HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/27/2001Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planningC&eLpetaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ei.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 November 27, 2001 - 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Dargie, Glass *, Monteschio, von Raesfeld
6 Absent: O'Brien, Vouri
7
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: George White, Planning Manager
11 Jane Thomson, Code Enforcement Officer
12 Tiffany Robbe, Assistant Planner
13 Laura Lafler, Project Planner
14 Anne Windsor, Secretary
15
16
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No minutes were presented for approval.
18 PUBLIC COMMENT: Dianne Reilly Torres is on the Board of Petaluma Community Access —
19 thanked Commissioner Vouri and Chair Glass. Asked about correspondence to Planning
20 Commission.
21 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
23 CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence was presented at places regarding Rockridge Pointe.
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the Agenda.
26
27
28 NEW BUSINESS;
29 PUBLIC HEARING:
30
1
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
CONSENT CALENDAR — The following items are non - controversial and have been reviewed
by the Planning Division and will be enacted by one motion unless a member of the planning
Commission has a question regarding an item and asks that the item be withdrawn form the
Consent Calendar.
I. CANNED FOODS, INC. dba GROCERY OUTLET, 80 East Washington Street;
APN 007 - 142 -026, File Number PCN 01003
Project Planner: Jane Thomson
Consideration of a request that a determination be made and findings forwarded to the
State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), that public convenience or
necessity would be served by the issuance of an ABC license (Type 21 — Off -Sale
General/beer, wine and liquor) to Canned Foods Inc., dba Grocery Outlet to allow the
expansion of the existing retail sale of alcohol (beer and wine) to included liquor, at
80 East Washington Street.
All in favor:
Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
Commissioner Dargie: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Absent
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Yes
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING:
fI. WASHINGTON CREED VILLAGE by Cobblestone Homes, E. Washington Street.
AP NO. 149 - 180 -015 & 016; FILE NOS: TSM01001& ZOA01001
Planner: Tiffany Robbe.
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 9.23 -acre parcel on East Washington Street
southwest of Prince Park into 37 single- family residential lots and to adopt Planned Unit
District development guidelines for the subdivision. The project also proposes the dedication
of 1.8 -acres of creek side property to the City as open space.
(Continued from the August 28, 2001 Meeting).
Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report.
Commission asked questions regarding creek changes and flow; Lot Line Adjustment.
Gary Riissey, RGH Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants: Filling depression should have
zero effect on creek flow.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2 Dan Mattliies, Hydrologist with Wood Rogers, Inc.: Depression fills early in season and then
3 large storm waters flow by. Flows into Washington Creek will slightly increase with
4 development, however, water will leave site faster, before peak watershed flow arrives.
5
6 Ira Bennett: Applicant proposing zero net Lot Line Adjustment and will pay.
7
8 Commissioner Glass: The commission agreed that the City Manager will facilitate the Lot Line
9 Adjustment.
10
11 Public hearing was opened:
12
13 Denise Resiskin, .233 Redwood Circle: Bought home because of the amenities of wildlife, a
14 creek and open space to her rear — do not want houses built and blocking view.
15
16 Gordon Farrow, Linnet Lane: Request Linnet Lane be widened to 32' at the end to give
17 intersection more normal feel. Compliment developer for adding additional parking space at lot
18 16.
19
20 Commissioner Glass: Asked for staff to comment to Mr. Farrow's request.
21
22 Curt Bates: Minimum road requirement is 28' as proposed.
23
24 Mr. Resiskin, 233 Redwood Circle: Had difficulty selling the mother's house which is down the
25 creek from their house. Issue of turning into subdivision from East Washington is hazardous.
26
27 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Add to staff report — votes not reflected in staff report regarding path on
28 south side of creek. Want path on both sides of creek as Condition of Approval.
29
30 Jim Wallace, Turtle Creek: 25' gap between houses in Turtle Creek, in Cobblestone homes only
31 10' between homes. Will change view in yards and invasion of space — ask that no windows in
32 the detached 2 story garage units face backyards of Turtle Creek homes. Added traffic at
33 Sonoma Mountain and Linnet — consider a bridge to connect to Washington Street. Asked for
34 additional landscaping to shield backyards.
35
36 Bruce Aspinall, Planning Consultant, 703 Second Street, Santa Rosa: Presented plan in revised
37 form. Made some clarifications: Regarding issue of bike path — agreed to build path on south
38 side of creek. Police department objected to path on the north side of creek. Applicant will also
9 provided connection to Prince Park. Re: traffic safety on .East Washington Street — left hand turn
0 from East Washington Street will be installed before the first- Certificate of Occupancy is issued
41 (Condition of Approval #7). Regarding issues of housing settling, referred to the RGH report
42 referenced in Staff Report.
43
44 Commissioner Glass: Is there a chance to landscape and shield back yard in Turtle Creek
45 Subdivision.
46
3
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 Frank Denny, Cobblestone Homes: We are willing to add landscaping and remove rear windows
2 above detached garages to address the privacy issues.
3
4 Commissioner Barrett: Asked if this project would go to SPARC — Commissioner Barrett is
5 SPARC representative and will bring issues to the SPARC Committee.
6
7 George White: Landscaping and placement of windows will be addressed at SPARC
8 Committee.
9
10 Dianne Reilly Torres, Rainer Avenue: Have concerns regarding the creek and traffic.
11
12 Public hearing was closed.
13
14 Commission Questions:
15
16 Commissioner von Raesfeld: There are several Conditions of approval regarding landscaping
17 along the creek (Conditions 13, 14, 15 and 17). Want to make it clear that these conditions go to
18 SPARC. Wanted to hear about connection of path to Prince Park.
19
20 Frank Denny: Indicated on the Tentative Map with two lines — intent was to show as an opening
21 since it's the Tentative Map phase.
22
23 Commission Discussion:
24
25 Commissioner Barrett: Think it's important that the airport easement is up front and separate in
26 a real estate purchase. Want it clear that people who purchase homes there are in an airport
27 district.
28
29 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Landscaping on creek go to SPARC, lines designating path — make
30 clear, and windows on garages. There is some clear language in the infill portion of the Zoning
31 Ordinance that deal with windows to neighbors — would like SPARC to reference that -
32 windows not infringing on neighbor privacy issues.
33
34 Commissioner Monteschio: Protection of Redwood trees on Condition 20. Asked Patricia Tuttle
35 Brown to come up and address what the Park and Recreation Commission want.
36
37 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Commission wants path on both sides.
38
39 Ira Bennett: North side path would require significantly more grading and will disturb more
40 vegetation. Was not a cost issue as much as disturbing the creek and the strong request from the
41 Police Department.
42
43 Frank Denny: SPARC recommendation in preliminary review was for path on south side.
44
45 After discussion, it was consensus of the Commission to go with the path on the South side of
46 the creek as drawn, and to have the full path constructed by the applicant (no escrow account.)
E
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio to
3 adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4
5 All in favor:
6 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
7 Commissioner Dargie: Yes
8 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
9 Commissioner Glass: Yes
10 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
11 Commissioner Vouri: Absent
12 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Yes
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner von Raesfeld and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to
15 approve the project subject to the findings and amended conditions in the Staff Report.
16
17 All in favor:
18 Commissioenr O'Brien: Absent
19 Commissioner Dargie: Yes
20 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
21 Commissioner Glass: Yes
22 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
23 Commissioner Vouri: Absent
24 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Yes
25
26
27
28 Washington Creek Village
29 East Washington Street at Parkland Way and Noriel Lane and Hawk Drive
30 APN 149 - 180 -015 and 016
31 Project File No(s). TSM01001, ZOA01001, & SPCO1002
32
33
34 Findings for Approval of a MMitipated Negative Declaration
35
36 L An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that
37 supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect
38 on the environment.
39
40 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State
41 Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from the Fish
42 and Game filing fees because it is proposed on a small undeveloped site surrounded by
43 development with none of the resources as defined in the Code.
44
45 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by
46 the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments
3
before making a recommendation on the project.
4
5
5.
That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the
6
adopted mitigation measures.
7
8
6.
The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at
9
the City of Petaluma. Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
10
California.
11
12
Mitigation Measures
13
14
All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Washington Creek
15
Village proposal, are herein incorporated (Attachment 3, Initial Study).
16
17
18
JFindin2s of Approval for the 'Tentative Subdivision Map
19
20
1.
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
21
provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and
22
the State Subdivision Map Act.
23
24
2.
That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements,
25
is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
26
safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including
27
roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure.
28
29
3.
That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed.
30
31
4.
That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
32
substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur
33
to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there
34
would be no significant, unmitigatable environmental impacts.
35
36
37
Findings of Approval for the Zoning Ordinance "Text Amendment (Planned Unit District
38
Development Guidelines):
39
40
1.
The proposed text amendment, the adoption of the PUD Development Guidelines, as
41
conditioned, is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and zoning
42
regulations of the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report. Additionally,
43
the Fire Marshal, Police Department, and the Engineering Section have prepared
44
conditions of approval to address safety issues and design criteria for the construction of
45
the buildings and design of the site..
46
I
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 2. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the
2 proposed amendment in that the amendment will result in residential and recreational
3 uses that are more appropriate and compatible with the existing surroundings uses. The
4 density standard under the proposed Development Guidelines will be 4.0, which is
5 compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the General Plan, and the Sonoma
6 County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The guidelines for the proposed
7 development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities
8 which are appropriate in relation to adjacent and nearby properties, and adequate
9 landscaping is included to ensure compatibility. The proposal also requires review and
10 approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
11
12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
13
14
From the Planning Division:
15
16
1.
Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other first
17
sheet of the office and job site copies of the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions
18
of Approval as notes.
19
20
21
2.
The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with
the Development Plan dated October 12 3{tly 31, 2001 and the Tentative Map dated
22
October 15, ^igtist 15 , 2001.
23
24
3.
All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
25
for the Washington Creek Village project are herein incorporated by reference as
26
conditions of project approval.
27
28
29
4.
Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of
Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the
30
County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County
31
Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.
32
the be medified to releeate or elimin
33
5.
b pen�nit, plans shall
is between the de and the of eek and so that
34
Lot 4 so that ne let leeated ett! sae feadway
35
Bordessa Court shall be is a single- loaded roadway.
36
37
6.
is that !a-nd is iiieluded as a of Lot 15. The
38
the fear- of Lot 15 r-etneved and area of pai4
dead br-a-nehes these 3 tfees rated as by the Afbofi, ',
39
applieant shall r-emeve and poor-
and 9 all
40
>
l .
b d inst f t 9 if it f oun d t o b th l h lth f'
41
aA illo w T r-ee 12 may criii�«uu vl � J�
trees dead br-anehes ffom the shall
42
he tw E). The Fetneval of these and gFeve
43
depression at the rear- ef
44
g feund
be filled, releeated or- after-ed. The
45
this let, a r-esult of the old or-eek alignpaent, shall net
and six Willows)
46
>
7
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
6. The depression at lot 15 shall be excavated of gravel and sand and shall be filled
pursuant to RGH Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants' recommendations.
7. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the plans shall show a left -turn lane on East
Washington Street to accommodate anticipated demand pursuant to the Traffic Study.
Prior to certificate of occupancy of any home on the southside of the creek, the left -turn
lane shall be accepted.
8. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the plans shall be revised to depict a Class 1
bike /pedestrian/maintenance path on the southerly side of the creek, between the top of
bank and the creek setback line, from property line to property line (eliminating the label
'future path " between the southwesterly property line and Bordessa Court). The path
shall be constructed to the Park and Recreation Department's specifications using quarry
fines compacted to meet ADA standards prior to certificate of occupancy of 80% of
homes. The path's exact placement shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Engineering and Planning Divisions and the Park and Recreation Department.
9. Plans submitted for SPARC shall include an exterior lighting plan. Said plan shall
include a detail of the types of all fixtures to be installed for review and approval by the
planning staff in regards to the Site Plan and Architectural Review standards for lighting
and shall be hooded and project downward, providing a soft "wash" of light. No- glare,
low lighting shall be proposed along the Washington Creek bike path and subject to
SPARC approval.
10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a "milepost" style sign and its information shall be
approved by planning staff. The sign shall be located along the creek path near to where
the path enters Prince Park prior to certificate of occupancy of 80% of homes. The sign
shall indicate, via arrows and mileage, various important locations (Lucchesi Park, Old
Adobe, Downtown, etc.) and a map shall be posted with off -road paths indicated.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be evisea to depict at least four
benches, to be and approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Prior to
certificate of occupancy of 80% of homes, these benches shall be properly installed.
12. The applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
pesticide /herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for
the protection of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required to post signs when
pesticide /herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
CA
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 11 Prior to certificate of occupancy of 80% of homes, all non - native species (such as the
2 Lombardi poplars) along the creek and along the northeasterly property line shall be
3 removed. Native trees shall fill any holes created by their removal.
4
5 14. Removal and replacement of the non - native and invasive Lombardi Poplar trees shall be
6 the only in- stream channel work, shall be limited to the dry season (typically defined as
7 April 16 through September 30 and shall be performed in accordance with conditions
8 specified by the Dept. of Fish and Game in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The
9 applicant shall provide copy of the approved Streambed Alteration Agreement and proof
10 of compliance with the permit conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or
11 issuance of grading permits for work within any channel.
12
13 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan shall be mods e +^ show native
14 trees at the top of bank with the intent of providing a canopy over the creek. These trees
15 shall be those canopy trees that naturally occur along this portion of Washington Creek,
16 such as Big Leaf Maple. Bubblers to each tree shall be required for irrigation purposes and
17 shall be shown on the landscape plan. Prior to certificate of occupancy of 80% of homes,
18 the creekside trees and the bubblers shall be installed.
19
20 16. The applicant shall make every effort to preserve any Fruiting Pear tree so that the
21 neighborhood can have a visual reminder of the land's previous use and history. The
22 applicant shall pay particular attention to trees numbered 54 and 58 in the Arborist Report's
23 amendment (see Attaeliment 9) , which appear to be the two pear trees outside of any
24 building footprint. Temporary protective fencing shall be erected around the drip line of
25 any pear which is possible to preserve. The pears may be trimmed under the supervision of
26 a license arborist.
27
28 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
29 City for monitoring of the planted native creek side species for a period of 5 years.
30
31 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall draft a Lighting and Landscape
32 Assessment District (LLAD) to care for 1) the landscaping along East Washington Street,
33 2) the landscape strips without residences directly to their rear to care for them, 3) the
34 parking island at the end of Bordessa Court, and 4) project street lighting and project
35 creek side path lighting. The LLAD shall be submitted to the Planning Division and
36 Parks and Recreation Departments for their reviewed and acceptance.
37
38 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the creek channel shall be protected with orange
39 construction fencing placed along the top of bank or five feet outside of tree canopies
40 whichever is more restrictive. Proof that the temporary fencing has been installed shall
41 be made to the Planning Division by photographs.
42
43 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, temporary protective fencing shall be erected 5 feet
44 outside the drip line of all trees proposed to be preserved including those redwoods over
45 the southwesterly property line, the grove of trees proximal to lot 15, and those trees
46 along the northeasterly property line. The fencing shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height
9
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and shall be secured with in- ground posts subject to staff inspection. Fencing shall be
installed prior to grading permit issuance and any grading/construction activity. Proof
that the temporary fencing has been installed shall be made to the Planning Division by
photographs.
21. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified to accommodate
recycling containers in the interiors of the units.
22. All constriction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on
Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first
secured from the City Manager (or his /her designee) for additional hours. There will be
no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no
delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plans
submitted for City permits shall include the language above.
23. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible in
order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
From the Engineering Division:
Frontage Improvements
24. Ultimate right of way dedication of 43 -feet from centerline for East Washington Street
project frontage is required.
25. Frontage improvements for East Washington Street shall include but not be limited to, 6-
foot wide on- street bike lane, new pavement section as required for street widening, curb
and gutter, sidewalk and streetlights, curb inlets, handicap ramps, sound wall, striping,
channelization, signalization, signing and landscaping.
26. The City requires a traffic index of 8 (T.I. = 8) for East Washington Street. The
geotechnical report shall identify the existing pavement section and traffic index. In the
event that the existing East Washington Street pavement section does not meet T.I. = 8
standards, the developer shall be responsible for reconstructing the existing portions of
East Washington Street, from centerline, along the project frontage. An asphalt overlay
conform shall be required as necessary to provide a smooth street crown and insure
positive cross sectional drainage of 2% minimum. A half - street slurry seal shall be
applied to the bike lane, travel lane, and left -turn lane along the project frontage to
provide a consistent surface.
27. The pavement sections for the proposed interior streets shall be designed for a traffic
index of 5 (T.I. = 5) and shall contain a minimum of four inches of asphalt concrete.
28. A left turn lane shall be installed on East Washington Street in accordance with the traffic
impact study dated April 2001 and City of Petaluma standards.
10
11
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2.
29.
Parking shall be prohibited along the creek side of proposed Bordessa Court, along the
3
Prince Park side of proposed Noriel Lane, and within the cul -de -sac subject to the review
4
and approval of the City of Petaluma. No parking street signs and red curb shall be
5
installed.
6
30.
City standard sidewalk is required on Linnet Lane (along Lots 16 and 17).
7
8
31.
An off - street 8 -foot wide separated 2 -way bike path shall be installed along the East
9
Washington Street project frontage, from the end of the existing path near Alderwood
10
Subdivision Unit # 1 to Prince Park, subject to the review and approval of the City of
11
Petaluma.
12
13
32.
Maintenance agreements /declarations are required for privately shared driveways.
14
15
33.
All P, G & E distribution electric lines and other overhead utilities and service drops
16
along the street frontages or traversing the site shall be placed underground.
17
18
34.
The applicant shall install an 8 -foot wide maintenance /bike /pedestrian path above and
19
along the southerly East Washington Creek bank. The path shall be joined to the existing
20
natural path located behind Alderwood Subdivision Unit Number One. Final location of
21
the path shall be subject to the review and approval of the Engineering and Planning
22
Divisions and the Parks and Recreation Department.
23
24
35.
Lot 29 shall access off of the shared driveway for lots 27 and 28.
25
26
36.
Sound wall construction shall be consistent with adjacent developments and subject to
27
final design approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Committee.
28
29
37.
The East Washington Street transition/conform near Prince Park shall be subject to the
30
review and approval by the City Engineer.
31
32
Sanitary
Sewer Collection and Water Supply Utilities
33
34
38.
Each lot shall have separate sanitary sewer laterals and water services.
35
36
39.
All utilities located within private driveways shall be privately owned and maintained
37
through appropriate maintenance agreements /declarations.
38
Grading and Drainage
1 39
40
41
40.
Hydrology calculations for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma
42
County Water Agency (SCWA) prior to final map an improvement plan approval.
43
44
41.
Hydrology calculations shall include downstream drainage facilities including the
45
Washington Creek box culvert located under Sonoma Mountain Parkway. If the hydraulic
46
capacity of any downstream drainage facilities are exceeded per SCWA and City of
11
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
Petaluma criteria/standards /etc. as a result of this project, the developer is responsible for
2
upgrading improvements subject to the review and approval by the SCWA and City
3
Engineer.
4
5
42.
The developer is responsible for creating a perpetual maintenance mechanism (C, C &
6
R's, Maintenance Agreement) for long -term maintenance within the proposed East
7
Washington Creek dedication area subject to the review and approval by the City
8
Engineer.
9
10
43.
A detailed geotechnical investigation report is required with the improvement plan
11
application package including East Washington Street pavement section samples
12
previously mentioned.
13
14
44.
Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed without drainage /storm drain easements.
15
16
45.
Grading conforms to adjacent developments shall be subject to the review and approval
17
of the City Engineer.
18
19
46.
The applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water
20
Resources Control Board and provide a copy of the filed notice to the City of Petaluma
21
prior to final map approval.
22
23
47.
The applicant shall submit a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in
24
accordance with latest state standards for review and approval by the City Engineer prior
25
to final map approval. The SWPPP shall be available on -site in the job trailer at all times
26
throughout the construction process. The SWPPP and NOI copy shall be submitted with
27
the improvement plan application package. The developer and /or contractor shall update
28
the SWPPP throughout the construction process per the latest state standards.
29
30
48.
A detailed erosion and sediment control plan is required as a part of the improvement
31
plans and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
32
33
49.
The applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the
34
construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the
35
specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the
36
required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions
37
during construction.
38
39
a. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction activities shall
40
be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be
41
turned off when not in use.
42
43
b. Exposed soils shall be watered a minimum of twice daily during construction.
44
The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
45
12
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 C. The construction site shall provide u gravel pad area consisting of an
2 impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and
3 debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street
4 surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud
5 and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles.
6
7 d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps
8 or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions.
9
10 e. Post - construction re- vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils
11 shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and
12 Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of
13 improvements or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
14
15 f. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to
16 monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone
17 number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permits.
18
19 50. The applicant shall file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the California State Water
20 Resources Control Board and a copy to the City of Petaluma upon completion of the
21 project.
22
23 Easements
24
25 51. Ten -foot wide public utility easements are required throughout the development.
26
27 52. A 1 -foot wide non- access easement is required along the East Washington Street
28 frontage.
29
30 53. Public access easements are required for all sidewalks not located within the public right
31 of way.
32
33 54. Private access, drainage, utility, etc. easements are required.
34
35 Miscellaneous
36
37 55. The final map and improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with latest City
38 standards, codes, policies and ordinances.
39
40 56. Any existing wells or septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned per County of
41 Sonoma Environmental Health Department standards.
142
43 57. The applicant shall submit either a digitized data fee in the amount of ten dollars per lot
44 or provide electronic base map information for updating the City's base map system prior
45 to final map and improvement plan approval.
46
13
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
58. In order to incorporate a 625 square foot section of land currently owned by the City of
Petaluma within Lot 20, the applicant shall make an application for a zero net lot line
adjustment with or prior to final map approval. The location of the 625 square feet to be
exchanged shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of Petaluma.
From Water Resources:
59. Show ALL existing utilities, including 12 -inch irrigation water main, 16 -inch (Zone 1)
water main and new connection to 16 -inch (Zone 4) water main. Water main connection
on E. Washington Street will be connected to 16 -inch (Zone 4) water main.
60. Developer shall submit water G.P.M. requirements for domestic and fire sprinkler
systems for all new lots so the size of water services can be determined.
61. Change water main connection at Noriel and Hawk Drive to a tee fitting with valves and
a hot tapped connection to existing 12 -inch main along property line of Prince Park.
62. Add water valves at locations on plans.
63. Plug 4 -inch sewer stub -in on E. Washington Street to this property in manhole and slurry
fill lateral. New sewer will be tied into manhole at intersection of Parkland Way and E.
Washington Street.
From the Fire Marshall:
64. Pursuant to Ordinance 2084 any residence submitted after July 1, 2000, is required to be
spnnklered. Fire sprinkler systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-
D are required in residential structures when a condition exists such as the structure is in
excess of 150 feet from an approved fire department access road, the structure cannot
accommodate an approved 20 -foot access road to within 150 feet of the furthest portion
of an exterior wall, or the stricture lacks required turn around. A require fire sprinkler
system shall include the extension of sprinklers into the attic, garage, attached porches
and carports, bathrooms over 55 square feet, closets over 24 square feet, or 3 feet deep,
and other attached structures. These systems shall be calculated for two -head activation
for the most remote two heads.
65. Contractors shall submit to the Fire Marshal's office evidence that the required fire flow
of gpms is available at the proposed structure.
66. Activation of the fire sprinkler system shall sound an interior alarm that will notify all
occupied spaces.
67. No combustible construction above the foundation is allowed unless an approved asphalt
surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of the furthest point of a structure and the fire
hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are in service.
14
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
68.
Provide no parking signs for the court and paint curb red with Fire Land No Parking
2
along the creek side of the 28 -feet street width Bordessa Court as per City Standards.
3
4
69.
Post address numbers on or near main entry door. Numbers to be a minimum of four
5
inches high with contrasting background. Must be legible and visible from street.
6
7
70.
For future plan reviews, please provide fully scaled plans. If plans of building /s are not to
8
scale, they will be refused and /or denied and returned.
9
10
71.
Provisions for Annual Weed /Brush Abatement of the urban interface and the developed
11
area shall be the responsibility of the developer /property owner. A plan that outlines the
12
criteria for provisions of weed abatement shall be developed. This plan shall be approved
13
by the Fire Marshal's office prior to approval of final map of the project. This plan shall
14
include conditions for fire safe landscaping, firebreaks and shall be in accordance with
15
"Fire Safe Standards" developed by the State of California.
16
17
72.
Install fire hydrants every 300 lineal feet. No structure or fire department sprinkler
18
connection shall be in excess of 150 feet from a fire hydrant.
19
20
73.
No combustible construction above the foundation is allowed unless an approved asphalt
21
surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of the furthest point of a stricture and the fire
22
hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are in service.
23
24
74.
Proposed streets, cul -de -sac shall meet the City of Petaluma turn radius and street width
25
for parking on both sides of street.
26
27
75.
Cul -de -sac turn radius for the City of Petaluma is R =47' with no parking.
28
29
76.
Fire safe roofs are strongly suggested for this development.
30
31
77.
For construction activities involving storage of chemicals or hazardous materials on -site,
32
the applicant shall file a declaration form with the Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain a
33
hazardous materials storage permit. If hazardous materials are to be used or stored on-
34
site, the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for approval by the Fire
35
Marshal.
36
37
78.
This plan has been reviewed with the information supplied; subsequent plan submittal for
38
review may be subject to additional requirements as plans are revised.
39
40
41
142
43
III.
ROCKRIDGE POINT, Western Avenue and Windsor Drive.
44
AP NO.: 020-030-037,039,013 & 015; FILE NOS: ANX00004; PRZ0000.1;
45
PUD00004; TSM00003
46
Planner: Laura Lafler
15
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2 The applicant is proposing to prezone a property to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to
3 annex to the City of Petaluma, and to subdivide a 123 -acre parcel into 62 residential lots.
4
5 Commissioner Glass: Disclosed that he is part of Neighborhood for a Better Petaluma and talked
6 about the Williams Act.
7
8 George White: Noted correspondence presented to Commission at their places from Victoria
9 Residential Association and two people.
10
11 Laura Lafler presented the staff report.
12
13 Vin Smith, Project Applicant: Introduced the development team Doyle Heaton from Mardell,
14 Dan Hale, Architect, Mike Malani, Milani Associates, Civil Engineers, Dave Church, Project
15 hydrologist and Allan Tilton, WTrans.
16
17 Explained how the team arrived at this design. Started with the comments received on the
18 Hillside Village to focus issues. Issues were: what will happen to surrounding neighborhoods
19 with regard to traffic; what will happen to the downstream neighborhood regarding runoff, will
20 we be able to see these units (previously 240, now 62) and what will they look like and how will
21 they interact with our neighborhoods.
22
23 Developed four major goals:
24 ® Cluster development in a location that eliminated views of the units from the valley floor.
25 Minimize the visibility of the units from the surrounding neighborhoods, taking
26 advantage of the two knolls as a way of screening development, and thereby minimizing
27 the impact on the adjacent property owners.
28
29 ® In examining the traffic impact, it seemed more of an issue with the speed of travel than
30 the number of trips. Have incorporated two features on Windsor Drive as part of the
31 development proposal. 1) a round about at the entrance; second a splitter island (6'
32 wide, between 20 and 40' long) on the border of this project and Victoria, Phase III.
33 Both measures are an effort to calm traffic. Have had conversations with Home Owners
34 Association and they have asked for an additional island within Victoria Phase III as an
35 additional measure to slow traffic.
36
37 ® The third issue was with architecture. Took cues from D Street and 4"' through 8 th Street
38 where there is a host of architectural styles. Styles are Craftsman, American Tradition
39 and Bungalow which are consistent with the historic nature of this town.
40
41 ® The last issue was the downstream drainage impacts. There is a lot of testimony about
42 what Victoria did to "our backyards" when it was graded which is probably ongoing due
43 to how Victoria was designed. In Phase III alone there was 520,000 cubic yards of dirt
44 removed.
45
16
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 Difference between public open space and Homeowners Association owned open space. If held
2 by Homeowners Association, public access is prohibited. If dedicated as public open space,
3 there is opportunity to invite the public for recreational activities. Proposing 89 acres with
4 easement established in perpetuity so it cannot be developed again.
5
6 One parcel is a proposed detention basin — and would be a public facility which would be
7 designed to provide a maintenance contract and dedicate to City of Petaluma as a storm drain
8 system solution of this subdivision.
9
10 Regarding comments from Curt Bates, Engineering Section:
11 Attachment 7, #1 & 2.Frontage improvements on Helen Putnam Park side of Windsor Drive —
12 would be necessary to cut into hillside. #4 — irrevocable offer of dedication to the additional
13 parcels included as part of annexation application — something we could do, however, not sure
14 this is the best access to those parcels. #5 — met with Community Development Director and was
15 encouraged to pursue smaller streets — so this does not seem to be necessary. #9 sidewalks on
16 both sides of street already addressed. Detention facility — public facility instead of
17 Homeowners Association.
18
19 Issue of landscape treatment along creek — raises issue of detention basin design. If there is an
20 engineering way to do what homeowners want — developer agrees to do. Intention is to intercept
21 drainage from the subdivision, storing in a detention basin and allowing to be metered out at the
22 same rate that is coming off the hillside, take care of issues presented by flooding downstream,
23 and a maintenance program to remove sediment.
24
25 Met with adjacent property owners, board members and have developed a plan we hope
26 neighbors are happy with and solve issues.
27
28 Doyle Heaton, Mardel: Gave background of his company and their development in Petaluma.
29
30 Public hearing opened:
31
32 Robert Maser, Neighbors for a Better Petaluma: Feels 62 units more favorable with
33 recommendations presented tonight which is to secure neighbors rights, well being of property.
34 Allow edge of city to be gradual to rural area. Major problem of cut and fill — do not want to see
35 problems of Victoria repeated. Proposal seems to favor developer - giving acreage of open
36 space is to their advantage because the land is unbuildable. Lots 1 through 10 at least 40 feet of
37 fill, lots 18 -30 will have 20 feet of fill. Assured runoff will be taken care of by detention basin —
38 will that really happen? How will this development affect Marin Creek? Address safety of
9 corner of Windsor and Western, a dangerous intersection. Who will maintain open space? How
0 will City and home owners be protected? Need to address issues — propose performance bond to
1 protect City. How will city maintain streets? Look at City's fees to help. Requesting EIR to
2 address issues of water and soil.
43
44 Marne Goggin, Windsor Lane, President of Victoria Homeowners Association. Several private
45 parks within the Victoria Subdivision — owned and maintained by Homeowners Association.
46 When the last phase of Victoria went in they had their own Homeowners Association called
17
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4.1
42
43
44
45
46
Victoria Residential. Came up with an arrangement that the new association would help to
maintain our parks. Would like the developer to have an arrangement to contribute to
maintenance of Victoria's parks. Open space will be dedicated to the City or the County for
open space — would like to see additional improved recreation areas and look at who would
maintain. Involved in original proposal for Hillside Village — this is a substantial improvement.
Gayle Phillips, 280 Chapman Lane: Resident who lives downstream on Marin Creek. In 1997
an EIR was done on this property — found that development would have significant impact
regardless of the amount of units. Have concerns that we are not doing an EIR. Is affecting
County property — concerned that these issues are not being addressed. EIR found that
development had significant impacts in several areas: Geology, soils and seismicity - Slope
instability and potential slope instability which could damage further development on down.
Heard from report that homes will be hidden from view — concern that plans did not take into
consideration the topography of the soil. There is weak soil — should be addressed. Should be
an EIR saying developer is building on stable land. On pages 191 -193 in the EIR, the soil did
not seem favorable for development — will affect the county and would like some input. Have
not had a public chance to address the original EIR and mitigation measures. Hydrology and
Drainage — project will increase contaminant load to Marin Creek, Petaluma River and San
Francisco Bay from rainfall runoff. Referenced a study done at Penn State for the EPA which
stated that many small developments on a hillside eventually causes damage and flooding.
Pleased that the project is smaller, still think issues need to be addressed in an EIR.
Bill Bennett, Bodega Avenue: Own property that borders Marin Creek. Am a member of Zone
2A Advisory Committee. Have spent a great amount of time trying to secure funds to get Marin
Creek channeled and restored — from Bodega Avenue northward to Skillman Lane. There is a
proposal to extend the channel from behind the KOA campgrounds but that is a long way down
the road. I have personally been up to Victoria and witnessed in heavy rains a 36' culvert and a
26' culvert pouring water out. The proposal in this development is to build a 4 -acre detention
pond, which would be ' 1 foot deep — I would question how long it would take to fill up and
overflow. I urge you to at least consider that downstream we are trying to make improvements
to Marin Creek, which could be next summer before the actual work is completed. Property has
been in my family for over 100 years — started experiencing problems when Victoria was built,
Victoria subdivision changed sheet flow to velocity flow. Any development on property is
premature.
Christopher Aris, Victoria Homeowners Association: More effort put into evaluating options to
mitigate recreation impacts on City and private facilities owned and maintained by Victoria
Homeowners Association. Originally a ball field was proposed on opposite side of Windsor —
why has this not been analyzed as to why it is unrealistic. Development is going to generate
gross revenues of $50 million — a ball field would be a drop in the bucket. Lack of fields in
Petaluma is a problem. Impact if no recreational facilities are built — children will go to Victoria
parks — need to evaluate that impact or options between the developer and the Victoria
Homeowners Association. There are also new homes at D Street & Windsor and those people
will use our parks. Needs to be a concerted effort to look at the recreational aspects of the
development whether it's a ball field, an agreement to use Victoria's existing parks or perhaps a
third option to install a facility that might include a swimming pool. If it's a public facility or
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 private that Victoria and the new development share or something strictly for this development,
2 it needs to be explored for costs and impacts to the neighborhood and the City. I urge the
3 Commission to look at the recreation aspect of this development and be creative.
4
5 Willy Evans, 2009 Western Avenue: My property is adjacent — acquired my property in 1963.
6 Have two concerns: 1) location of bike trail or Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) — do not
7 object to trail itself— want it further up the hill — youngsters will use path on skateboards and
8 will cut through my property. Proximity of trail will also be a bother to residents on either side
9 of me — am not speaking singularly. 2) Grove of trees at the top of the hill — do not want to lose
10 view.
11
12 Deborah Freidenberg, Windsor Lane: Retention basin — raises questions — looking at the model
13 — basin could potentially be a safety hazard, especially small children, or a nuisance with there be
14 junk in there — will this have to be fenced and be an eyesore.
15
16 Patricia Tuttle Brown: Bike & Pedestrian Committee Conditions of Approval are in your packet.
17 Do not want public paths to fall into private hands. There is tremendous potential for public
18 paths — would like to be creative and think of a way to make this happen. Would like perimeter
19 path around the entire development and stripe a bike path to the Junior High School.
20
21 Larry Brawn, 2461 Western Avenue: In the county — can only have 1 home on 3 acres —
22 proposal out of sorts with the character of the community. Own horses — what about bridal
23 paths? Traffic is horrendous now. Adding homes with 2 -3 car garages to access Windsor Drive
24 will make traffic out of control. Don't think dividers in the street will make a difference. Was a
25 rural community — suggest Planning Commission invite neighbors. If we cannot develop — it
26 will affect our property values. What about a bridal path to have access Helen Putnam Park.
27 We have concerns about views — homes too large. What about additional trash? Someone was
28 using the area used as a dumping ground — will that be taken care of by the City? Traffic noise
29 and speed is a concern — much faster on Windsor and Western than posted speed limit.
30
31 Martin Burns, 258 Cambridge Lane, Victoria Residential Association Representative: 93 home
32 owners — discussed issues and possible problems. The majority of home owners are in favor but
33 have concerns: traffic, environmental, possible use of Victoria's playgrounds by Rockridge
34 Development, sewage lift station. Contacted developer re: concerns.
35
36 Kathy Edmonson, Victoria Residential Association. We are happy with the calming measures
37 proposed by developer. We believe retention basin is not sufficient to protect the stream and its
38 surrounding wetland from environmental degradation and threat to endangered species inhabiting
1 39 the stream and wetland. The retention basin would reduce the existing flood control and water
40 quality benefits of the wetland and threaten the perennial stream and wetland complex by
41 impacting groundwater hydrology. Retention basin would require additional and on -going
42 maintenance to dredge and dispose of contaminated sediments from street and lawn runoff and
43 be subject to failure during unusually high flow or sedimentation events. The developer has not
44 provided for these maintenance costs. Destroying the existing flood control and water quality
45 benefits of the wetland by constructing an inferior, expensive and high maintenance man -made
46 facility seems unwise. Victoria Residential Association recommends that the developer, rather
19
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
than reduce the flood control capacity of the wetland, should enhance wetlands to increase flood
retention capacity. This can be accomplished by regrading or resizing existing floodplain on
both sides of Windsor Lane to provide long term flood control and will improve water quality.
Referenced successful projects. We have an agreement with developer for a condition asking the
Planning Commission to include in the conditions of approval that prior to construction of the
proposed development, the developer in consultation with the VRA, will conduct and prepare a
feasibility study to determine the extent to which restoration and enhancement of the existing
wetland is a feasible and reasonable alternative to the proposed flood retention basin. The results
of the study will be filed with the City of Petaluma for final resolution. The comments and
recommendations of the VRA shall be attached to the filing. If the developer does not concur
with the VRA comments and recommendations, the developer will provide a detailed discussion
explaining the reasons for the disagreement and its attempts to resolve the dispute. The
developer shall provide for continued upkeep of the stream and wetlands after enhancement by
the residents of the development in perpetuity. We also urge that the developer implement a
homeowners association or other suitable financial arrangement within the development to
accomplish ongoing contribution to costs associated with the use and maintenance of the streams
and wetlands. Sewage lift station which is currently paid for by Victoria Residential
Association. We are concerned that the developer will use the sewage lift station and does not
have plans for providing a proportionally fair cost assessment to the new residents.
Vin Smith: Referred to page 3 of Curt Bates memo, Attachment 7 — quoted Condition of
Approval to contribute costs for sewage lift station.
Paul McGavin: 297 Cambridge Lane, Petalumans Against Nuisance Traffic: Our bedroom is 10-
15 feet from the street and 18 -wheel trucks go by all day long. This is a concern that we would
like to address. The use of this street will change significantly with the final addition of another
residential development on Windsor Drive. Windsor Drive now is exclusively a residential
street. Burden of maintenance would need to be shared by all residents along Windsor Drive.
Believe in consistency of the General Plan. There has been no EIR certified after 1983. It's now
23 years later and a lot has changed. Need EIR certified on issues of hydrology, traffic and a
detention basin. A full EIR will help with hydrology and traffic issues. Referred to two traffic
studies — one on Victoria, Phase III done in 1997 (900 vehicles /day) and the other by Alan Tilton
for the developer (1400 vehicles /day). On September 20, 2001 it was 1500 /day. Speeds clocked
on Windsor Drive have been from 55 -71 miles /hour. Reading the Traffic Study from 1997 says
that Windsor Drive was designated as a collector street by the City and designed for heavy truck
traffic. In direct conflict with the General Plan, quoted Chapter 10 re: routing truck traffic to
arterials instead of through residential areas. Traffic report by Alan Tilton concluded that
Rockridge Pointe would not contribute. In 1995 Victoria Subdivision asked for some type of
slow down on Windsor Drive. The City put in stop signs and did not restrict trucks on Windsor,
however, they put truck restrictions on Howard and 6 1 Streets and Fair & I 01 encouraging truck
traffic on Windsor. Windsor needs to go back to be restricted to truck traffic. Design ways for
truck traffic to bypass as a Condition of Approval. At General Plan Meeting of October 20, 2001
the City's Traffic Engineer presented a slide of traffic slow downs — table top speed humps and
traffic circles.
110
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 Vin Smith: We are not proposing a Homeowners Association — a Condition of Approval
2 requires a Homeowners Association or that we pay our fair share to the maintenance, upkeep and
3 use of the lift station if it's done through a parcel assessment or some other special assessment
4 per lot.
5
6 Vance Connolly, Edinburgh: Annexing more land to City increases size of Petaluma — don't
7 have good access. Adding more stress by adding more homes — timing is not good. Don't think
8 detention basin, or maintenance road is a good thing or attractive.
9
10 Suzanne McGavin: Believe a current EIR is warranted. Need to address some of wildlife being
11 misplaced by the development such as migrating mud swallow, red - legged frog. Concern re:
12 increased construction traffic — noise and pollutant issue. Issue of open space being public or
13 private land — issue of fences and property violations.
14
15 Carmel Gilroy, Western Avenue: Lived there 32 years. Western Avenue from Chileano Avenue
16 and Western.
17
18 Lisa Ramely, 2804 Western Avenue: EIR warranted to look at long term and regional traffic,
19 detention pond. Increased traffic devalues property. People don't travel just on Western or D
20 Street. Seen increased traffic from Victoria. Putting an urban development in a rural area.
21 Would hate to see additional 41 homes developed.
22
23 Kelly Lear, 2324 Western Avenue: Will impact Western and Webster traffic — is a dangerous
24 intersection. Need public open space.
25
26 Public comment closed.
27
28 Vin Smith: Understand what the issues are: find traffic solutions, drainage issues; recreational
29 issues — dedicating 89 acres — open to suggestions for use of space; Rockridge contributing to
30 Victoria park maintenance — can hopefully come to agreement. Traffic capacity of Windsor is
31 7,000 vehicles /day as defined by General Plan — can support project as proposed.
32
33 Commission questions:
34
35 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about an EIR.
36
37 Vin Smith: Initial Study and attachments show that impact of project can be mitigated.
38
9 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about mitigation of Marin Creek and drainage of water.
0
1 Vin Smith: Will not drain directly into Marin Creek like Victoria Subdivision does.
142
43 Commissioner Glass: Is detention pond year round model.
44
45 Vin Smith: No — not significant grade change — wet when it rains and dry when it's not raining.
46 Reduced grading since report.
21
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Monteschio: You do have 30' of fill on certain Lots.
Mike Milani, Milani and Associates: Project has gone through a number of changes re: cut and
fill. Lots 6 -10 are principal in cut — 10 cut to fill. Average of 15' — 30' at corner of Lot 3.
Commissioner Glass: Do you ever exceed a 3 to 1 grade?
Vin Smith: Detention bond, 2 to 1, 3 to 1 and then development.
Mike Milani: SPARC is looking at grading.
Commissioner Glass: Mitigating to an acceptable risk — what is this?
Vin Smith: These lots are twice the size — relationship of neighbors and down slope does not
exist in this subdivision. Country Club and Maxwell subdivision are examples of these type of
residences built into hillside.
Commissioner Glass: Are we confident that detention basin is best on this project.
Vin Smith: No net runoff is appropriate here.
Commissioner Glass: Would we possibly see some improvement to Marin Creek.
Commissioner Barrett: Question re: Gilbin Associates, Appendix B of Initial Study — what is
relevant?
Vin Smith: Significant changes would be to quantities of fill — criteria used are the same.
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Questioned study by Giblin Associates done several years ago in
1995, updated by the same firm — does not have a boring log. Where were borings taken?
Commissioner Barrett: Asking if information in letter of dated March, 2001 is out of date.
Vin Smith: Information based on previous projects.
Commissioner Barrett: Want report on project being presented tonight.
Doyle Heaton: Have to update report — structural engineer will look at report and put onto plans
and then designed for building. Have to certify that pads are done accordingly.
Commissioner Barrett: How is heavy soil creep avoided when it is used as fill?
Mike Milani: Material is tested to perform to conformance of soils report.
22
Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 2001
1 Commissioner Barrett: Need EIR. Is this a project that fulfills policies of General Plan and
2 LAFCO? Concern about downstream flooding.
3
4 Commissioner Glass: Presented a letter from a resident regarding the grading proposed for the
5 project — urged to caution. Same objections regardless of project size. Much of the project is
6 consistent with General Plan. Opportunity for high -end housing.
7
8 Mike Milani: Where there are goetechnical issues, you can have peer reviews. Make
9 accommodations to account for the unknown.
10
11 Commission issues:
12
13 CEQA Checklist items: drainage specific to retention basin, down stream neighbors
14 Traffic — adequacy
15 Soils
16 Grading
17 Ownership of open space
18 Associations
19 General Plan Consistency
20 Adequacy of Environmental documentation — EIR warranted?
21 Fulfill General Plan and LAFCO?
22 CC &R's — weak in terms of additions and architectural design elements.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner von Raesfeld and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio
25 to continue Rockridge Point to January 8, 2002.
26
27
28
29 IV. LIAISON REPORTS:
30
31 ® City Council:
32 ® SPARC:
33 ® Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee:
34 ® Tree Advisory Committee: e
35
36
37 V. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
38
39 Adjourned: 12:15 a.m.
40
41 SAK- Planning Commission \Minutes \l 12701pcminutes.doc
23