the likelihood the Pomeroy property is developed, a companion parcel can be butted up to the 2 -acre parcel specified for the Riverfront Project. The net result is a community park that can handle the recreational needs of local residents. h: riverfront review