Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Minutes 04/19/2004i 1 March 1, 2004 A l wa ril Vy, P .C� a City of Petaluma, California I85a MEETING OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL Revised Draft City Council Minutes. Monday, March 1,, 2004 - 3:00 P.M. Regular Meeting 1 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 4 A. Roll Call 5 6 Present: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt 7 Absent: O'Brien 8 9 B. Pledge of Allegiance 10 1 1 OATH OF'OFFICE 12 13 Clark Thompson sworn in as the appointed Council Member to fill the temporary 14 vacancy created by Keith Canevaro. © 15 16 The Oath of Office was administered by the City Clerk to Clark Thompson. 17 18 PUBLIC COMMENT 19 20 There was no public comment. 21 22 COUNCIL'COMMENTS 23 24 Council Member Torli:att reported and gave an update on the recent Water Advisory 25 Committee Meeting and indicated they had approved the proposed budget. She noted 26 she had voted "no" on the budget for two reasons: ,1) the clarification regarding Park 27 Reclamation costs were passed out at the'rrieeting and she did not have adequate time 28 to review them; and 2) she had a problem „with the proposed Study and Evaluation of 29 the Future Water & Supply Demands for Sonoma County Water Agency as there was no 30 'Scope of Work included. 31 32 Vice�,M Moynihan announced Council Member O'Brien had recent heart by -pass 33 surgery and was doing well. He indicated if` people wanted to send "Get Well” cards to 34 do. so through City Hall. 35' 36 Vice ,Mayor Moynihan also noted it had been some time since the Council has reviewed 37 Claims and Bills, received a Quarterly, Report and that he would like to receive a '38 Vari Report. 39 40 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 41 42 There were none. Vol. XX, Page 2 March 1, 2004 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current,agenda only). There were none. A. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council Meeting oUMonday, March 15 MOTION to approved the proposed Agenda for March 15, 2004. M/S Healy and. Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENT Dorothy Bertucci, Petaluma, addressed the City Council on behalf of the Library Advisory, Board and thanked them for consideration of the Petaluma Library Meeting Room. Expansion. Council Member Torliatt remarked o_ n the monies raised by the Friends of the. Library for this projectland recommended the City expend the "City's" amount first and if there are additional funds left over that they be returned to the Friends. of the Library, to support their programs. Council Member this project e r has Thompson thanked Vice Mayor Moynihan for his efforfsJoward served on the Library Advisory Board. Council Member'Torliatt requested" Item l : B be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. MOTION to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar as presented. M/S Torliatt and Moynihan. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 MOTION` CARRIED: `UNANIMOUSLY. A. Resolution 2004 =021 N.C.S. Awarding Contract for 200,3 Petaluma Library. 'Meeting Room, Expansion Project 9028 -2. The Estirnated Project Cost: $160;000. Funding Sources: 'Sonoma- County and Community Facilities. (Skladzien /Castaldo) B. Resolution. Approving Termination of the Lease With McBail Company for the Alderwood'Well. (Ban /Nguyen) Removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. C., Resolution-2004 -.023 N.C.S. Accepting Historica[M_useum Roof Replacement Project 03- 3360 -1. (Skladzien /Castaldo) D. Resolution '2004 -.024 N:C.S. Declaring Vehicles and Equipment 'Surplus to the City',s Needs and Directing the City Manager to Dispose of the • is March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 3 1 Vehicles and Equipment in Accordance with Provisions of the Petaluma • 2 Municipal Code. (Thomas) 3 4 E. Resolution 2004 -025. N.C.S. Awarding Landscape Maintenance Contract 5 to Sonoma County Tree Experts for the Pruning of Trees in the Willowglen 6 Landscape Assessment district. (Anchordoguy) 7 8 F. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2175 N.C.S. In 9 Rec- ommendations Made by the Fireworks Taskforce and Amending 10 Petaluma's Fireworks Ordinance. (Albertson) 11 12 G. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance2176 N.C.S. to Amend Lease for 13 Mangon Aircraft, a Business Located at the Petaluma Municipal Airport. 14 (Skladzien /Glose) 15 16 Items Removed from Consent for Discussion: 17 18 B. Resolution 2004 -026 N.C.S. Approving Termination of the Lease With McBail 19 Company for -the Alderwood Well. (Ban /Nguyen) 20 21 Council Member Torliatt questioned asked the reason for terminating the 22 lease when the City has the rights until 2027. 23 24 Staff responded that the water quality was poor and there was not much 25 capacity. • 26 27 Council Member Torliatt indicated, she would not be supporting this 28 request, as it doesn't cost the City anything to maintain it. 29 30 City Council .discussion ensued regarding the possible need for access for 31 future water needs and staff conveyed that the well has not been used 32 for many years because it does not meet current Department of Health 33 Services standards for water quality: By terminating the lease, the property 34 owner. would then have the property rights to the well site. 35 36 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -026 N.C.S. M/S Healy /Moynihan. 37 38 MOTION CARRIED by the following vote: 39 40 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Vice May Moynihan 41 NOES: Torliatt, Mayor Glass 42 ABSENT: O'Brien . 43 44 2. NEW 9USINESS 45 46 A. Introduction of Ordinance 2177 N.C.S. Amending Petaluma Municipal 47 Code Section 1.118, "Claims Against the City" to Authorize the City 48 Manager to Settle Claims for Amounts. of $20,000 or Less. (Rudnansky) 49 50 City Attorney Rudnansky gave the staff report and urged Council • 51 approval. 52 Vol. XX, Page 4 March 1, 2004 Council Member Harris commented he felt this would result in a more efficient process. • MOTION to introduce Ordinance 2177 N.C.S. M/S Moynihan /Thompson MOTION .CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution 2004 -.027 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, Amending the Rotation Tow List Franchise Agreement Eliminating Franchise Fees Charged to the Tow ..Operators for Tows Under Vehicle Code Sections 22651(k) and (o). (Thomas /Hood) Tim Lyons, Police Department, gave the staff report and recommended Council approval. MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -027 N.C.S. M /S_ Moynihan /Healy. .MOTION CARRIED'UNANIMOUSLY. C. Discussion of Property Acquisition and disposition: (Bierman) Martinelli et al ® Station 1 Fire House Casa Grande Motel City Manager Mike Bierman briefly commented on the Martinelli property, ,indicating that the purchase hps been completed. Vice Mayor Moynihan remarked on his desire to get Capital Improvemen • t Project information, including what the "funded sources are and what is being, spent. He also requested, based on future development, to get projected figures' on the need for possible future water rate increases due to increased water needs: Council Member Torliatt confirmed with the City.Manager the City is on a three -year incremental increase for water rates and that there is no need for discussion regarding water rate increases at this time. City Manager Bierman continued on regarding the Station 1 Fire House Relocation issue. He briefly commented, on the issues of why staff is recommending locating Fire House # 1 to the Casa Grande site. 'He noted. the Casa Grande site remains his. recommendation based on reasons of Fire. Department needs, geographic preference, site availability, economics and City Redevelopment. Vice Mayor Moynihan commented he would like to see the City secure what funding they could from a developer to' find a site and would prefer the recommended options # l or #2 submitted by the Fire Chief. Council Member Healy commented if the Casa Grande property is still available, the City could make the information available to the public and schedule public meetings to discuss the proposed relocation prior to the, decision.being placed on a City Council agenda for action. • March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 • 51 52 Council Member Torliatt expressed concern that the relocation of Station #1 to this site was never discussed during the Central Petaluma Specific Plan or General Plan discussions and feels making this land use decision outside of that process would be problematic. She questioned what the actual costs would be for a new Fire Station to be built, including the differences from one site to another. Vice Mayor Moynihan commented the City has a Five -Year Capital Improvement Program that does not include this project. He questioned if Basin Street was creating an impediment by building the garage so close to the current Fire Station. Chief Albertson responded that the Fire Department would be having a loss of parking and storage space for vehicles and that there will be increased traffic at the current location, which is problematic due to the increase in the number of emergency calls. Mayor Glass stated his support for the relocation of the Fire Station and indicated he feels the Casa. Grande site has met its useful life. He suggested the old fire station could perhaps be converted to a restaurant. PUBLIC COMMENT Patricia Tuttle 'Brown, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and commented she was a member of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Committee, She stated her frustration with how far this issue has gotten without public noticing of the surrounding neighborhood of the Casa Grande Motel. She pointed out that Case Grande is surrounded by low - income housing and stressed the need for public input prior to making this kind o,f ;decision: She further noted the Central Petaluma Specific Plan committee has never heard about this proposal to move the Fire Station to this location. She indicated if the Council goes along with this, it would be as though Basin Street is dictating land use in the City. She expressed her desire to have the Fire Station remain next to the parking garage, as it would create a safer environment. City Council discussion ensued regarding what would be done with the existing structure and the City Manager noted there would be a public process and proposals would be received regarding the existing Fire Station site. Council Member Healy noted the next step should be to host a workshop regarding information on the disposition and relocation of Fire Station # 1. Council Member Torliatt expressed the desire to hear from staff as to the timeline and notification process that'will be utilized. City Manager Bierman confirmed he will work with staff and come back with the timeframes and process at the March 15, 2004 City Council Meeting. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Vol. XX, Page 6 March 1, 2004 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated a desire to have the CIP "fleshed out" and brought back; with information on resources, expenditures, and funding sources. Council. Member Thompson commented he feels it is up to the experts to decide where the Fire House should be located. He would like to see a thorough public process once the site is established. John Barella, North Bay- Construction, noted they would be doing. the demolition. of the Casa Grande site and that they would be demolishing it for $75,000 ,or less. He added after demolition the value of the property would be approximately $60.00 a square foot for the land alone and stressed that real estate is going up higher and higher each day. There was no Council action taken on this item. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Motion for', Reconsideration of Action. Taken February 2, 2004 Regarding Boulevard , Apartments (Buckelew Programs), A Request to . Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration; Rezone `to PUD; Adopt Proposed Unit Development Plan; Adopt Proposed Development Standards for PUD. (Gaebler) - Motion carried - reconsideration of the matter will be head at the March 15, 2004 City Council ,Meeting. Council Member Healy left the' Council Chambers of this time. PUBLIC COMMENT Ma y,Beth Ray, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed Buckelew Apartments, stressing that the housing is needed, but this is a poor choice of location'. Tom Fry, Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition 'to the proposed Buckelew Project. Miguel A. Jimenez,, etal,uma, addressed the City Council and inquired if this will be a public works project. Mayor Glass indicated the project would be subsidized = with public monies. Mr. Jimenez indicated that project, :should be 'a union project and he would like 'to see a union labor agreement. Mayor Glass noted the discussion, regarding the project will .actually take place at the next Council Meeting_ and would not be discussed this evening. C7 40 r� March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7 • . 1 2 Victor „ 'Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and requested that when the item is reconsidered, it should be reconsidered in 3 the evening and it should be a public hearing. 4 5 Council Member Thompson noted that Council Member Healy had to 6 leave the meeting as he was needed at a court appearance. Council 7 Member Thompson continued by stating he has read all the materials 8 regarding this issue and indicated he will be supporting the 9 reconsideration. He concluded by stating he most likely will support the 10 project when the Council reconsiders the item next week. 11 12 Vice Mayor Moynihan commented the, denial of the project has never 13 been an issue regarding the capability of the Buckelew Program; it is a 14 bad land use decision. He indicated there are other locations available 15 that would be more suitable. 16 17 Council Member Harris also noted he feels this is about a decision 18 regarding land use. 19 20 MOTION made by Council Member Healy at the February 23, 2004 City 21 Council Meeting, SECONDED by Mayor Glass. 22 23 MOTION CARRIED by the following vote: 24 25 AYES: Thompson, Torliaft, Mayor Glass 26 NOES: Harris, Vice Mayor Moynihan 27 ABSENT: Healy 28 29 This item will be reconsidered -and discussed by the City Council 30 at their March 15, 20104 City Council Meeting. 31 32 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 33 34 The City .Council. adjourned' to Closed Session at 4;15 p.m. with the City Attorney reading 35 into the record the matters to be discussed. 36 37 PUBLIC COMMENT 38 39 There wa& none. 40 41 CLOSED SESSION 42 43 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Govt. Code 44 §549563(a). 45 o Bobby Thompson vs. City of Petaluma et al (Thompson 1), Sonoma County Superior 46 Court Case No. SCV- 225677 47 o Bobby Thomps.on'vs. City of Petaluma et al (Thompson 11), United States District Court 48 (Northern District)•Action No. CO3 -0033 EDL 49 o City of :Petaluma vs. Petaluma Properties; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 50 $,CV 226706 51 CONFERENCE' WITH. LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to 52 Litigation Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(b). -1 matter Vol. XX, Page 8 March 1, 2004 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8. Property: Three parcels located at the northeast corner of Lindberg Lane and Lakeville • Highway, APN's 05- 005- 020 -003, 039, 040. Negotiating Party: Michael Bierman. Under Negotiation: Price; Terms or Payment; or Both. CONFERENCE WITH: REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code §;54956:8. Property Description: 74.71 -acre property, APN 01.9- 330 -009, located adjacent`to the Petaluma River. Negotiating Party: Michael Bierman. Under Negotiation: Price, Terms or Payment, or Both. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt Absent: O' Brien,'Thompson 16 B. Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Harris 17 C. Moment "of Silence 18 19 REPORT "OUT'OF CLOSED SESSION - No reportob /e action. 20 21 PUBLIC :COMMENT 22 23 Don Weisenfluh Petaluma,: stated his- belief-that claims by school districts of cutbacks in 24 education are false. He recommended voting "no" on school taxes. 25 26 Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma, stated that the offer from Basin Street Properties to 27 "donate the Casa Grande Hotel as a possible future Fire Station site was 'in reality a 28 ""quid "pro quo" to reduce the requirement for green space at`the Southgate 29 Development. She thought there should be public, input on the location of the fire 30 station. 31 32 COUNCIL COMMENT 33 34 Vice Mayor Moynihan.spoke regarding traffic mitigation fees owed to the City for 5 years 35 by Chelsea GCA., He thoughf that once someone made a promise to the community, it 36 should be fulfilled. When those 'fees are collected, they should be earmarked for a 37 crosstown connector. 38 39 Regarding. the Ke.nnilworth acquisition, he wanted to go on record to say that traffic 40 .. mitigation for a retail development there. would only be possible with a crosstown 41 connector. 42 43 He hoped that when moving forward on projects, Council would keep in mind the need 44 for Little League playing fields. 45 46 Council Member Healy reminded voters that absentee ballots could be turned in at any 47 polling place. They should not be mailed on Election Day, as they would not be received 48 in time to be counted. 49 50 He thought Ms. Tuttle Brown's comments had some misconceptions. 51 52 Council MemberTorliatt referred to a letter from Pisenti and Brinker regarding their annual 53 audit of the City. She would like City staff to- respond to recommendations in that letter. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 9 • 1 2 She had the opportunity to go to the all- weather soccer field at Lucchesi Park for the 3 State Cup Championship. A Petaluma team played in the under -12 finals. Rick Hewko, 4 Rick Mitchell and Greg Gehring were the coaches, and deserve a lot of credit for getting 5 those girls where they were. The event was hosted by Petaluma United Soccer - Corky 6 Cabrera, Tom Si�agusa, and .Danny Ortega. The City needs another all- weather soccer 7 field. New development must include enough park space to accommodate those 8 residents it will bring to the community. 9 10 Mayor Glass thanked Pauline Potter, Dr. Andersen and others who had contributed 11 money to the City. These were exceptionallygenerous donations from individuals 12 wanting their town to have a little extra get through these times. 13 14 He attended a Friday night celebration of Black History Month.. Music was the theme, 15 and he found it informative and enjoyable. He hoped the community would participate 16 in Black'History Month events. 17 18 On Saturday night he attended the American Cancer Society's celebration of 25 years in 19 Petaluma. This was the final for this particular event. 20 21 Tomorrow he will be reading from Harry Potter. He urged citizens to "take a little time to 22 read to your child or grandchild." 23 24 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 26 A. Resolution 2004 -028 N.C.S. Establishing `a. Schedule of Fees and Charges 27 for.Cify Services and Repealing Previously Adopted and Conflicting Fees 28 and' Charges for Such Services. (Thomas) 29 30 Finance Director Bill Thomas presented the staff report and explained that 31 the January 2002 fee study prepared by Revenue Costs Specialists has 32 been revised by the author, and the "recommendations presented to 33 Council tonight are based on that revision.. He stressed the importance of 34 keeping fees in line with costs. 35 36 Vice Mayor Moynihan recalled that when the initial fee study was done, 37 an administrative overhead charge was built into the cost structure. 38 39 Mr. Thomas explained that the same process was used for the update. 40 41 Vice Mayor Moynihan noted some charges were going up a lot. He asked 42 if there was a cap. 43 44 Mr. Thomas replied that the fees were based on the study, which 45 determined the cost of providing the service 46 47 Vice Mayor Moynihan wondered if some of the increases were reflecting 48 a more involved process, rather than the actual cost. He thought fee 49 increases enabled inefficiencies to occur. He preferred to streamline • 50 processes. 51 Vol. XX, Page 10 March 1, 2004 Council Member Torliatt 'thought the reality could be that the City is • processing more applications, etc. Mr.; Thomas agreed. Council Member Healy asked. what the City's expectations were for recovery of ambulance fees. Mr. Thomas said that "The reality is, you get',what the insurance companies pay YOU." Council Member Healy pointed out that on the staff report, the swim . team pool rental is indicated as $3,000 "per but in another place, the report reads $3,000 "per year. `' Jim Carr Parks and Recreation Director explained than was , a typographical error- it should read "per month." The Recreation, Music and Parks Commission's recommendation is $3,000 per month. Council Member Healy announced that the Swim Center opening would be delayed until April I #or technical reasons. Donations for the Swim Center have been coming in. He thought some of the fee increases seemed steep. Mr. Carr replied that the commission was looking at cost per hour for use, Their recommendation was based on a very reasonable cost for the service provided: Council Member Healy Looked forward Jo when the Swim Center could . be modernized. Council Member Torliatt referred to "softball under "Adult Sports." She asked whatetfect the opening of RESA (Redwood Empire Sports Arena) would have: Mr,, Carr answered that once RESA. came, on line, the City would be "out of the softball business." He added that` softball, for the City, is close to being "revenue neutral." Council Member Torlatf would like to get input from the Animal Services Advisory Committee regarding ,proposed tee increases for adoptions, etc. PUBLIC COMMENT None Council Member.Healy asked if other Council Members would.like to find' a way to reduce the impact on the cost of recreational swim. Council. Member Torliatt`thought it important to, ahead with the fee increases and re= evaluate after a year. - There are many issues that need to be addressed, including making sure that everyone who comes in. is . March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 11 l actually paying the fees and improving the management of the Swim 2 Center. 3 4 Mayor Glass and Council Member Harris agreed. 5 6 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he "had a problem" with the proposed 7 Community Development fee increases. He has received feedback from 8 citizens that processes are taking longer. He thought the City needed to 9 evaluate the services offered. and make sure they're done as efficiently as 10 possible. He thought,it would send the wrong message to the department 1 1 to increase fees. He supported the other proposed fees. 12 13 Council Member Torliatt thought the goal for the Community 14 Development Department was self - sufficiency. She supported the 15 proposed fee increased "absolutely." Fees should be compared to those 16 charged by neighboring cities 17 18 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -028 N.C.S. M/S Healy /Harris. 19 20 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if the motion included approving the 21 Community Development fees. 22 23 Council Member Healy said that it did, as modified in the memo Council 24 received at the dais this evening. 25 26 MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 -2 as follows: 27 28 AYES: Mayor Glass, Healy, Harris, T.orliatt 29 NOES: Vice Mayor Moynihan 30 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson 31 32 B. Discussion and Possible Action on, an Appeal by Delco Builders and 33 Developer, Inc., of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee's 34 (SPARC) Decision to Deny the 46 -Unit Single Family and 46 -Unit Townhouse 35 Gatti /Stratford Place Subdivision at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway. This 36 item will be continued to a date certain. (Moore /Robbe) 37 38 Mike Moore, Community Development Director, explained that Delco 39 Builders would like to move forward with their appeal. He asked Council to 40 seta date certain hearing on the appeal for afternoon session of the 41 March 15, 2004 Council Meeting. 42 43 Council consensus was to agendiae a Public Hearing on the matter 44 for the afternoon session of the March 15, 2004 Council Meeting. 45 46 At the request of Council Member Torliatt, these minutes were withdrawn` from 47 the April 5 2004 Council Agenda, and re -transcribed from this point forward 48 to include all ;discussion. 49 50 C. Consideration and Possible Action on a Recommendation from the 51 Planning Commission Regarding Basin Street Properties Applications for Vol. XX, Page 12 March 1, 2004 1 the Southgate Development., a 40 -acre Planned Unit Development, which 2 Proposes 216 Detached Single - Family Homes, a Park Site and' a Parcel to 3 be 'Retained for Future Affordable .Housing. A Stormwater Detention 4 Facility /Linear Open Space Area Urban Separator) is Also Proposed Along 5 the South Side of the Site Adjacent to the City limits. The project 6 entitlements include: 7 Resolution 2004 -029 N.C.S. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative 8 Declaration for the project, 9 •. Resolution '2004 -0030 N.C.S. Amending 'the General Plan land use 10 designation from "Specific Plan Area" and "Transit Terminal" to ''Urban 1 1 Diversified." - 12 • Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 2178 N.C.S. Rezoning from 13 the existing "Study" Zoning classification to Planned Unit Development 14 (P.U,D); 15 • Resolution 2004 -0031 N.C.S. Approving the Southgate Unit 16 Development Plan and PUD Devel,opMpnt Standards; 17 Resolution 2004 -0032 N.C.S. Approving Vesting Tentative Map and 18 Conditions of Approval. Mayor Glass announced that Council Member Thompson had recused' himself from this item due to-a conflict of interest. Jayni Allsep, Project'Planner, presented the staff report; and 'fhe Planning Commission's recommendations to Council regarding the project. She noted staff's opinion that the project, as currently proposed; does not reflect that all the directives'of the Planning Commission have been addressed. Staff drafted Conditions of Approval ;based on those directives still :o.utstanding. She noted for the record several pieces of correspondence, including a letter dated ,February 27th from Basin. Street Properties that included a subsequent noise study, dated February 20th and revised development standards, a letter from the Adobe Del Oro Action Group dated February 26th, and a memo from Dean Eckerson, Engineering Manager, addressed to Mike Moore, Community Development Director, dated February 24th.:which includes specific recommendations regarding recycled wa Staff would incorporate by reference the proposed Conditions in Mr. ter. memo. There was also a letter from Basin Street Properties dated' March 1 st, which addresses language for a street abandonment. She added that there was one item to discuss at a later time. Attached to the February 27th Basin Street Properties fetter was an annotated list of Conditions of Approval' those that the applicant has accepted and those that they wish to either have °deleted or modified. She pointed out that some of the Conditions :we - fe mitigation measures, and, the City.must get some confirmation that the applicant is willing to implerrient the mitigation.measures as they have been adopted. Council should discuss this before adopting the Mitigated ;Negative Declaration. Vice Mayor Moynihan: referred to Conditions 52 and 53, which , he .didn't think- reflected the initial input from'Parks.and Recreation, or the follow -up e -mail. Condition 53 dealt with looping the bike and pedestrian path back into the frontage road. The e -mail was fairly clear that it ,needed to March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page '13 1 tie into the frontage road. He suggested the words, "The applicant shall 2 explore ways to connect this path to the frontage road that parallels 3 Lakeville Highway" should be changed' to, "The applicant shall connect 4 this path... to ensure that the path does loop back to the frontage road. 5 Condition 52 stated that the applicant shall provide an annual annuity for 6 maintenance of the park - 'estimated at $1 0,000 per year. He asked Parks 7 and Recreation Director Jim Carr why the developer's suggestion that the 8 Homeowner's Association should provide this maintenance is not 9 acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Department and why it is the 10 City's policy to control the maintenance of the parks. 11 12 Mr. Carr replied that whenever there is a Landscape Assessment District 13 that maintains a ,park, there is the feeling by the homeowners that only 14 they should have access to the park. The intent was to ensure that this 15 always remain a public park and be accessible to general public. He 16 suggested an LAD would not be a good solution. He would like to be sure 17 there is funding for maintenance. 18 19 Vice Mayor Moynihan noted there are four new parks coming on line, two 20 of which will be public parks for which the City has not identified funding 21 sources for maintenance. He understood from the Recreation, Music, and 22 Parks Commission meeting that establishment of an annuity will become a 23 standard request for this kind of neighborhood park. The condition did not 24 mention the estimated $250,000 lump sum to seed the annuity. He 25 thought that should be written in as a condition. 26 27 Mr. Corr had discussed the matter with Finance Director Bill Thomas. The 28 bottom line is that the City wants to be sure there. is money to maintain the 29 park. Council has a number of options. They could have it financed for 30 five or six years until redevelopment "kicks in" and some revenue base 31 starts coming in. 32 33 Council Member Torliatt pointed out that Council had recently approved 34 the Gatti Subdivision, which will have a park maintained by the 35 Homeowners Association, and there is a public easement over that land. 36 That ensured that everyone would be able to use the park. She thought 37 this would work for this development, as well. 38 39 Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney said that there was concern from some 40 of those paying the assessment that they're paying "for others to use the 41 park." 42 43 Mr. Carr reminded Council that the Gatti: Subdivision park was less than an 44 acre of turf. The Southgate development, by contrast, would include a 45 very active playground, and would be much more of a draw for the 46 public. He mentioned the Victoria Subdivision, where the park is 47 maintained by an LAD. Teens from outside the neighborhood wanting to 48 use the basketball courts were told to leave. The City would like to prevent 49 that from happening at Southgate. 50 51 Council Member Torliatt countered that in Victoria, there was no public 52 easement in that park, so the. public didn't have the right to use it. That Vol. XX, Page 14 March. 1, 2004 wasn't part of the Conditions of Approval. Southgate includes 216 homes plus senior housing. She thought there would be families with children in at • least half of those homes. The park is only an.acre. She didn't see a problem with having the Homeowners Association maintain the park. She said she was trying to reduce the amount of expense liability for the City. Council Member Healy thought that what the proposals boiled down to was either the Homeowners.Association would fund the maintenance on an. annual, ongoing basis, or the developer provides the money at the beginning to pay for it. He Mr. Carr if the LAD would fund the maintenance of landscaping in the urban separator, and the perimeter of the property. Me. Carr confirmed that it would. He added that he thought it conceivable to include in the Conditions of Approval that the park was to be open to the public. Vice Mayor Moynihan didn't think the City could require the developer to require the Homeowners Association to adequately fund the park maintenance. Mt. Carr thought it would be up to Council. City Attorney Rudnanslky replied that the Conditions of Approval could include that requirement, and give the City the opportunity, not the obligation, to enforce that.. If the HOA did not comply, it would be up to the City to try to enforce it. • Matt White, Basin Street Properties stated that as part of the Conditions of Approval the LAD or CFD (Community Facilities District) fee would be on each homeowner's property tax bill and would have nothing to do with. the Homeowners Association. Mayor Glass, Council. Members. Harris, Healy and Torliatt, and Vice Mayor Moynihan each mentioned that they had met with the developer and the neighbors recently to discuss the project. Mr. White put the current proposal in context'by explaining that over the past seven years Basin Street Properties has submitted five different proposals for this site. He described' them, how they were developed and changed, resulting in the proposal currently before Council, which is an all- residential project. He pointed out the changes that were made in response to requests made by the Planning Commission at their January 27,.2004 Public Hearing. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Council Member Torliatt asked if all the homes were two stories. Mr. White confirmed that they were. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15 i 2 l Council Member Torliatt asked how many homes would have to be taken out in order to accommodate a 300 -foot urban separator. 3 4 Mr. White replied that Basin Street did not explore that option, because in 5 1999 the City Council asked that they distribute the urban separator and 6 bring it into different parts of the -site instead of having a 300 -foot 7 separator around the perimeter of the site. 8 9 Council Member Torliatt thought that had to do with superior design in the 10 project, not a complete elimina "tion of the urban separator. She asked the 11 compliance ratio per the General Plan standard of parkland to the 12 number of'units in the subdivision. 13 14 Mr.:Nloore explained that the General Plan standard is a community -wide 15 standard, not a subdivision standard, and thus was not calculated for this 16 project. 17 18 Council Member Harris asked if staff could further explain the land trust 19 housing issue and the three lots that would be donated for permanent for - 20 sale housing. He wondered if it was being done anywhere else in 21 Petaluma or Sonoma County. 22 23 Mr. White.replied that this project is a joint venture with Delco Builders. 24 Basin Street Properties is contributing the three lots to the Housing Land 25 Trust and Delco Builders has.agreed to sell the finished houses to the Land 26 Trust at their cost. He did not think it was done anywhere else. There is a 27 formula that ensures that these houses "remain low- income for -sale 28 housing forever. 29 30 Council Member Torliatt asked the price range of the at- market -rate 31 homes in the development. 32 33 Mr. White estimated $500,000 to $600,0,00. 34 35 PUBLIC COMMENT 36 37 Dev Goetschins Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County Executive Director, 38 explained that the Land Trust is a private, non- profit corporation that 39 provides home ownership opportunities to low and moderate - income 40 families in Sonoma County who would otherwise be priced out of the 41 housing market, while ensuring permanent housing affordability through 42 the use of a land trust model. The Land Trust helps people purchase 43 homes on affordable terms. The land beneath homes is owned by the 44 Land Trust and leased to the homeowner through a 99 -year, renewable 45 lease, The land lease provides the Land Trust the right to buy the house 46 back when the homeowners decide to sell. The resell formula is designed 47 to give homeowners a fair return on their investment, while ensuring 48 permanent housing affordability to the next homeowner with a low or 49 moderate income level. Southgate will be the first opportunity in Petaluma 50 forthe Land Trust to implement its model. There is currently one project in 51 Santa Rosa. In addition to donating three, lots, the developers will Vol. XX, Page 16 March 1, 2004 constructthe.homes, which they will sell to Land. Trust at. cost. The three home sites will be scattered within the site. Council Member Torliatt asked how much buyers would pay for those horses. Ms. Goetschins.replied that families would b.uy the home based on the maximum they can qualify, for on their- mortgage. When they sell, they haveto sell - to someone in the same income level. Since the land is leased, the price of the land is taken out `of the equation. That makes the home affordable. ArthurKerbel, Petaluma, Adobe del Oro Action Group, referred to a' remark made at a Planning Commission meeting that, "the Commission does not have to be with the wishes of the neighborhood - only with the wishes of the community." He found this confusing as be thought "neighborhoods made up the community." He then mentioned a remark made by a Council Member that he "had difficulty supporting a plan developed by the neighborhood ond.notthe developer." Basin Street Properties brought -the project to the neighbors and asked for their input. Through their discussions, the community and'the developer learned'they could communicate. It was a positive process. The plan before Council has been overwhelmingly supported by the neighborhoods, and he Urged .Council's support of the project as presented. Stephanie McAllister, Petaluma; Planning Commissioner, saw some issues • still unresolved. She clarified that the whole community should be concerned.with the project. She was not against the neighborhood working with the developer. She thought many people hoped this development provide a "sense of gateway." A soundwaliwith residential development behind it does not provide that. She would. like to have the entire Lakeville frontage landscaped, including the,area within the CalTrans right- of= way..This would afford a lot more room to "make a gateway statement." Every commercial property that she had seen on Lakeville Highway is landscaped up to the traveled .way. She asked that SPARC be alerted, that when reviewing this landscape and soundwall design, they. should look forthat "sense of gateway." She asked Council. to consider an increase, in the urban separator. She felt itwas a General Plan issue, and was observed on every other site on the east side of Petaluma. Teresa Barrett, Petaluma Planning Commissioner also had problems with what wasp before Council, about issues that should, have been taken care of of the Planning Commission level. She referred to the initial acoustical study, which showed noise level above the City's. acceptable levels. The second study withdrew all data and simply stated that,it had been modified. and was now within acceptable levels. She thought this new study should be peer reviewed to ensure a quiet neighborhood. As, far as stop. signs or traffic lights °were concerned, she thought the City Engineer should .determine what would ,be safest. Students; seniors and disabled citizens need as much time as possible to get across the street. If the City �. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX,, Page 17 1 decided against a traffic light at Frates Road and Ely Road, then a lighted 2 crosswalk should be installed. Her third issue was the urban separator - 120 3 feet is "no gift to the City." It is not buildable space. The park now being 4 suggested is even smaller than what came to Planning Commission, and 5 she thought it was below the Parks and Recreation standard for a small 6 park. She said the applicant had agreed when asked by the Planning 7 Commission to move the housing that faces onto Ely Road back in order 8 to double the open space on that side, and she didn't think that had 9 happened. Doing that would .have increased the open space on that 10 side of the property to a little more than 30 or 40 feet, which is just a little 11 more than 1 /1.0 of the urban separator. The urban separator for the 12 property is; down Ely Road and then across the southern part. Mr. White's 13 comment about that was that the urban separator here was kind of a 14 "belt and suspenders" approach because it's right up against the Urban 15 Growth Boundary and that's all open space. Except it isn't "all open 16 space " forever. She stressed the importance of respecting the General 17 Plan and increasing the Urban Growth Boundary on both of those sides. 18 She had questioned "rushing to move this. project along" when it was 19 clear there was so much to be done and so many compromises were 20 being made regarding open space and the urban .separator. Then she 21 read in the Argus- Courier that the "tail wagging this dog" was the City's 22 need for another fire station on the west side of town. While she 23 understood the need, she didn't see the nexus between this project and a 24 fire station on the west side of town. She pointed out that the developer 25 was also developing land around the current fire station, and had the 26 desire to see that fire station moved. She thought it a much better idea for 27 the City to receive a donation from the developer, rather than a specific 28 piece of land. She did not think the City should sacrifice land for 29 something that could be five or ten years down the road. Currently, there 30 is no money for a new fire station. 31 32 Steve vonRaesfeld, Petaluma, Planning Commissioner, praised the staff 33 report as "very accurate and well done." He referred Council to sheet SP- 34 3 of their packets. Regarding the urban separator on Ely Road, he noted 35 that as drawn, it averaged about 18 feet. He described a plan the 36 involved reducing the size of some of the corner lots by about 5 feet that 37 would result'in the average being raised to about 30 feet. He 38 commended the developer for moving the location of the park. He made 39 another suggestion about adjusting the size of some_ lots adjacent to the 40 park to increase the "feathering" affect. He suggested'that the gateway 41 item and the urban separator be treated as separate SPARC items. He 42 referred to sheet C- 13 and noted 'that Lakeville Highway is higher than 43 the site. He suggested that an underground storm drain be required 44 instead of a v- ditch, as has been done in other areas along Lakeville. This 45 would improve the view. 46 47 Mark Albertson, Petaluma, Chair of the Adobe Del Oro Action Group, lives 48 in the neighborhood adjacent to the project. He spoke about why the 49 group opposed previous proposals for this site, and supports the project 50 presented to Council tonight. Basin Street Properties has worked with the 51 Adobe Del Oro Action Group to meet the needs of the neighborhood. He 52 emphasized that careful attention must be given to the treatment of the Vol. XX, Page 18 March 1, 2004 frontage on Frates Road. The group's goals' regarding,Frates Road have been reclucing,speed, discouraging truck traffic, providing safe • neighborhood access onto Frates Road; and safe, passage on and across Frates Road for children, "pedestrians, .and bicyclists. There should be a traffic fight at Calle Ranchero, and a four -way stop at Ely Road. The median should be fully landscaped. Frates Road should be reclassified as a minor arterial or minor collector. The speed Jimit should be 30 =35 miles per hour. Pedestrian crossings should be posted. The use of exhaust brakes by trucks should be prohibited. There should be a two -story height limit on the senior'housing element of the project. He thanked the City for doing a thorough job of noticing the neighborhood regarding the project and tonight's meeting. He thanked Basin Street Properties for working with his. group. Patricia Tuttle Brown, Petaluma, urged the Council to honor the General Plan and Bicycle Plan that call for a, 300 -foot urban separator. As the developer is proposing this project she did not think it would be a . "destinafion." She urged Council; to ask Basin Street Properties for what the citizens need. Scoff Vouri, Petaluma, former Planning'Commission member, said 18 feet is less'than the length of a driveway, and not an urban separator,•in his opinion. The development has improved dramatically from what he saw as a:Planning Commissioner. He was troubled' by the idea of giving away part oUthe:urban separator to the development. Every other development on the east side of Petaluma'has honored the 300 -foof buffer between development and the Urban Growth Boundary. He felt Petaluma. "'needed another 200 half -a- million dollar McMansions like we need holes in our heads. What Petaluma does need is enough affordable, workforce housing. He thought if the City was giving away urban separator rights, it should in return stipulate that any housing built in the separator'be affordable workforce. housing. ,He added that several Planning Commission issues with the project have not been resolved. He urged Council to return the, project to the Planning Commission before approval. Len tvinth, Petaluma resident of Petaluma for 45 years and President of Petaluma Ecumenical Properties Board of Directors, urged Council to approve project. He thanked Basin Street Properties for providing affordable housing in this project. Dusty Resneck, Petaluma, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, explained that the committee's goal,is to encourage people to get out of their cars. PBAC feels this project increases auto - dependency, and does not see connectivity between it and the rest of Petaluma. They wrote up Conditions otApproval, and recommendations, based on the draft Conditions of Approval of February'23 that Mitigation 10 -4 stafes that PBAC' will be given the opportunity to review the project as. each, phase comes up for development. He showed Council the PBAC's proposed circulation plan that included five additional,cut- throughs to provide public-access throughout the project. Regarding the storm ponds, and the understanding that theywill be privately maintained, but have •' I� March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 19 1 public access, he noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is • 2 understaffed and the City is under a tight budget, he expressed concern 3 that parks, etc., that are made a Condition of Approval be maintained, 4 as "there are never really any funds for maintenance." He urged Council 5 to include a mechanism for funding. He was concerned about 6 connectivity to other parks and neighborhoods. The project did not have 7 safe pedestrian access to the other neighborhoods. He felt a 300 -foot 8 urban separator along the PG easement and Ely Road was important. 9 10 Council Member Healy asked, regarding the additional access points, if 11 any involved going through proposed soundwalls. 12 13 Mr. Resneck confirmed that one did (indicating on drawing). 14 15 Paula Cook, Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, spoke on behalf of 16 Executive Director Vera Ciammetti, who was out on medical leave. She 17 conveyed PEP's support for this project. A condition was placed on the 1 8 PEP portion of the. project at the January- 27 Planning Commission 19 meeting,. requiring a Conditional' Use Permit for the PEP site. She stated 20 that the Conditional Use Permit appeared to be redundant, because the 21 development standards clearly identify the use as "Senior /Disabled 22 Affordable Housing and clearly identify the'density ( "between 25 and 80 23 units ").`This encompasses both the, proposed use by PEP as affordable 24 housing'for seniors and persons with disabilities and the proposed density, 25 at approximately 65 units of two -story rental housing. PEP also wanted 26 Council Jo know that while they will certainly present their project for • 27 formal SPARC review, once they obtain title to the property, the 28 requirement for a. Conditional Use Permit will be an unexpected and 29 difficult financial burden for PEP. They requested that Council approve the 30 project before them tonight, but waive the requirement of a Conditional 31 Use Permit for the PEP site. 32 33 Mayor Glass asked if the. Conditional Use Permit requirement was put 34 there as a mechanism to bring the project back to the Planning 35 Commission. 36 37 Ms., Allsep- agreed, and explained_ that the Planning Commission 38 expressed'some concern about the Iack of detail for the PEP site, and 39 were struggling with how to move the project forward, so the requirement 40 for a. Conditional Use Permit would bring the project back to them for 41 another look. 42 43 Mayor Glass asked if the project went back to Planning Commission, 44 could the permit requirement then be waived, as the goal would have 45 been achieved. 46 47 Ms. Allsep said that the Development Standards had been modified to 48 show the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. She recommended 49 that Council change the Conditions to not require the permit. 50 I� Vol. XX, Page 20 March 1, 2004 Mr. White noted that as part` of the. Development Standards for the site,, they had included height limitation setbacks. What could and could not • be done on the site was spelled out in some- detail. Council Member Torliatt asked:if'PEP was purchasing the site, and if so, were they paying market rate. Ms. Cook replied that it was being purchased for significantly below market rate.. PEP does not have the financial means or subsidies to purchase at or above market rate, generally speaking. Vice Mayor Moynihan thought it sounded like PEP was planning a two- story project. Ms. Cook agreed.. Vice Mayor Moynihan explained that he had talked to Ms. Cook earlier today about providing senior housing on the edge of town and wondered if this would cause hardship, in terms of transportation, for seniors. He asked Ms. Cook to paraphrase her response. Ms. Cook explained that when PEP looks at potential -sites they consider proximity to amenities. They.also look at the financial subsidies available to them; and those effectively dictate what they can do and where they can do it. They must be competitive is their application process. The 'basic scats on the Southgate location show that it is 1.5 miles to the nearest' grocery/pharmacy /banking location. There is one bus stop on the corner • of Frates Road and Lakeville. Highway; and additional transportation will be available through Paratransit and volunteer drivers who work through PEP. PEP does not feel that the location of''the project will .be a detriment to the qualify of life of seniors living there. David Alleigh, Petaluma, moved to Peta.luma in 1994 because he could not safely ride his bike in San Francisco. He opposed this project adamantly from the,beginning. Tonight he was here in support of the project. He thanked Basin Properties for listening to the community. He was amazed to hear people suggesting thin project has been "rushed," since he thought; every possible facet had been discussed and examined at length. Connie Madden, Petaluma, supported the 300 -fdo.t urban separator allowed for in the General Plan; which'she sees as ''commonsense." This is the border between, "us and the rural countryside, and should be a gateway." The City should follow the General Plan ;and ask developers, to go "a little further along the road that they've already taken in their effort to listen to the community." Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, thought back Jo when there was talk of putting a Wal -Mart or similar big box store on. the site. He thought Basin Street's proposal was preferable. He noted that the; agenda referred too parcel to be'retained for "future .affordable housing." Affordable housing to him means "affordable housing forall" - not just seniors and disabled. • March 1, 2004 Vol XX, Page 21 1 He asked if the developer was paying in -lieu housing fees, or did this fulfill 2 their obligation. He had heard it was necessary to replace lace the sewer plant 3 " immediately" and 'that was ten years' ago. He asked if studies had shown 4 there would be enough sewer capacity and water to support the 5 additional population. 6 7 PUBLIC COMMENT"CLOSED 8 9 Mr. White said Basin Street Properties didn't intentionally leave out 10 anything the Planning Commission recommended: He thought Planning 11 Commissioner von has some good ideas, particularly on how to 12 handle this corner here (indicating on map) and that was acceptable to 13 Basin Street. They were asked by the Planning Commission to add 16'/2 - 14 19'/2 feet along Ely Road, and they had done that. What they had 15 proposed before was in the 15 feet of right -of -way. They then added 16'/2 16 -19'/2 feet to increase the. area to 35 - 37 feet. Basin Street was also 17 supportive of bringing this to SPARC separately. He thought it was a "great 18 idea" that provided "the opportunity to do something really special." 19 Regarding the 300 -foot urban separator, Basin Street was told by Council 20 in 1999 to "make the neighborhood happy" and they spent a lot of time 21 with neighbors and came up. with something that made them happy. 22 Originally they had a much bigger park planned for the development, but 23 Parks and Recreation said, "We don't need a park that big." He proposed 24 that. the City own all of the green areas, and a Community Facilities 25 District be put together that would ensure through the tax bill that all of 26 the parkland in the project is maintained. 27 28 Vice Mayor Moynihan noted that there was also discussion of the 29 donation of the Casa Grande Hotel site or a contribution. 30 31 Mr. White clarified that they originally had a park planned for that whole 32 area (indicating on map). They were asked to reduce the park size. This 33 raised the number of lots. Meanwhile, because of Basin Street's 34 involvement downtown, he got to know Fire Chief Chris Albertson, and 35 learned that,the hook and ladder truck doesn't fit in the firehouse, and 36 the water truck can't be parked inside because the floor will sink. He 37 proposed to the City Managerthat Basin.Street use the revenue from the 38 additional lots resulting from the park being made smaller and use it to 39 buy a site for afire station, e.g., the Casa Grande hotel. He added that 40 Basin Street had no desire to own the curren;f firehouse. If the City didn't 41 want the Casa Grande Hotel site, that was o.k. 42 43 Vice. Mayor Moynihan asked if Basin Street would be amenable to making 44 a dollar - amount contribution instead of donating a piece of property, if 45 that were Council's wish. 46 47 Mr. White agreed, but added he knew the City "had no money," and 48 thought it would be a good thing to donate land. 49 50 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. White his thoughts on the signal and 51 stop signs. 52 Vol. XX, Page 22 March 1, 2004 Mr. White thought that if there were three signals, people would. speed up to try, to make all three lights on green. Council Member Torliattwould like to see the. plastic dots called "Bon's Dots" on the street approaching the crosswalks to slow traffic down and would like f he crosswalks to be especially_ well signed. She asked Mr. White how Basin Streef was "proposing to upgrade the pump station landscaping. Mr. White,saiothere was a fairly large block of landscaping behind the pump sfation. It would. be landscaped on the Frates Road side, over to the driveway. Council; Member Torliatt asked if they would be upgrading from the current landscaping. Mr. White assured her they would. Mayor Glass interjected that Planning Commissioner McAllister had asked about the entire Lakeville Highway frontage being landscaped: Mr. White explained that the Planning Commission had, increased the landscaping `to about 8'/z feet along Lakeville Highway. Then there is a 15- foot right -of -way easement for C,alTrans. Basin Street Properties is willing to landscape the area completely; however, they do not yet know if CalTrans will go along with this plan. Mayor Glass asked if, on the corner of Frates and Ely Roads, if Basin Street' would be able to, participate in some kind of public art 1nstallation. Mt. White agreed. Council Member Torliatt would like: information on the City's water and, sewer capacities and the project's need for same, and clarification regarding housing in=lieu fees to be charged to this project. Community Development Director:Mike Moore explained that on the water sewer capacity, as part of their normal review process, they provide plans, and related information t'o a I ll other City departments, including Water Resources, and Conservation. They received a memo from Water.Resources containing Conditions they would Like applied to this project relative'to prospective water use. There is adequate water and sewer capacity for this project. Council Member Torliatt clarified that she was asking how much was; budgeted for this subdivision. Mr. Moore replied that unless that information was contained in the memo from Water Resources. and Conservation, he did not have that information specifically: Regarding the in -lieu housing fees; the standard requirement is that for every market rate unit, an in -lieu housing fee is applied. • • March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 23 1 Council Member Torliatt asked if there were any credits on this project 2 regarding in -lieu housing fees. 3 4 Mr. Moore said he was not aware of any discussion about credits being 5 given. 6 7 Mr. White explained that his understanding was that either low- income 8 housing must be provided, or in =lieu fees must be, paid. Basin Street was 9 proposing, in its partnership with PEP, to provide the units instead of paying 1.0 in -lieu housing fees. There would be significantly more than 10% low- 11 income units. 12 13 Council took a ten- minute break from 9:30 -- 9.40 P.m. 14 15 Mr. White agreed to put in a storm drain instead of a v- ditch. 16 17 Council Member Healy asked staff to talk about the urban separator issue 18 and explain the reason for the recommendation that has come forward. 19 20 Ms. Allsep, had heard from many members of the public advocating a 21 300 =foot urban separator, which is what has been done in many parts of 22 the City. Her reading and interpretation of the General Plan policy allows 23 for discretion regarding the width requirement. It is within the purview of 24 Council to approve something less than 300 feet. • 25 26 Council Member Healy thought there were some unique things about the 27 Southgate site. The side where the 1.20 -foot separator is proposed borders 28 directly, on one of the four UGB expansion areas. There's another on 29 Corona Road and he thought there was a development application 30 either in process or anticipated. He didn't think there were any other 31 places on the East Side with the urban separator up against an existing 32 street, except for Corona Road. 33 34 Mr. Moore agreed. Most of the urban separators on the East Side are 35 adjacent to areas that are outside the City limits and the Urban Growth 36 Boundary. 37 38 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Moore if it was his interpretation of the 39 General Plan that what was being proposed was consistent with the 40 Urban Separator language. 41 42 Mr. Moore replied that it was up to Council's discretion. The General Plan 43 suggests a minimum standard. It has been reduced in some cases, most 44 but not all of them on the West Side, most often because the parcelization 45 patterns meant that taking the whole 300 feet would make the properties 46 unusable. It was up to the Planning Commission and the Council to 47 decide whether this satisfies the General Plan requirements. 48 49 Council Member Torliatt asked specifically which sites had been 50 approved with a less- than -300 -foot separator. She noted recently ® 51 approved projects, including Rockridge Pointe, which has a 40 -acre open Vol. XX Page 24 March 1, 2004 space easement that connects with Helen Putnam Park, and Westridge • Knolls °with a large open space component. Mr. Moore agreed that there were. instances on the West Side where there was a much larger urban separator area. He referred to the color map at the rear of the chambers, which showed the current location- of the urban' separator. On the West Side, particularly in the southwestern. segment,: he noted where the line moved in and out, as well as areas along, the Urban Growth Boundary where there was no urban separator at all. Council Member Torliatt. countered that there was no other instance on the East Side, except -for the RESA project, which was a "quasi playing ,field," and Adobe Creek, which had the golf course, where there was.less than a 300 -foot urban separator. Vice Mayor Moynihan read from the General Plan ... "prevents urban development from continuing unchecked into surrounding open: space since private development cannot take place within the separator ".., "Maximum of 30d feet" = He thought. that Council had some discretion to require Jess than 300 feet .cis long as they expldined why they were not requiring as much. He said'he was "greatly swayed by the $1.5 million donation,'` and thought Council should-consider how wide the urban separator needed to be to "provide that buffer" and, at the some time, "what was in the overall community's best interests." Council Member Torliatt recalled that individuals have spoken to Council regarding the importance of the urban separator many times: She noted that the site plan showed about 31homes in the 300 -foot space - or if the homes had a, selling price. of $500,000 about $19.8 million worth of, project. A lot of money was being generated for this. development at the expense of one of the most important policies the. General Plan. There have not been any exception on the East Side.of town, and she didn't know why there should be in this case. She didn't see this as a "superior design; but' "typical outo- oriented urban sprawl." She feels the public deserveswhat is promised in Petaluma's "award winning" General Plan and'whot precedent had set on the East Side. Council Member Healy pointed out that this proposal has what none of the previous proposals for the site have had: buy-in from the neighborhood. If - Council wants to put additional Conditions on this project "to make it go away" then it is likely that the higher- density kind of project that was originally proposed - and which the neighborhood rejected - will come back. He urged Council to come to closure on this project. The County zoning, on the: other side, c f Ely .Road is agricultural with 2040 acre minimum parcels. The City would essentially the benefit of the Urban Growth Boundary without having to purchase the land. Council Member Harris agreed with Council Member Healy. There ,have been exceptions made in the past on the West Side. The neighborhood is happy °with the project, and they will be living near it. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 25 1 Council Member Torliatt questioned Council Member Harris's statement 2 that exceptions had been made. 3 4 Council Member Harris reiterated that exceptions have been made "in 5 general." 6 7 Council Member Torliatt had not heard any specific instances of 8 exceptions being made. 9 10 Mayor Glass said this was the most challenged parcel of land in the history 11 of this City. He agreed with Council Member Healy that there was a 12 consensus on the part of'the , neighbors that the current proposal should 13 be approved. The history of this was rather embarrassing because past 14 Councils have given so many different directions. The last one was, "make 15 the neighborhood happy." He was not ''in love with. the project," but 16 when he ran for Mayor, he told. the neighbors that if they found a project 17 they were happy with, he would support it. He agreed that if the land 18 remained vacant, there was a danger that one of the earlier types of 19 proposals, that the neighborhood found objectionable, would end up 20 being builtthere. The City should have, in the past, laid out the "core 21 values" of this parcel and then worked to achieve them. Past proposals 22 have included mixed use, more mixed use, less, mixed use, Wal -Mart, 23 driving range, junior college, junior high, etc. If the current proposal was 24 not a good one, the neighbors would not be here supporting it. He would 25 like Council to come to closure on this project, and in the future, make • 26 sure they give good and accurate direction, and then stands behind that 27 direction as development proposals move through the process. He didn't 28 think anybody could say that had happened with this parcel. 29 30 Vice Mayor Moynihan agreed with Mayor Glass. He was very pleased at 31 how the project looked now and'comrnended Basin Street Properties and 32 Delco for working with the neighborhood and making it all come 33 together. He thought the City deserved some criticism on how this project 34 was handled from the beginning. The General Plan spoke to "feathering" 35 of density, and said that for projects "adjoining the urban limit line....sholl 36 be designed to preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve 37 the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property in 38 proximity to the rural areas outside. of the designated urban limit line. The 39 effect of this policy is to cause a gradual and deliberate lessening of 40 development intensity at the urban edge and within the urban limit, line." 41 in looking at the site plan,. he thought the parcels looked "quite uniform" 42 in size. In light of the developer's:contribu:fion to the City, he thought 43 Council should consider keeping the smaller separator, but ask for more 44 feathering of densities, with more intense density in the interior of project, 45 and less density on the outskirts. He did not think this project an 46 appropriate location for senior housing because it was too far removed 47 from amenities. He would prefer to see single - family residential on the 48 proposed PEP site and an in -lieu fee sought instead for a senior housing 49 site closer to downtown. He liked the idea of a Community Facilities 50 Districf'to maintain the park. He remarked on the small lot size. • 51 Vol. XX, Page 26 March 1, 2004 Mr. White explained that, in regard to "teothering of densities," Basin Street considered density, of the project "in relatio to the project across is the street." He indicated various lots on the exterior of the site that were.5 to 15 feet wider than those on the interior. He proposed eliminating two lots on the bottom and right outside areas, making the remaining lots larger, and making up four lost lots by making some interior lots smaller. Vice Mayor Moynihan asked the average size of the lots in the areas Mr. White had indicated. Mr. White replied that they ranged from 3,600 to 5,000 square feet. Mayor Glass asked if that would make. it easier to accommodate Mr. vonRaesfeld's request. Mr.. White agreed that it would. Her explained how one area could be made less dense by eliminating four homes and making the remaining lots bigger. In return, they would like to add four homes to the interior of the project by making some otthe interior lots smaller. Council Member Healy asked. if the 20 -foot backyards could be maintained in that case. Mr. White: confirmed that they could. Vice Mayor Moynihan remarked on the small size of the lots, especially compared to his own neighborhood. Mr. White pointed out that, "A s,lots ge.tbiggen houses get more expensive, ";Part of their goal with this project was build comparatively affordable housing. Council Member Healy stressed the importance of Council knowing specifically °what theywere voting on. Mr. White reiterated his proposal, He was confident that Basin Street could work with Citystaff. Mayor Glass�saicl he would support a Community Facilities District for funding maintenance. C,ouncil;Member Torliatt asked the difference in acreage in the originally proposed park and what is on the current plan. Mr. White answered that the park was originally three acres; then 1.3 acres; and is now about tacre. The total number of houses did not increase-Some. of fhe lof sizes were adjusted. Council Member Healy thought an Assessment District�was fine for streetscape improvements along the exterior of the development. The • developer should provide an endowment for maintenance of the park. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 27 i 1 2 Mayor Glass and Council Member Torliatt were concerned about what 3 would happen if the endowment turned out not to be insufficient. 4 5 Council'Member Harris noted that he thought PEP answered concerns 6 about how residents will get around. 7 8 Council Member Healy supported the PEP housing on the site. He liked 9 the idea of `having senior housing sites scattered around the City. He 10 hoped PEP would give preference for sites like this to residents who do 11 have vehicles. 12 13 Mr. Svinth answered that PEP could work. that out. He noted that the 14 nearest grocery store is about 1.5 miles away. There are other PEP. projects 15 where amenities are at least that far away. 16 17 Council Member Healy said that PEP had indicated there was 18 neighborhood support for limiting their part of the project to two -story 19 buildings. He thought that with appropriate design,�PEP could have a 3- 20 story building on the'interior of the site. He wanted to make sure SPARC 21 has the discretion to listen to neighborhood concerns and encourage 22 some design excellence. He was happy to note that the plan called for 23 ingress and egress to and, from Frates Road from the PEP site, which meant 24 the two narrower streets inside the subdivision would not the full brunt of 25 the traffic from the site. 26 27 Mayor 'Glass ; thought, regarding the Conditional Use Permit, that the 28 Planning. Commission should review the project. He did not see this as an 29 undue burden on PEP. 30 31 Council Member Healy asked if Council were approving PUD standards 32 for the PEP site tonight, how did that dovetail with the CUP. 33 34 Mr. Moore thought the real question was what was Council's goal in 35 establishing this regulation. The PUD standards already provide for the use 36 of the site, they identify a specific use for the site, a specific density, and 37 specific development standards in terms of setbacks and height 38 limitations. By adopting them for this development, Council will have 39 approved the basic components of what the afforddble /senior /disabled 40 housing would look like. That raised the question of the necessity of a 41 Conditional Use Permit. If it was a question of ultimate design, SPARC is 42 already. empowered to address that. The CUP adds a layer that is 43 probably not necessary and could actually create some issues relative to 44 additional Conditions that the Planning Commission might put on that 45 would make the project infeasible. 46 47 Council "Member Healy suggested adopting PUD standards proposed for 48 PEP, and limit it to two -story structures, and asked if SPARC would still have 49 the discretion to go to three - stories. 50 Vol. XX, Page 28 March 1, 2004 Mr. Moore replied that language could be.-added to the standards that SPARC would have to snake particular findings in order to approve three stories. 0 Council.Member Healy suggested doing that,, and eliminating the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. Vice Mayor Moynihan interjected that the neighbors were told it would be limited to two stories. Mr. White pointed out that PEP has voiced that they didn't want more than two stories, If they decided they wanted more, they would have to go back to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Healy agreed.. Mr. Svinth stated that PEP is not interested in more than two stories. Vice..MayorMoynihan stated that until financing is actually committed, it is not certain that PEP can do the project in this - location. He thought the City should have an alternative for the site without` bringing it back for a complete review. Society is getting older. when you set up a senior housing project on the edge of town, and that population ages, 'driving becomes,a bigger and bigger issue. Although °the City receives subsidies for paratransit services, no one; knows how much longer those will be available. He thought it far better to have the project in closer proximity to basic amenities. He thought. the City did. a; better job of collecting in -lieu fees and leveraging those funds in, partnership: with non - profits, and wondered if that would be the case here. He would drop the point if the rest of Council wanted to push forward with it, but he thought there should be an alternative should PEP not be successful in going forward ,with the project. Mayor Glass thought there was. a lot to A be said for having senior /low income housing sprinkled around the community, and a lot to be -said for having it near;grocery stores. A comprehensive approach is needed. This will not by any means meet the demand. He didn't have a problem with putting'it there, orwith putting it somewhere. Perhaps the City should be protected by establishing a reasonable time frame for the project's completion. He asked if that could be incorporated into the language.. Mr.. _M'oore said that would have to be up: to .PEP. If they were willing to include a time frame as part of the PUD standards, that would be acceptable to staff. Ms. Cook explained that the reality of affordable housing projects meant that it will probably take at least five or six years. Council Member Torl att felt that in terms of the proposed land donation, if should be made clear that this was something the City was doing for the community, as the City was "paying for-it" with in -lieu housing fees. She March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 29 1 thought the City Manager should negotiate the best deal for the 2 community. 3 4 Council Member Healy thought the point was to actually get housing 5 constructed. He agreed with Council Member Torliatt that the City 6 Manager should work on this issue over time and monitor it and ensure 7 that the City is getting a fair and equitable result. 8 9 City Manager Bierman pointed out that this project does not have a 10 development agreement, so the fees that they have to pay will be the 1 1 higher fees. He would be glad to work with them. The issue he was hearing 12 is not so much "Should the City do in -lieu or not in- lieu," it's "is this site 13 appropriate for PEP." 14 15 Council Member Healy thought there was Council consensus that it is 16 appropriate for PEP. 17 18 Mr. White said that was fine with him. 19 20 Council Member Torliatt was concerned that all the homes were two 21 stories. This meant there would be no "market rate" homes accessible to 22 someone with a disability that prevented their climbing stairs. She thought 23 the subdivision needed an appropriate mix of one- and two -story houses. 24 25 Council Member Healy said the issue was the same as earlier: • 26 neighborhood buy -in. This is a project that is going to meet the needs of 27 the existing neighborhood. He sees a clear demand for more efficient use 28 of space. Building homes with efficient use of space is part of protecting 29 the Urban Growth Boundary. He supported the mix of product as shown. 30 31 Council Member Torliatt knew that the City Manager, who has knee 32 problems, looked all over the City for a single -story home. They are very 33 difficult to find. 34 35 Council Member Harris thought two -story homes were acceptable. 36 37 Mayor Glass wondered if it would be possible to mix in some one -story 38 homes. 39 40 Doyle Heaton, Delco Builders, explained that trying to build single level 41 homes on these smaller lots would be very difficult. He suggested instead 42 that some homes be "master down" models, which are effectively 1 43 stories (master bedrooms downstairs), in that the upper story is less bulky. 44 45 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked Mr. Heaton if.it'would be possible to have 46 some one -story models on the larger lots on the perimeter of the project. 47 48 Mr. Heaton pointed out that in this case, larger lots were still not "large." 49 50 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought a variety of models on the fringes of the 51 development would contribute to the sense of feathering of density. 52 Vol. XX, Page 30 March 1, 2004 Mayor Glass would like to see some of that, just for variety. He thought it would give the developer something more to sell. is Mr. Heaton agreed as long as they could build "master downs." Mayor Glass agreed. Council Member Healy supported staff's recommendation of using recycled water, when available, in common areas. He thought the Ely Boulevard side of the project should be fully landscaped. Mr. White agreed. Council Member Healy continued that there was Council agreement on the Planning Commissioners:' recommendations to try to get CalTrans to ailow landscaping in their right -of -way on the Lakeville side. Regarding the Frates /Ely stop sign /stop light question, the developer and the neighborhood were advocating a sign, but staff was requesting a light. He said he was prepared to support a sign, but added it would be nice to have a flashing lighted crosswalk as that area was sort of an acceleration area for people driving in and out of the community. He referred to the crosswalk in Redwood Business Park for comparison. Mr. White agreed. Council Member Torliatt didn't want the City to lose the opportunity to • have the developer pay fora stoplight at that location if it turned out one was warranted. She asked Mr. White if Basin Street would be willing to bond for'it'for two or three years. Mr. White agreed. Mayor Glass would also like to see "speed dots" installed in that location. Council Member Healy would prefer to the Traffic Engineer on that. Mayor Glass concurred and added that the Fire Department should be consulted, as they sometimes don't like bumps in the road. Vice Mayor Moynihan said he. would .think neighbors would prefer a light, as a stop sign would mean that everyone, including trucks with air brakes, had to.stop. If engineering and traffic studies have been done, and a light recommended as a result, Council should support that. Council Member Harris thought it was a "'good middle ground" to bond for a light in future, in case the stop sign doesn't work out. Council Member Healy agreed. Mayor Glass agreed. The bonding would give Council the chance to revisit the issue down the road, if necessary. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, 31 1 Council Member Healy like Commissioner voriRaesfeld's idea that the two • 2 gateway aspects be treated separately by SPARC so that they be given 3 the attention they deserve. He appreciated the developer's offer to 4 contribute to a public art installation on that corner. 5 6 Vice Mayor Moynihan wanted to make sure that $1.5 million donation was 7 written in as a Condition of Approval. He didn't know how that would be 8 established, but in light of the fact that the City was compromising on the 9 urbanseparator issue, he would like to be.sure. this offer was not 10 contingent on acquisition of a particular parcel, which may or may not be 1 1 the best location for a future fire station. 12 13 Council Member Torliatt thought that if purchase of the Casa Grande 14 Motel were part of the Conditions of Approval, it should not be 15 designated specifically as the site of a future fire station but as a 16 dedication and the property would be used by the City, pursuant to City 17 Council direction, at some point in time, asi a general fund asset. 18 19 City Manager Bierman didn't think Council rshoulcl condition this on any 20 fee coming in. He suggested instead a side a letter of agreement with the 21 City that the developer would donate $1.75 million to City. He clarified 22 that this does not deal with the urban separator issue - it deals with the 23 park issue. 24 25 Council Member Healy asked if Council Was going to work that out at this • 26 point; or was it something separate that the City Manager would deal 27 with. 28 29 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought - the donation was "tied intimately to the 30 project," and he was not willing to allow , a side letter to occur on 31 something like this. 32 33 Council Member Healy didn't think.it could be a Condition of Approval, 34 as there was "no nexus to it." 35 36 Vice Mayor Moynihan countered that the developer had offered the 37 property; and there was no reason not togo forward and tie it in. In his 38 mind, he added, the City was compromising the urban separator. He 39 justified that to himself as being in the community's best interest based on 40 such a contribution.. If the contribution not being tied to the project, 41 he was going to have a hard time justifying the compromise. 42 43 Council Member Healy thought it important that the City get the piece of 44 property. Whether the City accepted the piece of property or asked for a 45 rnonetary'contribution instead was not something Council had to decide 46 tonight. He would prefer that the City accept the property. 47 48 Mr. White said he didn't really care what the City did with the property. 49 Basin Street's problem is they have the property in contract, and "the 50 window is closing." He thought it was a good opportunity for the City to 51 have a site for a firehouse. He added that with the Downtown Specific 52 Plan in full swing, land is "not getting cheaper." Vol. XX, Page 32 March 1, 2004 Council Member Harris thought this was 'the epitome of a public- private partnership" and Council should be embracing it. 0 Mayor Glass summarized that the Casa Grande Hotel and the property on which it is situated will be donated to the City and the City will work out later what it does with it. Vice Mayor Moynihan was not,in favor.of making land acquisition decisions from the dais; without the ..benefit of an appraisal on the property. He did not agree with Mr..White's of the property's value. Other parcels are being sold ,for a lot. less. It would better to let the Casa Grande Hotel property go out of contract, and the City could buy it later�at an appraised value that he could support. He thought it made more,sense to receive a $1.75 million cash donation than a property that "may be worth just a fraction of that City Manager Bierman referred to a memo in which the Fire Chief approved of the Casa_ Grande Hotel site as appropriate for a future fire station. Vice Mayor Moynihan thought it was premature to choose a particular site as a fire station, and added that the Fire Chief had told Council that he preferred a different site. If the City received a :dollar amount donation, it would have the leverage to purchase the property later, if desired, quite possibly at a lower cost: If the City paid more now instead of less later, they were effectively giving away that money. If the. Council • was more focused on getting a new fire station than on the urban separator, than he suggested they "go ahead and cast the dice" instead of ' do.ing it through the public process.'' Council Member Healy disagreed with Vice Mayor Moynihan. He thought it was time start entertaining motions., He asked if staff or the applicant had any loose ends or wasn't clear on direction in some areas. Mr.'White interjected that a Cornmu_nity Facilities District did not carry any of the endowment risk and would be, a great way to fund all of the comrrfon areas in the project. The. City would have the ability to increase that fee 'in the future if they so chose, asked Council to reconsider requiring an dnnuity'from the developer. Council.MemberTorliaftsuggested that if the developer- contributed an amount, to seed the fund, that the ,Community Facilities District might be the way to go It would ,provide a_confinual funding source. Mr.. Heaton reminded Council of Mello Roos District set up for the last twelve parcels`in the Adobe Creek, Subdivision. This would be the same ,idea,, but would be spread,out over 216: parcels. With proper disclosure, it becomes; part of the homeowner's tax bill. Council Member Healy said he was, willing to be persuaded on this one. He noted that it would amount to less than '$50;per year per house. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 33 • 1 2 Mayor Glass summarized that there was Council .consensus on a CFD. 3 Council Member Torliatt had asked that the developer put in some seed 4 money to get it started. 5 6 Council Member Healy asked staff and the City Attorney if there were any 7 issues on which they needed clarification before.Council began 8 entertaining motions. 9 10 Council Member Torliatt asked staff if the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 11 Committee's recommendations were all included in the Conditions of 12 Approval. 13 14 Ms. Allsep explained that. the Conditions of Approval, as currently drafted, 15 might not include all the recommendations from the PBAC that are noted 16 in the memo (included in Council's packet). 17 18 Council Member Torliatt asked which recommendations were not 19 included in the Conditions of Approval. 20 21 Ms. Allsep referred to Attachment 10. While the recommendations from 22 PBAC. are. not specifically reflected, in all cases, in the Conditions of 23 Approval, there is a condition that requires that the plans for each phase 24 of the development be reviewed by the PBAC prior to the project going 25 to SPARC. This provides additional opportunities to comment and 26 implement the specific recommendations, many of which are design -type 27 issues, such as glare, parking. There is a condition that the provisions of the 28 bicycle plan will be implemented, although each provision may not be 29 spelled out. 30 31 Council Member Torliatt asked if all the Class 1, 2, and 3 bikeways were 32 included'in the Conditions of Approval. 33 34 Ms. Allsep believed that in the Engineering, Conditions, regarding the 35 improvements to Ely and to Lakeville and Frates, there are Conditions that 36 talk about bike lanes. She referred to Page 4, Conditions 15 and 16, which 37 included a requirement for a Class 2 bike lane along Lakeville Highway, 38 and for bike lanes on Frates and Ely Roads. 39 40 Vice Mayor Moynihan reminded Ms. Allsep that Council had agreed, on 41 Condition 53, line 7, to change the words "explore ways to..." to "shall 42 connect this path to the frontage road that parallels Lakeville Highway." 43 44 Ms. Allsep agreed. 45 46 Vice Mayor Moynihan added that Condition 52, instead of specifying an 47 annuity, would instead specify an annuity to establish the CFD. 48 49 Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties, said he would like to run through his list of 50 what Council and the developer had agreed to, to ensure everyone was 51 "on the some page." He directed Council's attention to Basin Street's 52 February 27, 2004 letter, attached to which were what he called their Vol. XX, Page 34 March 1, 2004 "Annotated Conditions of Approval," which listed the Conditions they agreed to and those They would like modified or deleted. 0 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked Mr. Smith if he was referring to the February 26th Annotated Conditions of Approval. Mr. Smith agreed. Council Member Torliatt thought Council should go with staff's recommendations, and if there was,something that deviated from that Mr. Smith explained that the Annotated Conditions of Approval listed those Conditions for which they would like to suggest modifications. Those that are listed as "Accepted" are acceptable to Basin Street Properties without changes. Council Member Torliatt stated that if each item were gone over one at a time,, the meeting would last until. 1:00 in the morning. Mr. Smith suggested instead listing off the things Mr. White had agreed to in order to. make sure everyone was "on the same page." Council Member Torliatt assured Mr. Smith that Council knew what they had agreed to on the dais. Council Member Healy asked if there were things Mr. Smith wanted to highlight because of lack of clarity. Mr. Smith asked for clarification on the bond suggested for a traffic signal. Council Member Torliatt suggested the bond be released five years after the last Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Vice Mayor. Moynihan suggested, "just building the signal." Mr: White noted that the, current traffic study, taking into account full build -out ofth'e project, including the PEP site, and projected growth of the City to 2015 did not warrant the traffic signal. Mayor-Glass thought two or three years after last house is sold would be reasonable. Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification: sold or issued Certificate of Occupancy? Council Member Healy thought Certificates of Occupancy would be easier to track. Council agreed, Mr. White referred to staff's suggestion to close off this entrance here with a cul -de -sac (indicating on map). He thought that entrance into the March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 35 l projectwas very important, and hoped Council would support leaving 2 the entrance in place. 3 4 Craig Spaulding, City Engineer, stated that the originCilr project called for 5 two entrances off of Frates Road. We suggest opening up an entrance on 6 Ely and closing this entrance on Frates Rood. It was a safety issue to 7 prevent people from trying to cross there. 8 9 Council Member Healy was inclined to agree with the applicant. He 10 thought right= in/right -out access from Frates was what had been 1 1 proposed. He thought having more direct access would improve. the 12 circulation of the project, especially with those two narrower streets 13 serving the PEP site. 14 15 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if there were driveways into the PEP site 16 (indicating area on map). 17 18 Alts. Allsep; referring to the right in /right_out access from Frates, noted that 19 in an addendum to the traffic study, one of the many alternatives that 20 were contemplated was a right in /right out access from one of the two 21 intersections proposed on either side of the PEP site, not directly into the 22 PEP site. She wondered if that was what Council Member Healy was 23 remembering. 24 25 Council Member Healy asked why staff was against the idea of a right - 26 . in /right -out directly to the PEP site. 27 28 Ms. Allsep clarified that staff did not say that. She wasn't sure where that 29 idea came from. She had never seen a plan that showed direct access 30 from Frates to the PEP site. 31 32 Council Member Torliatt thought there was discussion at Planning 33 Commission to have "two ins and outs" but she thought it reflected the 34 interior situation. She thought Commissioner vonRaesfeld had brought it 35 up: 36 37 Ms. Allsep said the Planning Commission had requested that there be a 38 secondary access to the PEP site, but she didn't recall any reference to 39 direct access to Frates. 40 41 Council Member Healy didn't think it necessary for Council to address that 42 tonight. 43 44 Mr. White asked Council to consider three things before voting tonight. 45 These were not discussed at the. Planning Commission: One was "bulb 46 outs" or knuckles in the road. He would like to avoid including those in the 47 project. The second issue (indicating two entry streets) is these two streets, 48 which are 32 feet wide. Staff has proposed that they be 36 feet wide. Part 49 of the idea was that a narrower street would keep the cars going slower. 50 Lastly, the Planning Commission wanted the project to have 20 -foot 51 backyards:'Basin Street agreed, but asked if they could have the porches 52 in the front yard encroach into the 10 feet of landscaping, where needed. Vol. XX, Page 36 March 1,.2004 They were amenable to that. What they didn't think of at the'time was the ten -foot utility easement in the front yard of many of the homes. They would like to move that into the right -of -way of curb, gutter, :street, as you would do in more of an urban,set.ting. He indicated another street that Planning Commission had asked them to widen. They had extensive discussion about it. They would like to keep the width consistent with what the Planning Commission asked them to do, which was a little different from what the Engineering Division had asked. Mayor Glass asked if the 36- foot - wide streets were a request .of the Fire Department or was it a standard width. He thought some other development had narrower streets. Mr. Moore:stated that the current, City- adopted residential street standard width is 32 feet. Mr. Spaulding clarified that 32. feet is the minimum standard for parking on both sides. There's a real problem when there are houses on both sides of the street but parking is not allowed on both sides. The 36- foot -wide entrance roads provide a little bit more width as you enter the subdivision. Council Member Healy would,support32.feet and thought it was a'traffic calming measure as well. Council Member Harris agreed. Council'.MemberMoynihan asked how much on street parking there would be. Mr, White explained that there would be parking on both sides of the street through much of the project. He indicated' an area where there houses on one side, of the street, and the soundwall on the other. Those would have: parking only on one side. Couneil-MemberMo,.ynihan didn't mind having narrower streets as long as parking needs were accommodated. He was still concerned about the feathering; He was hoping the lots on, the perimeter could be larger. Council Member Healy and M_ ayor Glass both thought Council had already had that discussion. Mayor Glass supported moving porches up. He'thought front yards, to a large degree; were wasted. Council Member Healy asked the applicant for confirmation that it was "just a handful" of lots where.that situation occurred, and that the 20 -foot backyards would be maintained'. Mr. White agreed, and said that all but four lots would have 20 -foot backyards would hav& 16 -foot backyards. Mayor Glass supported 32 -foot wide streets. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 37 • 1 2 Mr. Spaulding asked for confirmation is Council was approving 32 -foot- 3 wide streets for the entire subdivision. He added that'if °any of the streets 4 were narrower, parking was going to be a real issue. 5 6 Council Member'Healy asked how this problem could be solved. 7 8 Council Member Torliatt suggested "bulb outs." 9 10 Mr. Smith indicated on the map the two. narrower streets to which he 11 thought Mr. Spaulding was referring. He explained that the only way to 12 make those streets wider would be to reduce the backyards of certain 13 lots. They are currently at 20 feet. They could be reduced to 15 feet, which 14 is what Council had approved for the last three or four subdivisions. 15 Regarding the street:with the soundwall, the Planning Commission had 16 specifically requested that they eliminate parking on the soundwall side of 17 the street, so that an 8 ,strip of landscaping could be added on 18 the other side of the wall. 19 20 Mayor Glass asked if each of the driveways was long enough for two cars. 21 22 Mr. Smith agreed. He pointed out that there are only houses on one side 23 of the street so having parking only that side of the street would not, he 24 did not think; cause a problem. 25 26 Mr. Spaulding agreed that a 28 -toot single - loaded street width was 27 acceptable where there were houses on one side only, and parking on 28 one side only. Streets with parking on both sides need to be at least 36 29 fee.t'wide, and streets with houses on both sides need to have parking on 30 both sides. 31 32 Council Member Healy asked how the double- loaded streets could all be 33 made 32 feet wide without compromising the size of the backyards. 34 35 Mr: Spaulding did not have an answer for that, given the limited time staff 36 has'had to prepare for tonight's discussion. 37 38 Council Member Healy asked. if it would. ,be appropriate to modify the 39 front yard setbacks on those streets. 40 41 Mr.. Smith stated that to get'the houses, closer to the sidewalk would be 42 complicated from a grading and drainage�standpoint. He thought the 43 most appropriate solution would be to take the five feet from the 44 backyards. 45 46 Council Member Healy asked if the developer would consider a smaller 47 footprint house that would allow the 32- foot -wide street and preserve the 48 20 =foot backyard setbacks. 49 50 Mr: Heaton asked Council to let them work with staff on this issue. They 51 would end up with 32 -foot streets and minimum 18 -foot backyards. 52 Vol. XX, Page 38 March 1, 2004. Council agreed. • Ms.Allsep reminded Council that they should. require written acknowledgement that the applicant is.willing to implement the mitigation measures. She also asked if it was the intent that the Community'Facilities District cover all the open space parcels. If that was the case, there was a Condition included, which would require a Landscape Assessment District be established for all of the, open space other than the park side. If Council desired to have the CFD implemented, it would take; the'place of that Condition as well. Council Member Healy agreed. Ms: Allsep noted that in the letter of February 27th with the Annotated .Conditions of Approval, the developers agree to some, they don't agree Jo others, many of which she did not think, were discussed this evening. It would be up to Council to decide'which they want to implement as identified in the initial study -and reflected in the Conditions, and which of those which the applicant takes exception to should be modified before adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Council Member Healy noted that Condition, of Approval number 2 stated that,'" All mitigation measures adoptedJn conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration are herein incorporated by reference as Conditions of Proje.,ct Approval. ." .He asked if it wouldn't' be easiest to just incorporate .the, changes .made at the dais, and obtain thesigned document later. Ms. Allsep agreed', as.long as there was an understanding as. to which of the changes to the mitigation.measures that the applicant has requested are being agreed to. She assumed that meant only those that had been discussed tonight. Council Member,;Healy agreed. Council declined the invitation to walk point -by -point through the five -page: letter. .Ms. Allsep agreed. MOTION to: adopt ltesolution 2004 =029 N.C.S. Mitigated Negative Declaration for`the Southgate,Development. M /S Healy /Harris. Council Member Torliatt announced that she would not be voting in favor of the resolution because she. did not believe there was. sufficient evidence on record that there would be adequate water supply for the development, and because of the urban separator issue: MOTION carried 4 -1 -2 as follows: AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice.Mayor Moynihan NOES: Torliatt ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 39 1 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -0030 N.C.S. Amending the General • 2 Plan land use designation from "Specific Flan Area" and "Transit Terminal" 3 to "Urban Diversified" for the Southgate Development. M/S 4 Healy /Moynihan. 5 6 MOTION carried 5 -0 -2 as follows: 7 8 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt 9 NOES: None 10 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson 11 12 MOTION to introduce (First Reading) Ordinance 2178 N.C.S. Rezoning from 13 the Existing "Study" Zoning Classification to Planned Unit Development 14 (PUD) -Southgate Development. M/S Healy /Moynihan. 15 16 MOTION carried 5 -0 -2 as follows: 17 18 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt 19 NOES: None 20 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson 21 22 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -0031 N.C.S. Approving the Southgate 23 Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards. M/S 24 Healy /Harris. 25 26 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if the changes that would be made to the 27 resolution could be spelled out. 28 29 Council Member Healy explained that the changes would include all of 30 the things agreed to by the Council at the dais this evening. 31 32 Vice Mayor Moynihan wasn't sure where Council ended up on some of 33 the many suggestions that had been made. There are a number of 34 Conditions and modifications to Conditions that need to be spelled out. 35 He expressed confusion about the about the in -lieu contribution by the 36 developer in place of the requirement, for a 300 -foot wide urban 37 separator. 38 39 Council Member Healy thought staff would have to compare their notes 40 but he thought Council had covered all the issues in the discussion over 41 the last 4 hours. 42 43 Mr. Moore pointed out that Council had the option of bringing the 44 resolution back when the rezoning ordinance returns for its second 45 reading. Alternatively, the resolution could be adopted tonight and 46 changes could be made according to staff's notes and the Clerk's 47 minutes. .48 49 Mayor Glass agreed and believed Council had reached consensus on 50 each issue as they went through it. 51 Vol. XX, Page 40 March 1, 2004 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought that put an unfair burden on staff to • interpret. He would feel more comfortable ' bring back the Conditions of Approval, in order to spell out the understanding very clearly. If the developer is not going to.sign off on all of the modifications, Council should know that. He thought Council should all be very clear on what they were adopting, and at this late hour, he did not think they were "necessarily all on the same page. " Mr. Moore suggested an option to bring the resolution on the PUD Development Standards back at'the time that the rezoning ordinance comes back for its second reading. Otherwise, Council could adopt the resolution tonight, and staff will make the changes according to their notes. Mayor Glass felt comfortable with staff incorporating the changes. Council Member Torliatt mentioned that another reason she had not voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was that Council had not considered the overall ratio of park to population, which is an overall General Plan Land Use issue, and without that information, she did not feel she could vote in favor of it. Vice Mayor Moynihan asked again to bring the language of the PUD guidelines come back to Council with the second reading of the rezoning .ordinance. He asked the maker of the motion and the maker of the second to withdraw their motions, and delay the vote until the ordinance comes back for its second reading. He would also support not reopening Public Comment. That would give Council and staff a chance to review the modifications and make surel there are no questions or errors. He would be willing to go forward with the Vesting Tentative Map tonight. Council Member Healy disagreed, and declined to withdraw his motion. Council Member Torliatt announced that she would be voting against the motion. She appreciated the discussion at the dais tonight with the community and the developer. This property does not have a General Land Use designation that gives it any particular value, nor does it have any zoning entitlements. If Council, by approving this, will increase the value of the property from "basically pasture to about $106 million, based on $500,000 per home, and not including the PEP project." She recalled that 79% of the voters in Petaluma approved the Urban Growth Boundary, and said she was very concerned about the potential expansion area to the south of the parcel. There has been a lot of testimony tonight, and over the years, about supporting a , 300 -foot urban separator or reducing that urban separator in cases of superior design. She did not see a "superior design" here, nor,did she see a lot of open space incorporated into the interior of the development. She thought the project deserved to maintain a 300 -foot urban separator, which the entire East Side of the City enjoys. That issue was the deal - breaker for her. She wanted the community understand her vote. She thought the neighborhood would benefit from the reduction of homes.if the urban separator was honored, and they would benefit from the reduction in traffic trips in and out of this • March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 41 1 "site. That has been a major issue for the adjacent neighborhood. 2 Additionally, she would have preferred to see more of a variety in 3; architecture and models in the subdivision. The feathering of density issue 4 had not been addressed, either. She did support the PEP project. She' 5 could support the entire project if the 300 -foot urban separator was 6 honored. 7 8 MOTION carried 3 -2 -2 as follows: 9 10 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy 1 1 NOES: Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt 12 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson 13 14 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004 -0032 N.C.S. Approving Vesting 15 Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval, with amendments made at the 16 dais. M/S Healy /Harris. 17 18 Council Member Torliatt did not believe the project had a public benefit, 19 apart from providing senior housing, brecause there is no Condition of 20 Approval that incorporates providing another piece of property for 21 whatever use or whatever value that may be. She thought the Council 22 needed to get those things in writing when they were making those kinds 23 of decisions. 24 ® 25 26 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if Council was in a position to approve the Vesting Tentative Map since there was discussion about reducing lots on 27 the perimeter and moving some houses to the interior of the site. He 28 wondered if Council needed to have updated map in front of them in 29 order to make the decision. 30 31 Mr. Moore explained that the Conditions of Approval would be adopted 32 by resolution. Those will be tied to the final map. The map that actually 33 got recorded would have to reflect all the. Conditions and be in 34 substantial conformance with the approval here tonight. That's the law. 35 36 Mayor Glass stated, "What happened to this parcel should happen to no 37 parcel "' It was supposed to be a Study Area for six months - it has been 38 twenty years. That was one reason he was voting in favor. 39 40 MOTION carried 4 -1 -2 as follows: 4,1 42 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan 43 NOES: Torliatt 44 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson 45 Vol. XX, Page 42 March 1, 2004 The following are the amended findings and conditions of approval, as amended at the meeting: 0 FINDINGS: The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety; or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed,. including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed. „That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements' will not cause substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial' or avoiclable 'injury will _occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating that there would be no significant, environmental impacts;thaf could not be imitigated. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: From We Planning Division: 1. The plans.submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance with the Vesting Tentative Map, Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan, dated February 13, 2004, except as, modified by these conditions. 2. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the .Southgate 'Residential Development, revised February 20; 2004, are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project, approvdi. 3. 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 County Clerk, Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 4. Prior to the approval of Final Map /improvement plans and /or submittal for final Site Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential Development, the applicant shall, submit a Master Landscape Plan which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Details of the landscape strips and entry features along Frates Road and Ely Road.. b. Street trees and other landscaping planted along the internal streets. March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 43 c. Color and material of sound walls (noise barrier) along Lakeville Highway and 49Z Frates Road. 3 4 d. Enhanced landscaping adjacent to the pump station at the corner of South 5 Ely and Frates Roads. 6 7 e. Details of. the development of the open space and park parcels, including 8 landscaping, exterior lighting, outdoor furniture, paths and playgrounds. 9 10 5. Prior to the approval of Final Map /improvement plans and /or submittal for final 11 Site Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential 12 Development, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from 13 Caltrans for landscaping within the Lakeville Highway (SRI 16) right -of -way along 14 the project frontage. 15 16 6. Prior to the approval of 'Final Map /improvement plans and /or submittal for final 17 Site Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential 18 Development, the applicant shall contribute toward the cost of a public art 19 element on the Parcel D gateway /park parcel located at the corner of Lakeville 20 Highway and Frates Road. If the City does not yet have a public art program in 21 place, the applicant shall negotiate a suitable design with the Petaluma Arts 22 Council. 23 24 7. Prior to the approval of Final Map /improvement plans and /or submittal for final 5 Site Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential Development, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the landscaping and noise wall along Lakeville Highway, including landscaping proposed within the 28 Lakeville Highway ( Caltrans) right -of -way, and the two "Gateway" elements 29 along Lakeville Highway (within Parcels C and D). These plans shall be subject to 30 review and approval by SPARC. 31 32 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, PUD Development Guidelines and final 33 architectural site plans shall be reviewed and approved by SPARC. 34 35 9. During construction, the applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management 36 Practices regarding pesticide /herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest 37 Management techniques for the protection of pedestrian /bicyclists. The 38 applicant shall be required to post signs when pesticide /herbicide use occurs to 39 warn pedestrians and bicyclists. 40 41 10. The design, development and dedication of the proposed public park (Parcel C), 42 shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any individual housing unit. 43 44 11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall designate on the Final Map 45 a parcel to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma, which contains the sound wall 46 and landscaped area along both sides of the wall adjacent to Lakeville Highway. 47 This parcel' shall be included in the area maintained by the Community Facilities 48 District required by Condition 60, below. 49 0 12. Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent 2 feasible in. order to minimize impacts on the landfill. Vol. XX, Page 44 March 1, 2004 1 13. At the time of Final Map submittal, the' developer shall submit names for the 2 internal streets and cul -de -sacs to the Community Development Department for 3 review and approval. 4 5 14. The developer shall require a signed disclosure to property owners of the single - 6 family lot within the Southgate development, indicating that they are aware of 7 the maximum density, building height and setbacks for the future senior housing 8 site, identified on the Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel "A," as .established in the 9 PUD Development Standards. 10 11 15. 'Plant materials to be installed as part of the Landscape Plan shall consist of a 12 minimum of 15 gallon can size for trees and 5 gallon can size for shrubs. 13 14 16. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the proposed development, the 15 applicant shall submit revised PUD Development Standards for the Southgate 16 Residential Development, which address the following: 17 18 a. Clearly specify all permitted and conditionally permitted 'uses allowed with 19 the Southgate PUD. 20 21 b. Clearly specify the permitted and conditionally permitted accessory 22 structures allowed with the Southgate PUD. 23 24 c. Revise.Development Standards to be consistent with approved Vesting 25 Tentative Map and Lot /Parcel Numbers; as amended by conditions of 26 approval. 27 28 d. Future modifications to Unit Development Plan. A Conditional Use Permit 29 (CUP) approved by the Planning Commission shall be required for 30 Senior /Disabled housing on PEP site only if three -story buildings are proposed. 31 32 e. Lots 84 -101 and 129 -138 shall have minimum 17 -foot rear yard setbacks. 33 34 f. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet, except on the street side 35 of a corner lot, where the minimum side yard shall not be less than 10 feet. 36 37 17. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the proposed development, the 38 applicant shall submit a plan that shall reflect the approved: Unit Development 39 Plan for`the Southgate Planned Unit Development. 40 41 From the Engineering Division: 42 43 Prior to or concurrent with the Final Map /Improvement Plans submittal and /or submittal 44 for final Site Plan and Architectural Review and approval, the applicant shall provide or 45 address the following: 46 47 Frontage Improvements 48 49 18. Lakeville Highway (State Route 116) - Provide frontage improvements per 50 51 Caltrans requirements. The Bicycle_ Plan calls for a class II bike lane along Lakeville Highway. • 52 March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 45 19. Frates Road. Construct 1 /2 street improvements along the entire frontage including 0 but not limited to: pavement construction and reconstruction, curb, gutter, 3 sidewalk, striping, streetlights, bike lanes, fire hydrants, and landscaping. 4 5 a. The street section shall be at least 6 inches of asphalt concrete over 21 inches 6 of class 2 aggregate base. The developer may have the existing pavement 7 evaluated and tested with a recommendation to bring the road section to 8 arterial standards. 9 10 b. The street width shall include two 6 -foot bike lanes, two 12 -foot travel lanes 11 and 12 -foot turn lane. Left turn lanes shall be located at intersections. 12 13 c. No double left turn lanes shall be allowed. 14 15 d. Parking shall not be allowed along Frates Road. 16 17 e. Prior to the submittal of improvement plans /Final Map, the proposed entry 18 street at Lakeville Circle shall be evaluated by a Traffic Engineer for 19 pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety. The evaluation shall include options 20 for right -in and right -out only, a median in Frates Road to prevent left turn 21 movements and an uncontrolled 'intersection. Recommendations shall be 22 specific to safety issues. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of the 23 evaluation and peer review, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 24 5 20. Ely Road. Construct ' /2 street improvements along the entire frontage including but not limited to: pavement construction and reconstruction, curb, gutter, 7 sidewalk, striping, streetlights, bike lanes, fire hydrants and landscaping. 28 29 a. The street section shall be at least 5 inches of asphalt concrete and 15 inches 30 of class 2 aggregate base. The ' /2 street width shall include a 12 -foot travel 31 lane and a 6 -foot bike lane plus a 12 -foot travel lane in the opposite direction 32 if the existing road conditions warrant. 33 34 b. At the intersection of Frates Road additional improvements shall be necessary 35 including turn lanes and through lanes. 36 37 Intersections 38 39 21. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of Calle Ranchero and 40 Frates Road. 41 42 22. A four -way stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Ely Road and Frates 43 Road. The intersection shall be equipped with enhanced pedestrian safety 44 features including but not limited to a lighted in- ground pedestrian warning 45 system and /or other pedestrian safety features as deemed appropriate by the 46 City Engineer. 47 48 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall deposit a bond with 49 the City Clerk for 150% of the design, construction and installation of a traffic 0 signal at the Frates Road /Ely Road intersection. The bond shall be released at the discretion of the City Council two (2) years after the last certificate of occupancy 2 for a single family home is issued for the Southgate Development. Vol. XX, Page 46 March 1, 2004 • Grading 24. Grading shall conform to, the soils investigation report. The soils report shall address the need for moisture barriers along the back of curb and additional 'fill over the existing city utilities in Fates Road. 25. Cut and fill information shall be provided on the improvements plans. 26. Provide the necessary grading and drainage improvements on the City Pump Station site. 27. Prepare and submit an erosion control plan, storm water pollution prevention plan '(SWPPP) and a notice of intent (NOI). 28. Any existing structures above or below ground shall be removed if not a part of the new subdivision. Structures shall include, but are not limited to fences, retaining walls, pipes, septic systems, wells, debris, etc.. Streets within Southgate Subdivision 29. Access to Frates Road at Calle Ranchero shall include an ingress lane, a combination straight and left turn lane and a. right turn. lane. Face of curb radius at proposed intersections on Frates Road and Ely Road shall be at least 40 feet. 30. All subdivision .streets shall be at least 32 feet wide. Single- loaded streets may be 28 feet wide and parking shall be limited to one side of the street. Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all streets. Stop signs and crosswalks shall be required at applicable intersections within the subdivision. Pedestrian ramps are, required at all corners. Face of curb radius at interior street corners: shall be. at least 25 -feet. Street sections at the sound walls+ shall include landscaping adjacent to the . sound wall. Modifications to these: standards are at the discretion of the City Engineer. 31. A temporary all- weather turnaround shall be provided on Parcel A (Senior Housing site) for-the two streets ending at Parcel A. 32. All interior streets shall have a minimum street section of 4 inches of asphalt concrete and 12 inches of class 2 aggregate base. 33. Additional', outside 'turn radius (knuckles) shall be provided at 90- degree intersections within the subdivision. Modifications to this standard are at the discretion of the City Engineer. 34. All streets shall be crowned at the center, directing surface drainage to both sides of the street. 0 March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 47 0 Site Drainage and Storm Drain System 3 35. The detention pond system shall be designed to prevent any increase in the peak 4 discharge from the project site due to a 100 -year storm. Provide a spillway in the 5 detention pond system and an over flow path to safely direct runoff from a storm 6 exceeding 100 years. 7 8 36. Lot to lot drainage is not allowed without a conduit system and corresponding 9 easement. 10 11 37. Provide a storm drain system in Frates Road and Ely Road per City standards as 12 necessary. 13 14 38. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be reviewed and 15 approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. 16 17 39. Access roads and easements shall be provided for public storm drains on private 18 property. Easements for public storm drains shall .be at least 10 feet wide. 19 20 40. In order to reduce the apparent height of the sound wall along Lakeville 21 Highway, the v -ditch shall be filled and an underground storm drainpipe shall be 22 installed along the Lakeville Highway frontage if necessary. This shall be reflected 23 on the improvement plans submitted to the City. 24 5 Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems 41. Storm Drains shall be at least 15 inches in diameter. 28 29 42. The water main system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as 30 designated by the Fire Marshal. 31 32 43. Fire flow calculations shall be provided. 33 34 44. The water main connection in Lakeville Highway shall be eliminated if final fire 35 flow calculations indicate the connection is not needed. 36 37 45. Access roads and easements shall be provided for public sanitary sewer and 38 water mains on private property. Easements shall be at least 10 feet wide. 39 40 46. Water services shall be 1.5" diameter with 1 " water meters. 41 42 47. The developer shall be required to construct all on -site and off -site recycled water 43 facilities to provide recycled water to the park and open space parcels for 44 landscape irrigation. Design, operation, and maintenance of the recycled water 45 facilities shall comply with the City's Recycled Water Rules. The off -site facilities 46 shall include all pipelines, reservoirs, valves, connections, and other 47 appurtenances necessary to deliver recycled water from the City's existing 48 recycled water main in Ely Road to the irrigation points of connection for the park 49 and open space parcels. The on -site facilities shall include all components of 0 landscape irrigation systems for the park and open space parcels, beginning at the recycled water service meters. 2 Vol. XX, Page 48 March 1, 2004 48. The landscape plan, irrigation plan and grading plan shall comply with the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, each of these plans and all supporting documents shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Landscape Water Efficiency Standards shall apply to all common area, open space, park, and subdivision perimeter landscaping, as well as single- family front yard landscaping. 49. Planting materials shall be selected and :assessed using the California Department of Water Resources' "Guide to Estimating Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California," or similar guide. Turf grass shall not be allowed in front yards. 50. The design water budget and landscape water requirements shall be established for all proposed landscape areas and itemized on the Landscape Design_ Water Budget Statement. Final Map 51. Clearly and accurately show the boundary and dedications on the final map. 52. Provide a 10 -foot wide public utility easement on both sides ofall interior streets. The width of the easement may be reduced, subject to agreement by all affected public utility companies. 53. A final map technical review fee is due at final map application. Miscellaneous 54. Parcels B -K h s all be dedicated to the City of Petaluma. 55. Gas mains or underground electrical .mains shall not be allowed on private property beyond the standard 10 -foot public utility easement along the street frontage. 56. Improvement plans and final map(s) shall be prepared according to the latest City policies, codes, ordinances, resolutions and standards. 57. If the project is phased, each individual phase shall be designed to provide the required utility services and street system independent of any other phase. 58. Detention pond maintenance shall include tasks and time intervals for inspection and maintenance. 59. Formal application shall be filed for the abandonment of. the Qld Lakeville Road between Frates Road, and Lakeville Highway. The abandonment shall include removing the existing public utility easement (PUE) on APN 017 -150 -019 (37 acre site). The formal application shall include a title report, appraisals and legal descriptions for the areas proposed to be abandoned. The abandonment process shall be complete prior to final map application. 60. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall establish a Community Facilities District for maintenance of all land and improvements within Parcels B through K, Frates Road medians, and the new parcel to be created along March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 49 Lakeville Highway per Condition 11, including but not limited to all sound walls, detention ponds, drainage facilities, bicycle /pedestrian passageways and paths, 3 gateway features and landscaping. The instrument for creating the Community 4 Facilities District shall be subject to review by City Staff and the City Attorney, and 5 approved by the City Council. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost 6 of establishing the Community Facilities District. 7 8 From the Parks and Recreation Department 9 10 61. The proposed public park, identified on the Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel C, 11 shall be designed and developed with a playground along the same scale as the 12 playground recently approved for the Gatti Subdivision. Plans for the playground 13 shall -meet the approval of the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, and the 14 Parks and Recreation staff prior to review and approval by SPARC. 15 16 62. The Final Map and Improvement Plans for Southgate shall provide for a 17 connection of the bike / pedestrian path located in the urban separator to the 18 frontage road that parallels Lakeville Highway. This ' connection or passageway 19 shall be aligned with the street that is the extension of Calle Ranchero. 20 21 Other 22 23 63. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall adjust the property line 24 between the public park (Parcel C) and the parcel currently identified as Lot 128, 5 in order to widen the park parcel. 64. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its 28 boards, commissions, agents, officers-and employees from any claim, action, or 29 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project, 30 31 including the certification of associated environmental documents, when such 32 claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State 33 and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants /developers of 34 any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. 35 Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a 36 defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so 37 appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City. 38 39 Mitigation Measures to be Applied as Conditions of Approval 40 41 3.1 All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling, and compaction operations shall be 42 conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance 43 (# 1046, Title 20, Chapter 20.04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and 44 Erosion Control Ordinance # 1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal 45 Code). 46 47 3.2 The project sponsor shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by 48 a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The 49 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the 0 Planning Division and Engineering Section, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2 The Plan shall 'include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading Vol. XX, Page 50 March 1, 2004 1 2 operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following 3 measures as applicable. 4 5 a. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be 6 minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible 7 to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including. short- 8 term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) 9 shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing 10 11 disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes. 12 b. All drainage -ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from 13 silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, 14 and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded 15 and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch. and /or erosion 16 control blankets as appropriate. 17 18 c.. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control, measures shall 19 be on -site by October 15t. All grading activity shall be completed by October 20 15th, prior to the on -set of the rainy season, with all disturbed areas stabilized 21 and re- vegetated by October 31 22 23 d. Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short -term 24 grading may be allowed. The Engineering Section in conjunction with any 25 specially permitted rainy season grading may require special erosion .control 26 measures. 27 28 3.3 All construction activities shall meet the Uniform Building Code regulations for 29 seismic -safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and /or load bearing walls, bracing 30 parapets, etc.). 31 32 3.4 All public and private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City staff for 33 compliance with the approved Improvement Plans, prior to City acceptance. 34 35 3.5 Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements 36 of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local laws /ordinances. 37 Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building 38 Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to 39 inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code 40 requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate 41 of Occupancy. 42 43 3.6 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a 44 detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all 45 applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly 46 implemented through construction of the project. 47 48 3.7 The Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) shall review and 49 approve, the landscaping plans, which show how disturbed areas are to be 50 replanted. Any changes to the landscaping plan as required by SPARC shall be 51 incorporated into plans that are submitted for building permit issuance. 52 March 1, 2004 Vol. XX; Page 51 5 3.8 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an 7 improvement plan or Final Map, the project sponsor shall provide a Soils 3 Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil 4 engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official 5 in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control 6 Ordinance. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly 7 expansive soils) and include recommendations for site preparation and grading; 8 foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges 9 and structures. 10 shall be turned off-When not in use. 11 3.9 The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, 12 foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and 13 criteria :contained 'in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. 14 The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design 15 as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect 16 the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the 17 improvements or issuance of a certificate -of occupancy, that the improvements 18 have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. 19 Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the 20 geotechnical specifications by the Engineering 'Section of the Community 21 Development Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of 22 grading or building permits and /or advertising for bids on public improvement 23 projects. Additional soils' information may be required by the Chief Building 24 Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 5 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. 7 4.1 The Project' sponsor shall incorporate Best Management Practices into grading, 28 building and /or improvement plans, and clearly indicate these provisions in the 29 plan specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate the following 30 measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control. Plan to limit fugitive dust 31 and exhaust emissions during construction: 32 33 a. Grading and construction equipment operated, during construction activities 34 shall be properly mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment 35 shall be turned off-When not in use. 36 37 b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of 38 twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds 39 'exceed 1,5 mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used 40 for this :purpose. Responsibility for watering to include weekends and holidays 41 when work is not 'in progress. 42 43 c. Construction sites involving earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area 44 consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction 45 entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering 46 the public roadways. Street surfaces in the. vicinity of the project shall be 47 routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by 48 construction vehicles. 49 0 d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar' covering devices, or maintain at least two feet of freeboard to 2 reduce dust emissions. Vol. XX, Page 52 March 1, 2004. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22' 23' 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 e. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas; and staging areas at construction sites. f. Sweep daily (wit water .sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material"is deposited onto the adjacent roads. g. Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. i. Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. j'. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. k. Replant vegetation in, disturbed areas) as quickly as possible. Post - construction re- vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and. verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance.of Certificate of Occupancy. If necessary, install windbreaks, or use trees /vegetative windbreaks at the windward side(s), of construction areas to prevent visible dust clouds from affecting. nearby sensitive uses (e.g., residences). m. Suspend excavation and ; grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and visible dust emission cannot be prevented from leaving the construction site(s). n: Limit areas subject to .disturbance during excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. o. Project sponsor shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the: dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to. issuance of grading permits. p. if applicable, the project sponsor shall obtain operating permits, from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,, and shall provide evidence of compliance prior to 'requesting a Certificate of Occupancy: The Planning Department and/or Building Division shall verify that the project spbnsor has obtained an operating, permit and that the facilities conform to the permit requirements prior to authorizing the Certificate of Occupancy. 5.1 All. construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutants .entering .direc or indirectly into the storm ,drain system or ground water. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following • provisions into the construction plans and specifications, to be verified by the March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 53 Community' Development Department, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. 3 4 a. The project sponsor shall designate on the improvement plans, construction 5 staging areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e., 6 motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction 7 staging areas shall be located away from any drainage areas to prevent 8 runoff from construction areas from entering into the drainage system. Areas 9 designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper 10 containment features to prevent contamination from entering drainage 11 areas in the event of a spill or leak. 12 13 b. No debris, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete, or washing thereof, or other 14 construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other 15 organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All 16 discarded material including washings and any accidental spills shall be 17 removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The project sponsor 18 shall designate appropriate disposal methods and /or facilities on the 19 construction plans or in the specifications. 20 21 5.2 The project sponsor shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review 22 and approval by the Engineering Section and the Planning Division prior to 23 approval of any improvement plans or the issuance of a grading permit. Project 24 grading and all site drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in 5 conformance With the City of Petaluma Engineering Department's "Standards Specifications," and with the Sonoma County Water Agency's "Flood Control Design Criteria, if applicable. Drainage plans shall include supporting 28 calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering 29 methods. All hydrologic, hydraulic, and storm drain system design, if applicable, 30 shall be subject to the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water 31 Agency (SCWA), and the City Engineer. 32 33 5.3 The project sponsor shall pay all applicable Storm Drainage Impact Fees prior to 34 final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 35 36 5.4 The project sponsor shall submit Sonoma County Water Agency letter of 37 approval. 38 39 5.5 The project sponsor shall develop and implement a comprehensive Urban Runoff 40 Control Plan submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division prior to 41 approval of improvement plans, or issuance of grading or building permits. At a 42 minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify specific types and sources of storm water 43 pollutants; (2) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and (3) 44 specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design 45 and improvement plans. Construction plans shall be reviewed by the Planning 46 Division for conformance with the Urban Runoff Control Plan prior to approval of 47 improvement plans or issuance of grading or building permits. City inspectors shall 48 inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of 49 improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Urban Runoff Control 0 Programs shall include the following as appropriate: Vol. XX, Page 54 March 1, 2004 1 2 a. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not be applied to public landscape areas or any maintenance access way during the rainy season. 3 4 b. All drainage improvement plans shall include installation of permanent signs 5 (concrete stamps or equivalent) at each storm drain inlet. The sign at each 6 inlet shall read "No Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River" or equivalent, and 7 shall be installed at the time of construction and verified prior to acceptance 8 of public improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9 10 5.6 The developer shall be required to construct all on -site and off -site recycled water 11 facilities to provide recycled water to the park and open space parcels for 12 landscape irrigation. Design,, operation, and maintenance of the recycled water 13 facilities shall comply with the City's Recycled Water Rules. 14 15 7.1 All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday , 16 through Friday and (9 :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be 17 prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, 18 unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his /her designee) for 19 additional, hours. There will be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 20 a.m., :Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 21 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 22 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plan submitted for City permit shall include the 23 language above. 24 25 7.2 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be 26 properly muffled and maintained to minimize noise. Equipment shall be turned off 27 when not in use. 28 29 7.3 Construction maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction 30 equipment shall avoid proximity to residential areas to the maximum extent 31 pracficable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers, 32 etc., shall be placed away from residential areas and /or provided with acoustical 33 shielding. Quiet construction equipment shall be used when possible. 34 35 7.4 The project sponsor shall designate a Project Manager' with authority to implement 36 the mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding to any complaints 37 from, the neighborhood, prior to issuance .of a building /grading permit. The Project 38 Manager shall determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early, 39 faulty muffler, etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem. 40 41 7.5 Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans for the Southgate Subdivision, the 42 project sponsor shall submit an acoustical report prepared by a qualified 43 acoustical professional, which demonstrates that the specified location, 44 construction and height of the . proposed noise walls will provide the mitigation 45 necessary to comply with the Ldn 45 (interior) and Ldn 60 (.exterior use areas) noise 46 standards for residential and open space uses, as established in the City of 47 Petaluma General Plan. The acoustical report shall be subject to peer review and 48 shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of 49 the Final Map. 50 51 7.6 The project sponsor shall submit an acoustical report(s) prepared by a qualified 52 acoustical professional, which demonstrates that the proposed applicable interior March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 55 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4 02 and exterior noise standards as established by general plan noise policies shall be met. Said report. shall be submitted in conjunction with applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review for each phase of development, including park and future affordable housing uses. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit for that phase of development. The report shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Recommendations regarding placement of buildings and /or installation of sound walls that would shield roadway noise from exterior use areas in order to meet City noise standards. .b. Sound transmission class ratings (STC) for windows'and floor /ceiling assemblies on multi- family residential units necessary to achieve Ldn of 45 dBA interior noise level, as well as STC levels between units. c. The need for modified exterior wall constructions at second floor rooms along the roadways necessary to achieve Ldn of 45 -dBA interior noise level. These modifications may include extra layers of gypsum board or additional stud framing. d. Plans submitted for a building permit shall conform to the specifications identified in this study. 7.7 All land uses shall conform to the Performance Standards listed in Section 22 -300 of the Petaluma Zoning Code. 8.1 All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans submitted for project review and approval shall incorporate lighting plans, which include photometric plans of active open space areas, and identify the location .and design of all proposed exterior lighting, including streetlights. 8.2 Detailed site plans, .architectural plans, landscape plans, including details for exterior lighting and sound walls shall conform to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Design Guidelines and shall be subject to review by the City's Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 8.3 All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines) shall be placed underground. 8.4 Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to bedroom areas and other light- sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot, home or facility. Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in other potentially light- sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or landscape design features to screen interior living space from the headlight glare. 10.1 A four way stop control or traffic signal shall be installed at the Frates Road intersection with Calle Ranchero. 10.2 A four way stop control or a traffic signal shall be installed. at Frates Road intersection with South Ely Road. 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 47 48 49 50 51 Vol. XX, Page 56 March 1,.2004 10.3 Stop controls. shall - be provided for exiting the project at the proposed access point at Lakeville Circle. 10.4 The project shall comply with the requirements of the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan. Plans for each phase of.site development shall be referred to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. (PBAC) for review and comment to ensure compliance with the City Bicycle Plan. 10.5 The project sponsor shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. At least one lane of traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction period, unless a temporary detour plan is submitted and approved the City Traffic Engineer. Heavy construction traffic and :haul trucks shall avoid school zones between school arrival and departures times. During non - working hours, open trenches and construction hazards shall be provided . with signage, flashers, and barricades. approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of.potential safety hazards. 10.6 All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after completion of any project- related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal. If the trench cut is within the parking strip, then only the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry seal. 10.7 Any pedestrian access through and /or adjacent to the project,:site shall remain unobstructed during project construction or an alternate route established as approved by the Police Chief and City Engineer. 10.8 Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's Street Standards to provide for safe access to and from the site. Turning lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes,. curb cuts, median islands, signing and striping shall be incorporated into the design plans as required by the City's Traffic Engineer. Pedestrian and bicycle access connecting. the City's bikeways and pedestrian circulation through the site shall be incorporated into the development plan. Improvement or construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. All street frontage improvements shall be constructed to City standards and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspections or acceptance of improvements. 10.9 The project sponsor shall be responsible for the payment of the City's Traffic Mitigation Fees. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be calculated at the time of issuance of a building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10.10 The project sponsor shall upgrade the existing transit stop on Frates Road as necessary to include a bench, shelter and pedestrian access, subject to review and approval by the City of Petaluma Transit Coordinator. 10.11 The project sponsor shall'be responsible for a fair -share contribution to fund to the construction of signal and /or other improvements at the Frates /Adobe Road • March 1, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 57 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 intersection. The fair -share contribution shall be based upon the project's contribution to the cumulative traffic projected for this intersection. 15.1 If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of Petaluma Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on -site. When contacted, Community Development Department staff and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 p.m. David Glass, Mayor ATTEST: Gayle Petersen, City Clerk Claire Cooper, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard R. Rudnansky, City Attorney C7