HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/14/199334
2
3
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6
7
8
9 'REGULAR ,MEETING Septeiitb.r 14,"1993
10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11 CITY HALL PETALUND,%, CA
12
13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
14
15 ROLL CALL: Bennett*, Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, Torlidtt,,vo-wRaesfeld
16
17 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, - Planning Director
18 Jim McCann, Principal Planner
19 Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
20 Jennifer Barrett, Associate Planner
22 Chairman
23
Id
25 MINUTES* OF August 24, 1993 were approved as distributed.
26
27
PUI1'
28 LIC COMMENT: None..
29
30 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
31
32 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Joint C'ity Council, Planning Commission, SPARC
33 meeting � w as useful and productive.
34
35 CORRESPONDENCE: September 10 General Report, 2 letters regarding Rainier
36 Interchange; memo from staff. regarding -Sonoma Glen V.
38 APPEAL. STATEMENT: Was read.
39
40 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
41
4`
43 OLD BUSINESS:
44 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
45
46 1.- CITY OF PETALUMA; RAINIER DRAFT E NVIRONMENTAL .1
MPACT REPORT
47 HEARING; FILE NO. 11.863.
48
49 Public comment on the Draft . Envir"Onmental Impact Report for. the proposed
50 Rainier Avenue Extension 'and- ` Consideration, of Draft Biological
51 Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
52
-
53 (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1993.)
'54
35
1 (Commissioner Rahman indicated that she had reviewed tape of the previous (Rainier)
2 meeting.)
3
4 SPEAKERS:
5
6 Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - Continuation of hearing to review Biologic Mitigation
7 Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program and any additional public commen s; purpose of
8 DEIR, Mitigation Plan and Monitoring Program. Biological Mitigation Program is
9 conceptual at this time. Comments in two types: i) Adequacy of DEIR; 2) Policy.
10 Commissioner Bennett - Wants written response to comments before discussing policy.
11 issue.
(9) Doris Popky - 1549 Rainier - Jennifer Barrett very helpful. DEIR does not adequately
00 address "safety of area residents (need signs, prohibit trucks, commercial, 4-way stop at
09 Prince Albert, 4-way stop at Maria, pedestrian crossing at all crossings, speed bumps,
maybe sound walls,•need to- figure out how to deal with quads); Allah Tilton said Council
committed to not develop - Corona Road in the Corona/Ely plan, why then a DEIR - look at
alternative that could not be considered wasteful of tax dollars.
&ON?
Casey Se4owitz - 405 Trinity - has not received response to first letter, gave new letter for
record, wants cost-benefits between projects analyzed; look at traffic violations/citations.
20 Ed Sawicki - 425 Yosemite - This is a band-aid, need to build both interchanges; residents
21 on Rainier won't have commercial traffic; commercial traffic can use Corona Road.
22 Sherrill Worth - 1739 Rainier - too much commercial traffic for residential area; build both
23 interchafi ges; often nearly rear-ended while pulling into driveway; EIR needs current
24 counts on Rainier.
25 Michellel, Benson - 408 RedRock - Hit by car on busy street when she was in. 3rd grade; this
able traffic level. ,
will be the same unaccep A
7 Lisa Wells - 220 Prince Albert - presented several illustrating photographs of Rainier
8 Avenue; overhe'ads, view towards Rushmore, speed sip needs replacement, trimilied
29 bushes didn't work; must pull 3' into slow lane to adequately see; truck stacks are noisy on
30 McDowell, shouldn't be allowed on Rainier; views exiting quads; bushes overgrown, bat
31 that is only sound barrier so don't cut; cars back-up on Maria; SRJC peak at same time as
32 Bernard Eldridge; top, concern: children safety, not enough site distance on Prince Albert,
33 360' between �een Prince Albert and Rainier traffic will back-up and block exit; Rushmore has
34 same problem.
35 Glen MacKenzie - 279 Skillman Lane 29 years here; large increase in traffic; Bo&ga
36 Avenue/Petaluma Blvd. cross-traffic and Cinnabar School add to it; 'objects to Corona
37 intercba,Age; would stream more traffic to Skillman Lane.
38 David Keller - 1327 1 Street (Petaluma River Co.) - Key points from letter: (inc. policy for
- 39 traffic - r ' eduction); Objections: relieve east/west traffic and Washington corri dor relief
40 DEIR does prove that project does not meet Washington relief, current vs. 20.05 traffic
41 same: just do mitigations, skip project; DEIR does not look at traffic reduction: should
42 reduce traffic flow rather than add infrastructure; City should subsidize, non-auto
43 dependent uses rather, than fund infrastructure, references worldwide studies; l6ok at why
44 cars are on Washington, we should check whether park placement/resc'hedule. of parks will
45 reduce congestion; why was "Eastman Video Plaza" built? What will happen when train
46. Plaza builds? Why not require employers to bus to reduce autos; make buses run every 15
47 minutes; transit first, development pattern secondary: correct approach; view Corona
48 interchange onl y ; with no extension of Rainier; view conservation/ Corona
49 interchange only combo approach; less damaging to River; Rainier not designed for traffic
`1 0 volumes;i open 'space easements to restrict growth along Corona; Use SCAPOSD to
1 make Corona area a high priority; make commitment not to extend utilities, obstruct
2 traffic on Corona, growth inducement easily resolved; Discrepancies in traffic counts
3 between different documents - Corona/Ely, Factory Outlet, SRJC (Why?); DEIR needs
54 more discussion of biotic impacts - immediate, consequent, cumulative growth; Request to
2
36
flag project, height poles and toe of fill 5 :1 oak replacement inadequate; Only place where
oaks are reproducing, should be based on habitat replacement, - not trees acre for. acre;
Nalue for value ".; integrity of area should not be destroyed.
Jim Schaffner (Real Estate Broker) 4 Overcrossing and interchange should go alon
Sunrise .Parkway: 1) land for sale in needed right-of-way in Southpoint Business Park, 21
can pave Capri. Creek /greenbelt area; 3) can connect to Old -.Adobe Road; 4) meets
Caltrans "i- rnnle"separation requirement; maybe. get funding.
Mer edith. Kebodeaux -'629 Maria - Don't pave Capri greenbelt; Maria traffic_ too bad now
(will project relieve or worsen Maria) ; supports Corona.
David Kavana - 1825 Sk lman Enjoyed comments; impressed by views; same problems '
are magnified on Skillman; speed`s now 80 MPH' on Skillman which is less wide than
Rainier;, new alternatives need to be studied, Rainier is self - contained, won't encourage
traffic and can mitigate with stop signs and other coritrol .measures; Skilman would attract
regional traffic ; -likes open °area for hiking among oaks:
Janice Thompson - 732 Carlsbad ti Prefers. Corona, because Corona...more direct route to.
SRJC (why was SRJC allowed in high density area ?); Auto dealers ought to- 'have better
freeway access; Ramps can avoid auction yard; sympathizes with Skilman residents, but
traffic impact worse for Rainier residents; Costs less because distance 'longer between
McDowell and Petaluma Blvd. at Rainier than -at Corona; project will be higher (cost ?) at
Rainier than at Corona; Rainier is'deadend, Corona leads to more activity centers around
edge of town; Corona better serves Factory Outlet; Rainier has too many. children and
driveways.
Larry Tencer 1709 Granada - Office on McDowell, traffic is bad; DEIR .does not address
economic_ imp acts, economic factors need to be studied (need. assessment to finance
project); this project has more vacant land to ,sh`are costs: DEIR ,need more "english" and
page numbers in better sequence; DEIR: needs more background information .on build =out
assurnpfions; DEIR needs more comparable times /peak, 24 hours as well as peak; This
DEIR not as clear in conclusion as earlier. reports; This DEIR says .McD'owell=rs LOS' A;
doesn't believe for ,southbound based on 'his observations from. office; Southbound heavier
than north, but numbers added so that back -up on McDowell not as apparent.
Lee. Heinz .Chamber of Commerce - Still being discussed at Chamber, Here to present
position ;; Chamber; asked for input from members, citizens, shopping center owners,
mission statement '`healthy and vibrant business community" is focus (not to discount other
input);. Chamber supports Rainier, better for business; traffic flow a factor to shop north of
Petaluma; enhances - access for shopers; supports inward' growth within Urban: Limit Line;
maintains integrity of the General Pl An; recaptures tak- dollars and creates jobs; Reexamine
coinclusion' that' Rainier does not alleviate Washington /McDowell congestion; Need to
address .safety, noise.,and congestion more fully; Possible to proceed with . project and
respond to needs of neighborhood.
John Clifrow f627 Shanendoah - Hazardous'`materials release in.delivery 'tiucks' accident
along ,Rainier ;, Fire Department -at Corona can deaf with spill since they're there not a's
populated:
Felix Wee - 1-24' Prince Albert General' Plan, page 1 says ; Rainier designed for future
traffic since then,' Corona /Ely and SRJC, Outlet DEIR added traffic; Neighbors never
informed of incremental growth, not cumulative growth; not able to ',determine if all
impacts are combined; due to college;* Rainier may be asked to accomm odate more traffic
than it was designed for; Why were quads approved? Why were other homes allowed on
Rainier if traffic was to be so high? General" Plan 'is static, can be. changed ,(plus we are 1. Charter City); Rainier looked at 40 years ago, now obsolete; Air quality: short impacts
OK; Long term impacts: Rainier supports construction vehicles; Page 3.12.1.4: Policy 27 of
General Plan " BAAQMD to monitor..; "; 3.4. -7: BAAQMD site is in - Santa: Rosa, reveals no
violation; Weyle contacted, Santa Rosa station, told that could not measure CO , (Carbon
Monoxide) in area as far away as Petaluma. "; Rainier residents agree to Rainier extension,
which would, alleviate traffic according to DEIR ;Skillman reside nits _ opposed, but does not
oV
k .��rsSFy f �,.
WA
1 believe Corona Interchange will encourage regional through - traffic to Bodega; Through-
2 . traffic on Skilman is threat, now, interchange will not worsen; Skilman arguments also apply
" . 3 to Rainier; Rainier is growth inducing also: "Thus project would accommodate growth
4 rather than cause growth" quote from "unreadable" Admin. Draft EIR; If auction yard
( 5 supports: 100 miles, then interchange should be at Corona; Rainier residents now "endorsed
6 by Chamber "; Chamber of Commerce "City should support short -term solutions for Rainier
7 residents ", but they need long -term solution.
8 Gary Harmon - 216 Prince Albert - Earlier speakers 'impressive; lived here 8 years, likes
is 9 Petaluma ambiance; Regarding economics: Planning Commission should not consider
10 business end, but.rather people, families.
11 Ken Bouchard -"128 Prince Albert - Sonoma Mountain Parkway better designed to handle
traffic; Why is Rainier cheaper than Corona? Corona already has a connection; Tie
is Corona to vacant lands for economic benefits; Can't equate economic benefits to .death of
child.
Madeline Ash - 141 Yosemite - Factory Outlet near Corona and in Cotati; Corona better
supports. Factory Outlet.
John Coos - 471 Yosemite Pagination must be changed; How is City going to pay? Why
no State or Federal money? What is impact on vacant parcels? Can this zoning be
I changed? Can we assume it will be changed to help pay for it.
20 Mark 'Roadhouse - 201 Prince Albert - Chamber focus too much' on revenue, should be
21 safety; If.not safety, then some individuals benefit from revenue.
22 Jim Becker - 953 Gossage - spoke before, lives in rural area near Skillman; neighbors do
23 not support Corona, Planning Commission has not heard from them much; He is Chamber
24 Chair of 27- member Economic Committee, supports Chamber position, decision - making
25 process long and drawn -out; Chamber'sympathetic t' Rainier residents.
6 Bill Kortum - Ely Road - Long term resident, T- intersection at Petaluma Blvd. (Rainier)
' 7 not serving much of westside; City should not depend on growth for revenue; especially at
► 8 the loss of great open space; SCTA has control of CIP funds (new Transit Land Use Plan);
29 land use needs to be planned around transit; Advocated need 3 -4 years to prepare plan;
30 CIP could widen Corona, fix Washington intersection; why pass Rainier if money may be
31 available for other fixes; Requested postponement of decision for CIP /MTC approval
32 maybe just to January? Would not like to see Corona, but its preferable; public_in Corona
i 33 will not allow growth; Skilman will not compete with Stony Point /Pepper Road to coast.
34 Victor de Carli - Petaluma Inn associate - Good presentations; need solution , to
35 McDowell /Washington problem; regarding safety - no accidents at Kenilworth on a busy
36 street; Corona Road not viable alternative; people will not drive 2 -3 miles north to go
37 southbound on US 101; Rainier not crowded at 4:45 PM tonight (no cars).'
38 D. Keller - PRC - Transit will be brought up at General Plan hearing; Factory Outlet
39 conditions required- master plan; approval of Rainier first is "highly inappropriate "..
40 B. Kumasi - 1533 Rainier - Neighbors not here feel even more strongly "this is, tip of
41 iceberg''.; This, is not special interest group, rather ass roots cross - section of society;
42 Citizen views matter; attended Chamber meeting they were obviously not: ,expecting
43 crowd); feels they held meeting just to be able to say they did; feels Chamber lost goodwill
44 today.
,. 45
46 The public hearing was closed
47
48 Planning Commission Discussion
49
0 Commissioner Parkerson - Clarify Corona alternative includes the extension of Rainier
1 Avenue las an overcrossing only with an-interchange at Corona Road.
2 Commissioner Torliatt - I thought EIR should show facts, not recommendation.
�3 Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - CEQA requires that if it is clear that one alternative is
54 less environmentally damaging to the environment the EIR must identify the
2
a
environmentally superior alternative; EIR to identify potential .impacts and, recommend
mitigation measures; not all "facts'; but evaluation of potential. .
Commissioner Torliatt - Felt DEIR pushed toward' conclusion that Rainier is better.
t .
Associate Planner Jennifer Barret Because alternate is full project alternative, it was
evaluated throughout the document in a comparative analysis.
Commissioner Sh ea - Funding not in DEIR; when would this information, be available?
Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett Usually funding details are presented ai City" Council
Commissioner Rahman Was there a separate Traffic,Study?
Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett - Yes, Traffic Report was included in EIR in its entirety.
Commissioner Rahman Financing? Who's responsibility? Should Planning Commission
be involved? Refer to Kortum statements.
Commissioner Bennett - Planning Commission needs more financingg information
(background) ' "sense of how to fund "; "sense of economic" impacts; wants information with
response to comments. Not as in their authority but to provide clear _of .the,
project, and possible options.
Commissioner. Torliatt - What will be done to Washington /McDowell? Funding
intersection? `Tiining of intersection improvements?
Commissioner Rahman - Also needs to be looked at comprehensively, tie to General Plan
review.
C ommissioner` Bennett - Traffic - Need to look at any discrepancies between studies; clarify
what the im acts /benefits are to Washington Street; better sense of how Rainier and
Washin &ton /McDowell projects interrelate; plans for traffic enforcement of both project
alternatives (as mitigation); safety, evaluate a range of mitigations; address Kortum s
financing options for other improvements; address trip reduction `TRO /Keller
"conservation" -comments and what can we do to* improve transit, how dependent.
° Commissioner Rahman - What can be .'done' to address Rainier.: - safety .:concerns.
immediately (without.project ),; need a stop light at Prince Albert Court.
Commissioner `Shea - Concerns with safety.
Commissioner Thompson Restrips, change lanes, etc. between Prince Albert and Rainier;
crossguards; define need for interchange, evaluate commute patterns; who are drivers on
Washington? .Compare east and west drivers vs. bus users; Keller's comments on habitat
(don't .over- landscape).
Commissioner Torliatt - Explain better project impact on Army Corps flood control
project; visual: bland overpass; does landscape plan vegetate new fill; Growth Inducement
what is County zoning in Corona? Why is'this considered growth inducing ?; bike access
Describe, bike upgrades if any on Petaluma Blvd. North; will Rainier bikelanes, go,
anywhereT .Why are on -ramps designed as is (diamonds vs. loops); Why not diamonds on
both sides, How .do ramps compare to Washington loops (Washington,., dangerous)
Alterative shapes that can be considered? Is fill less money than posts /raised ?; Why so-
much fill (visual obstruction) over poles?; Why is River Enhancement Plan. not mentioned?
How will riverwalk connect to Rainier? Should we have spiral staircase? Intercity transit
(rail) should be discussed /addressed.
Commissioner Bennett - What will traffic volumes on Rainier, Corona, Washington be with;
no project /each project ?; Succinct summary; not LOS but volumes, what is traffic.
reduction; Compare to Caulfield; Payran (E. Washington to Petaluma
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Economic issues have a bearing; clearly explain source of
funds; what, price paid; further explain how to get State and Federal funds, compare prices.
of options; identify mayor traffic generators map = SRJC, Shopping Centers, Factory Outlet;
Describe evolution of Rainier in General Plan since first inception, was it .always an,
interchange?; Show all alternatives that were considered; define problem we are trying to
solve; more - detailed . data. (crosswalks, driveways,, etc:); Why is Washington. Street not
improved at buildout? Now? Can growth 'inducement be solved for Corona?
5
39
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
M 10
11
20
. 21
23
24
25
�f 6.
� r
7
8
9
30
31
I 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
--39
40
41
42
1 43
44
r .. 45
f' 46
47
48
49
0
1
2
t 3 .
`. 54
Commissioner Torl iatt - Corona impacts to rail crossing; Rainier relationship to railroad
overpass on 101., will it affect- site distance (block views of stopped cars); Why curve in
Rainier alignment? Why not-go straight through to Lands of Gavriloff.
Commissioner Shea - Discuss r -o -w acquisition needs; how acquired, what land required
for both; Corona and Rainier?
Commissioner vonRaesfeld DEIR states Rainier was designed to accommodate traffic,
describe, what features make it so.
The hearing was closed and the Planning Commission discussion was continued to a future
date after the response to comments is made available. Pamela Tuft clarified that a notice
will be (sent out to mailing list when the Response to Comments is available and the
meeting date is scheduled.
II MOUNTAIN VALLEY PARTNERS; MOUNTAIN VALLEY VILLAS; SONOMA.
MOUNTAIN PARTWAY AT RAINIER CIRCLE, AP NO'S ' 136- 120 - 60,61,78;
FILES TSM92003, REZ92011.
Request to amend the PUD Development Plan and Tentative Map for Phases 2A
and 3 of Mountain Valley Subdivision to create 70 detached single - family lots.
The public hearing was opened:
SPEAKERS:
Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
Doyle Heaton - (Applicant) Mountain Valley Partners - Project has undergone substantial
revision per Commission direction; price range of homes (less) than $200,000; opposed to
"tot lot" recommendation.
John Thatch - �Dahlin Group (Architect) - Homes are innovatively designed, yet contain
typical elements.
Commission Comments Questions regarding paving surfaces; pedestrian Access;-adequacy
of alterriate lot plans; Fire Department and service vehicle access.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson
to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amendment to the 'PUD Development
Plan and Development Standards based on the findings and subject to the following
amend6" conditions:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETI': Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
I
F indings for PUD Amendment
1. The amended development plan as conditioned, results in a more desirable use of
the land, and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single
zoning district or combination of zoning districts.
N
1
3
5
6
8 _
: "*
10 .
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44:,
45'
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
2. The amended plan for the proposed development, as, conditioned, presents a unified
and organized arrangement' of -buildings which are appropriate in. relation to
adjacent and nearby properties and associated proposed projects, and adequate
landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure, compatibility.
3. The natural and scenic qualities - of, the site will, be protected - through the
implementation, of conditions of approval :pertaining. to landscape: areas and
adequate: available public and private` 'spaces are designated ''on the Unit
Development Plan.
4. The. development of the subject property, in thee manner proposed by the applicant .
and conditioned by the City, _will not be detrimental . to the public welfare, will be in
the best- interests of the, City.,and.will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit
of the zoning regulations of the City of ;Petaluma and with the Petaluma General.
Plan.
5. The development is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one
or. more thoroughfares Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to carry any additional traffic
generated by, the development. -
6.. The use of a private court and common driveways as proposed. for cluster- units
contributes to a more efficient use tof land ' would be possible through use of
standard public streets,, and enforcement of conditions of approval and applicable
,provisions in the project CC &R's' will ensure. that the development will function
'adequately,as designed.
7. This project has complied . with the requirements of the California Environmental
(�ualt Act .(CEQA) through preparation and certification: of 'the Corona /Ely
.Specific Plan EIR, and is exempt from further review, based upon 15182 of
y the CEQA .Guidelines, consistency with the Corona f Ely Specific Plan.
Conditions for Amendment
1._ 'This.project shall be subject to SPARC review prior to Final Map application. Plans
submitted at time of SPARC application. shall reflect amendments and ,requirements
.;:. J specified in.the following conditions.
2. The number of plan 3 (single story) units. shall .be increased to. = the . extent
determined feasible by staff. Lot lines and building setbacks may be adjusted as
necessary to achieve increased unit count. Lots 26 and 70 . 33- t- hratrgh -36 shall be
-considered for this purpose.
3. The following minimum off-street. parking ratios shall be provided for each unit
within phases 2A and 3:
a. Two covered (garage) and one uncovered parking spaces for plans 1 and 2;
and
.b. Two covered and two driveway spaces for plans 3,4 and 5.
4. The arrangement of buildings and parking shall be modified as necessary to ensure
the following minimum dimensions
7
C'1"
f
1
a. Parking stalls shall measure a minimum of 8' x 16'. No encroachment, of
2
stalls into back up or.,driveway areas shall be permitted, but a 2' vehicular
. 3
overhang shall be permitted adjacent to landscaping.
fi
4
1.
5
1i A minimum of 22' shall be provided for back -up areas.
6
7
c: A minimum of 18' shall be provided for driveway stalls, measured from face
8
of garage door to edge of driveway, or back of sidewalk, whichever is less.
9
10
d. A minimum of 5' shall be provided. between pavement in driveway/parking
11
} areas and perimeter /yard fenchig ' (excluding any proposed vehicle
ce
overhang).
co
5::
Proposed setbacks for plans 3, 4, and 5 shall be labeled and incorporated into the
FUD Development. Plan as shown on the 'Tentative Map.
6.
Proposed setbacks for plans 1 and 2 shall be labeled on the PUD Development
j
Plan.
20
�------ -
21
e4iisteF-- tm}ts-- 4ocated -- along -= Searles - -Wa-y
22
e4ffliHated -- -far- - this - ptrrpOse: -- P+Ovis}on .&-fof- OwfW-Ship - landscape -- treaty t --and
23a3r}tenanee-
shall -be- addressed ateo € -5� applatx
24
25
8.
A detailed fencing plan shall be provided at time of SPARC review, which shows the
6
location of all fencing in relation - 'to property lines and landscape areas. Fencing
7
details for .private yard, and perimeter fencing proposed shall be included in the
8
plans. Perimeter fencing adjacent to the junior college site shall be consistent with
29
that approved for construction in phases 1A and 2B.
30
z
31
9.
Landscape plans submitted at time of SPARC review shall clearly delineate areas to
32
be maintained by the homeowners association, and those to be privately maintained.
33
34
10.
Proposed landscape treatment in the vicinity of Lots 5 and 23, connecting Rainier
35
Circle and Almanor Street, shall include bollards'to preclude vehicular access and a
36
5' pedestrian /bicycle path. A pedestrian public access easement shall: be dedicated
37
at time of Final Map across this area, and the remaining. portion of Parcel A and
j
38
Parcel B and provisions for maintenance shall be incorporated into the project
'`be
39
CC &Rs. Details for proposed treatment shall submtted "at' time of SPARC
40
review of the project.
41
42
11.
Paving and design for the private court and common driveways, (including Parcel A)
±.
43
shall be visually differentiated from that of the treatment for public streets.
44
Treatment shall ' include use of standard curb cuts in lieu of curb returns. Use of
45
decorative concrete, pavers or other alternative to asphalt is required. Design and
46
materials shall be subject to SPARC review and approval.
47
48
12.
Plans submitted at time of SPARC review shall incorporate provisions for wheel
49
stops or curbing in shared driveway parking stalls to prevent vehicular
0
encroachment into landscape areas within the cluster unit portion of the project.
2
13.
PUD Development Standards shall be amended prior to SPARC application to
3
address the following:
54
42
1
3
5
6
7
8
10
if
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28'
?9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
;8 .
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
a. No accessory structures shall be permitted outside private fenced areas for
plans 1 and 2 except as permitted' by the. Homeowners Association.
Accessory structures for plans 1. and 2 may not 'encroach ;more than 1' into
the required 5' yard setbacks. Acc6'sory structures for plans 3,4 and 5 shall
meet Zoning Ordinance provisions for setback and'lot coverage.
b. References to recorded setbacks shall be deleted.
C. Setbacks for plans 1 and 2 shall be clarified to indicate the location of front;
side and rear yards.
d. No ground floor area additions or garage conversions shall be- permitted for
plans 1 and 2.
e. Provisions for permitting accessory dwellings in accordance:. with... Zoning,
Ordinance requirements shall be incorporated.
f. Provisions for maintenance of fencing, walkways - and other pedestrian
structures (e.g., trellising and seating) in unfenced private yard areas shall be
incorporated into the PUD Standards and CC &Rs.
g.. Exhibits for purposes of identifying biddable yard areas and responsibility for
maintenance of yard areas shall be incorporated into the PUD Development
Standards at time of. SPARC application.
b. Minimum off- street parking requirements as specified under condition 3
shall be incorporated into the PUD Development Standards-
i. - 'Sp.ecific provisions for installation of pools, spas, uncovered decks, and patio
covers shall be incorporated, or reference to applicable provisions of the
..Zoning Ordinance specified.
j. A reference to the approval dates and /or document numbers for the PUD
Unit Development Plan, the Mountain Valley Subdivision Development
Agreement and addendums, Tentative'Map Resolution, PUD Resolution,
SPARC. Conditions of approval .and subdivision CC &Rs shall be inserted
into the PUD' Development Standard's prior to Final Map approval.
k. Provisions for emergency and service vehicle (e .g. trash pick =up). access, along .
shared driveways and the private court shall be incorporated. into the PUD
Standards and CC &R's.
1. Provisions to allow operation of small family daycare, large. family daycare
and home occupations, subject to Zoning Ordinance provisions, shall be
incorporated into the PUD Development 'Standards and referenced in the
subdivision CC &R's.
14. Landscape plans shall be amended . prior to SPARC application.: to reflect all
pertinent conditions of approval, and revisions made to the PUD Development
Plan.
15. SPARC review of architectural and site design plans shall include emphasis on the
following:
s
Z
43
1 a. Adequacy and desirability of the proposed distribution of units and exterior
`2 elevations as specified on the PUD Plan.
3
4 b. Variety of exterior siding and roofing materials,' window treatments, garage
5 and front door treatments, and architectural detailing. Opportunities for
6 porch and entry treatments shall be stressed.
7
8 C. Orientation of units on lots to provide for variety in unit massing, setbacks
9 and garage orientation, as well as adequate open space along the streetscape
10 and walkway areas.
11
CD d. Review of parking plans to ensure optimal ease in vehicular maneuverability,
CO while minimizing pavement to the extent possible.
e. Adequacy of public and private landscaping, pedestrian routes, outdoor
seating and play areas, and reasonable provisions for maintenance.
f. Review of driveway and walkway paving materials and design to ensure
visual distinction from public streets, protection of landscape areas from
20 vehicular intrusion, and long term durability and function.
21
22 & Review of proposed mailbox locations and refuse pick-up areas to ensure
23
adequate service functio.n.and minimization of parking/circulation- conflicts.
24
25 16. All trees within the public right-of-way street tree planter strips shall be maintained
y
6 b' an Assessment District through contract - services subject to approval of the City
'7 Council in conjunction with approval of the first Final Map.. Landscaping within
8 these areas shall be designed and installed to standards acceptable to the City of
29 Petaluma Planning, Engineering, Public Works and Parks Departments. Irrigation
30 to serve all landscaping in the street tree planter strips shall be designed to connect
31 with the private lot irrigation systems of the adjoining lots. This property may annex
32 to the same Landscape Assessment District (LAD) previously established for
33 Mountain Valley phases . 1A, 113, and 2B. Costs of formation/annexation of the
34 required LAD shall be b orne by the project roponent at time of Final Map
35 application. Following City acceptance of right-op-way areas,- landscaping other than
36 street trees and the irrigation systems serving the landscaping, shall be maintained
37 to City Standards by owners of the adjoining properties.
38
39 17 All' applicable provisions of the Development Agreement and subsequent
40 Addendums, and the Urban Separator Improvement and Park Improvement
41 Agreement documents pertaining to timing of required improvements for Mountain
42 Valley Subdivision shall remain in fall force and effect.for phases 2A and 3, unless
43 amended through written addendum and/or conditions of approval adopted for the
44 Mountain Valley Villas project.
45
46 18. Subdivision CC&Rs shall be subject -to the review and approval of Planning and
47 Engineering staff and the City Attorney prior to Council consideration of the first
.48 Final Map. Review shall include emphasis on inclusion of adequate language to
49 ensure appropriate enforcement of maintenance provisions pertaining to the private
0 driveways, and commonly shared landscaping and - hardscape improvements in
T ., l private yard areas.
�2
t3 19. The Amended PUD Development Plan (including landscape plans) shall
54 incorporate all Council and SPARC conditions of approval within 30 days of
10
SPARC. approval of the project or prior to Final Map. application, whichever occurs
first. All _revisions shall meet the specifications of Planning and Engineering staff,
and. a reproducible copy of the finalized document submitted to the Planning
Department prior to City Council consideration of the first Final Map.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to recommend to the City Council approval of: the amended Tentative Map based on the
findings and subject to the following conditions:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Findings for Map Amendment
1. The proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, together with provisions for its
design and. improvement, is consistent - with the General Plan and Corona /Ely
Specific Plan objectives, policies, general land uses and programs.
2. The site is physically suitable for the medium density, small lot detached single
family and cluster home development proposed, as conditionally approved.
3'. The design° of .'the subdivision and _the proposed improvements therefore as
conditionally approved, will not cause substantial environmental 'darriage, and' no
J ry
substantial or avoidable injury
will occur to fish and /or wildlife or (heir habitat.
4. The. .des ign of the Subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will not
conflict, with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
prop ty within the proposed subdivision.
Conditions for Tentative MaIAmendment
1. The subdivider shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer:
a. Lots 63, 64', 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 are dependent on those' improvements
installed within Mt. Valley Phase: 1A. Annexation to the existing covenants,
conditions and restrictions '(CC &R's) for Mt. Valley 1A or a maintenance
agreement for private'storm drainage system, the 100 year surface drainage
- overflow, landscape, irrigation and other facilities within. this - area shall be
required between lots served by this system and shall be submitted in a
recordable form. This agreement ,shall also specify tuning, of maintenance
and be in a form acceptable to City staff, and recorded concurrent with the
final map• ;
50 b. The 100 year overflow relief Swale located between proposed Lots 64, 65 and
51 66 and extending across APN 136- 51 -41 to the Danby :Court cul -de -sac shall
52 be kept free of permanent structures. The CC&R's or the above mentioned
53 maintenance agreement between Lots 64, 65 and 66 shall clearly identify
54 surface easement so as to ensure adherence to this requirement. The final
11
WLM
I
'2
map shall dedicate this surface drainage easement to the City and clearly
C'
state that it shall be kept free of permanent structures.
3
4
c,
The public storm drain located on private driveway easement for Lots 64, 65
5
and 66 shall be contained. within an exclusive 10 -foot dedication easement.
6
7
d.
The sanitary sewer located within the private driveway easement for Lots 64,
8
65 and 66 shall be contained within an exclusive 10 -foot dedicated paved
9
easement.
10
11
e.
The public water main and sanitary sewer located within Parcels A and B
(0
shall each be contained in an"exclusive paved. 10 foot easement dedicated to
CO
the City. Any modification to the surface treatment (e.g. paving) shall be
upon approval of the Director of Public Works.
f.
Access to Parcel B (private court) shall be via a City standard driveway
approach with distinctive pavement treatment.
'
I
&
public acce
Parcel A and Parcel B rivate court shall be contained in a access
(P ) P
20
and emergency n en vehicle access easements as required b the Fire Marshal) i
g cY ( q Y
21
addition to the referenced utility easements.
22
23
h.
Parcel A (adjacent to Lots 5 and 23) between Parcel B shall be used solely
24
for pedestrian and emergency vehicular access (as required by the Fire
25
Marshal). This re uirement shall be achieved through the use of bollards
q g
and signing to the satisfaction_ `of the Fire Marshal and Engineering
7
Department.
8'
9
i.
The private court (Parcel B) and all public streets shall have a structural
30
section to meet traffic index of 5.0 design requirements.
31
32
j.
The, private driveway easements shall have a structural section to meet a
33
traffic index of 4.0 design requirements.
34
35
k.
The proposed extension of Searles Way to Rainier Circle shall be public and
36
constructed to City Standards.
37
38
1.
Sanitary sewer and water services within the private driveway areas shall be
39
private and maintained in accordance with the CC &R's for this project.
40
41
M.
All water meters shall be placed within the public right -of -way in accordance
42
with City Standards.
.43
. 44
n.
Some existing improvements- previously constructed within Mt. Valley 1A
. 45
and 1B may need to be modified and /or replaced so as to accommodate the
46
proposed development.
47
48
0'.
This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the
49
soils report for this project.
0
w 1
P.
The developer shall comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code Section
2
20.36.010 and 20.36.020 which require the developer to pay storm drainage
3
impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of
54
the City of Petaluma.
12
1
.
2
q.
Signing and striping shall conform to City Standards.
3
4
r.
All street lights within this development shall have standard (Corona /Ely)
5
metal fixtures dedicated to the City.for ownership maintenance. Pnor.to
6
City acceptance, _the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's.IS2 rating
7
system.
8
9
S.
All grading and erosion control shall conform to the City's Erosion Control
10
Ordinance 15.76.
11
12
t.
Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying
13
, the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service.. (This item shall be
14
verified concurrent with improvement plan.review).
15
16
U.
This development shall be required to contribute to the City's traffic
17
mitigation fee.
18
19 2.
The
subdivider shall comply with the - following requirements of the Public . Works
20
-Department:
21
22
a.
All water meters are to be located 6" behind sidewalks.
23
24 .
b..
No City water mains or sewer mains are to extend down' the common
25,
driveways except Parcels A and B.
26
27
C.
Locate two meters on each side of entrance to common driveways 6" behind
28
the sidewalk.
29
30
d.
Common driveways are privately maintained.
31
32
e.
Backyard or sideyard drains are to be privately maintained.
33
34 3.
The subdivider shall comply with the following requirements of the Chief Building
35
Official:
36
37
a.
Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
38
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
39
40
b.
Where ground slopes greater than 1 on 10, foundation shall be stepped per
41
Uniform Building Code 2907(c).
42
43
C.
Soils with expansion -index greater than 20 requires special design foundation
44
per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
45
46
d.
Show site drainage and grading topography.
47
48
e.
Indicate all utilities on site plan.
49
50
f.
Responsible party to sign plans.
51
52
g.
Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
53
1
[1
13
.
#{ 1
„1 2
.' 3
4
I 5
6
7
g
10
if
I 12
(13
Cq4
M5
x"16
21
22
23
a° 25
> 26
28
29
3Q
31
32
33
34
35
36
h. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current. Title 24 Energy Code.
i. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
4. Retaining walls shall be used in lieu of graded slopes where pad elevations on
adjoining properties vary more than 18 ". Where determined feasible by staff;
retaining walls in private yards shall be offset from fences, to provide a stepped
landscape effect. Retaining walls along project perimeters shall be subject to staff
review and approval at time of SPARC submittal. Plans submitted for SPARC
review shall specify proposed maximum wall height in these areas, as reflected in
cross section details D -D and E -E.
- 5. The private court (Parcel B) shall be a named street. Application for approval of a
street name shall be made to the Street Naming Committee prior to SPARC review
of the project.
6. The Amended Tentative Map for Mountain Valley Villas shall be revised to
incorporate all City Council and SPARC conditions of approval within 30 days of
SPARC approval of the project, or prior to Final Map application, whichever occurs
first. All revisions shall meet the specifications of City Engineering and Planning
staff, and a reproducible copy of the finalized document submitted to the Planning
Department prior to City Council consideration of the first Final Map.
7. This development shall be subject to all appropriate development fees, and on-and
off -site improvements as set forth within the adopted Development Agreement or
any subsequent amendment thereto.
8. Any labeling errors or other erroneous information appearing on the Amended
Tentative Map, PUD Development Plan or landscape plans shall be corrected prior
to Final Map approval.
ADJOURNMENT 11:15 PM.
min91$ /pc -min9
M
14