HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.B-Attch03 03/03/2003ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes - Octo
ber 22,.200.2„ '
Ci o het
ty f alunia,, California
City Cou.ncit Chambers
City Hall, 1'1 English.Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/178-4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning(aa,ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page ' hqp / /www :dpetaluma.ca.us
1
" M ck' RPT
2 B�Beat�B� Comm ai
3 ®ct®ber 22, 2002 - 7e06
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie, Glass, McAllister, von Raesfeld
6 Absent: O'Brien .
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff. George White, Planning Manager
10 Laura Lafler, Project Planner
11 Anne Windsor Administrative Secretary '
12
13
14. Time public hearing began: 7 :10
15
16 NEW BUSINESS;
17 PUBLIC HEARING:
18
19 I. ROCKRIDGE POIN,TE, Windsor Drive & Western Avenue
20 AP No: 020 - 030 - 037,'039, 013, &• 015
21 File: ANX00004 , PUD00004; PRZ00001; TSM00003
22 Planner: Laura Lafler
23
24 The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to
25 the City Council to approve a proposal to prezone the property to Planned Unit
26 Development (PUD), to annex to the City of Petaluma, and to subdivide a 123 -acre parcel
27 into 62 residential lots.
28
29 Laura Lafler presented the staff report.
30
31 Vin Smith, presented the project and the issues identified at the meeting of September 24,
32 2002.
33
• 34 Chair Glass: Asked the about a path through the property to the Junior High.
35
1
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002 c
1 Vin Smith: Showed the graphic with the access point from the new development to
2 Western Avenue.
3
4 Commissioner Barrett: Asked why applicant did not install story poles?
5
6 Vin Smith: Responded to draft minutes given to him and not his notes from the meeting.
7 He did not know the Planning Commission wanted story poles..
8
9 Commissioner McAllister: Asked to see sections with structures and relationship of
10 structures to existing residences and adjacent properties.
11
12 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked is there a compromise that could be worked out
13 regarding the safety issue while still having a public access path near the detention basin
14 area.
15
16 Commissioner Barrett: Asked the applicant why sections and story poles were not
17 provided. Shy visual simulation from Chileno Valley Road not provided.
18
19 Vin Smith: Responded that he did not provide the sections or story poles and that the .
20 project area is not visible from Chileno Valley Road.
21
22 Chair Glass: 'Asked for a motion to reopen the'public hearing.
23
24 M/S von Raesfeld%Dargie to reopen the public hearing. 6 -0.
25
26 Public hearing opened:
27
28 Peg ;Schafer, 37 Cleveland Avenue: Presented pictures and discussed flood issues `from_
29 Marin Creek. There are a number of Houses at risk from flooding of Marin Creek. � "Have
30 concerns about traffic as well and the safety of pedestrians. Discussed house and
31 affordable housing.
32
33 Scott Braun, 1161 Western: Have concerns about drainage — removing water from creeks
34 will affect trees on his property. Would still like story poles to see how visible the houses
35 will be. Have concerns about house size as well and use access in new residences.
36
37 Paul.McGavin, 297 Cambridge Lane: Think most of "'the issues have been addressed by
38 the developer. The folks who live on Western and Cleveland and are outside of the City
39 limits are being left out. The stretch of Western Avenue between. Windsor Drive and
40 Chileno Valley Road needs improvement. Need to redirect traffic off Windsor Drive.
41
42 Susanne McGavin, 297 Cambridge Lane: Would like to condition the project 'so that the
43 large construction vehicles will not go through Victoria. Also, would like to limit. hours
44 of construction traffic. Don't think there is much of a visual impact from Chileno Valley
45 Road. Asked for parking on Windsor Drive if possible. Thanked the developer for •
46 working with the residents of Victoria.
47
2
Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2002
® 1 Peter Gang, 381 Cleveland: - Submitted a letter to the Commission — has been following
2 the project and feel there are items that have not been addressed by the developer.
3 Suggested signboards and story poles be required for a project of this magnitude.
4 Neighbors are outraged and did not know of the last meeting. Need to balance the need
5 of the community and the developer. There is a, need for more affordable housing and a
6 better mix of housing sizes. One of stated goals is to minimize visual prominence — then
7 install story poles to show the neighbors. Would like to see smaller houses and smaller
8 lot sizes. Make all the open space accessible to the public. Reiterated the concerns
9. regarding traffic, especially on Western Avenue. Need to work with the county to have
10 safe pedestrian access on Western Avenue.
11
12 Lisa Ludwigsen, 263 Cleveland Avenue: The developer is putting a city subdivision in
13 the country. Cleveland- Lane is perilous to walk on. Live near Marin Creek — have
14 concerns that the new development will impact Marin Creek,and would like assurances
15 that the creek flow will not increase. Would like new development to include playing
16 fields. Fence around the detention basin will have a visual impact. Wetlands present
17 opportunity.
18
19 Edward Giordano, 1764 Western Avenue: Put in $5,000 worth of drainage
20 improvements underneath his house. Want to know if independent review of hydrology
21 has been requested. Bought'in this area because it was rural. Has an alternative site
• 22 been proposed that would be more appropriate?
23
24 Elaine Lucia, 1777 Western Avenue: Showed the developer's graphic of the open space.
25 Discussion at the last meeting regarding traffic on Western Avenue - burden should fall
26 on the developer. Traffic will affect all of the homes, on Western Avenue. Pedestrian
27 traffic along Western going to three different schools in the area. Would still like story
28 poles to see the impact of the project. Developer has spoken with all the Victoria
29 residents, however, has not: approached any of the residents on Western. Seasonal creek
30 will affect all of the old bays and oaks on our property if water decreased.
31
32 Larry Braun, 2461 Western Avenue: Just beyond Windsor Drive on Western Avenue.
33 Would like an effort to have trails for horses to access Helen Putnam. My property is
34 next to the sewer station for Victoria — would like the opportunity to hook into this sewer
35 system. Would like improvements on Western between Windsor and Chileno Valley
36 Road. Marin Creek needs to be cleaned out — think the developer needs to do this.
37 Concerned about an open water source — has disease potential with mosquitoes. Speed
38 limit. 's a concern — speeds need to be reduced on Windsor Drive and Western Avenue.
39
40 Elizabeth Mori, 407 Melvin: Represent PBAC — reiterated the Bike Committee's
41 concerns about the public open space access. Four issues:_ through travel,— recommend
42 cul de sac and the park ,connect with one another; also connect to Parcels C, D and A.
43 Would like access,behind lots 42 and 48 to connect Parcel C and Parcel D and paths on
44 the Marin Creek detention basin_ When parcel 'l is� transferred to the County, include
• 45 condition for signage so pedestrians know there is access and remove fencing between
46 Helen Putnam and Parcel I. - Have concerns about traffic on Western, especially
47 concerned about safe routes to schools. Parcels A & 'C should be open for public access
3
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
in
1 in perpetuity. There was discussion of a future road by LAFCO to access adjacent
2 parcels -bike committee is against this.
3
4 David Kualheim, 258 Edinburgh: Do not like the bike path — is looking straight down
5 into our yards — is connecting to nothing. Would like a row of trees as a buffer if the path
6 is open to the public. Don't .understand why public needs access to property.
7
8 Bruce Hagen, 145 Greveillia: Member of the bike committee. Reiterate other comments
9 from the bike committee. Want the opportunity to have public open spaces. Live in
10 Westridge Knolls — there is a lot of open space just as proposed by this .development.
11 Westridge Knolls has many loop trails around the entire development. This would be an
12 amenity for these homeowners as well.
13
14 David Stirrat, 1981 Western Avenue: Homeowners on Western are without
15 representation in relation to proposed annexation.
16
17 Amy `Lear-; 2324 .Western Avenue: - Clarifying flooding issues. Would like development
18 to have smaller homes more energy efficiency. Would like permeable paving. Trucks
19 being routed to Western• and this is a concern to those. of us who live on Western. Parcels
20 41 through 47 — no longer have a setback.
21.
22 David Hergenrother,234 Edinburgh: Drainage issues on open space Parcel' D — existing •
23 drainage issues which are not addressed. Not opposed to paths and public open space.
24 How delineate between public right of way and private open space with a split rail fence?
25 Lots 14, 15, and 16 visible to the street — 16 will dominate the view from the street.
26 Regulations regarding steepness of paths. Oppose the project as currently proposed.
27
28 Public comment closed.
29
30 Chair Glass: Gave some.history and an overview of the project.
31
32 Vin Smith: Regarding open space — have made recommendations and desire to have all
33 the open space be public, including the 2 -acre park. Trails shown on vesting tentative
34 reap are dedicated open space.
35 Drainage facility was designed for a larger project and was never reduced even though
36 the project area was reduced— feel it is sufficient to address concerns_.
37
38 Chair Glass: Asked Craig Spaulding to weigh in on the drainage concerns expressed by
39 the public.
40
41 Craig Spaulding: Condition # 47 addresses the drainage issues and will be addressed by
42 the Sonoma County Water Agency.
43
44 Chair Glass: Asked Mr. Spaulding to address Mr. Braun's concerns about water leaving
45 his propertybythe flow of water from the site and the transfer of flows. •'
46
4
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
• 1 Vin Smith: Showed the property in question have .spoken with the property owner and
2 both are happy with. the plans as.proposed.
3
4 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked if minor improvements were done on county roads
5 when Victoria was developed.
6
7 Craig Spaulding: Did not know — was not with the city at that time.
8
9 Commissioner McAllister; Asked about drainage regarding Cleveland Avenue and
10 Marin Creek flooding.
11
12 Craig Spaulding: This development will not add additional runoff. Do not believe the
13 developer needs to clean out Marin Creek.
14'
15 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about setback of homes that was brought up during public
16 comments.
17
18 Vin Smith: Setbacks 73 feet for lot 42 and 112 feet for -lot 38.
19
20' Commissioner Asselmeier: Have serious concerns about the traffic — am unclear what
21 the developer -is able to do om Western from Windsor to Chileno Valley Road. Would
22 like the City to see if there are additional .areas-that should be included in annexation.
0 23 Seems we should have a solution before we approve this project. Also heard comments
24 about the homes and the affordability. Asked .how much would go toward affordable
25. housing.
26
27 Vin Smith: Development is estate lot subdivision — unrealistic to have 1200 square foot
28 houses in this type of subdivision. Will sell for whatever the market rate will bear at the
29 time and would certainly be :greater than $500,000. Would contribute $150,000 toward
30 affordable housing fund.
31
32 9:20 break
33
34 Meeting resumed at 9:25
35
36 Commission Comments:
37
38 Commissioner von Raesfled: Commendable redesign effort from the previous project.
39 Issues: two categories: site issues: expanded language regarding nature of contouring
40 on the knolls. hi prominent areas two knolls and detention basin — it should not be
41 engineered grading. Do not see why detention pond cannot serve both a function of
42 detention basin and a rural landscape amenity. Want to be able to get off Windsor Drive
43 and walk through project. Would like'park be designed as part of the project. Would like
44 to see the bike paths connected — provided a graphic to show possible reconfiguring of
45 some lots to connect the open .space .areas. Suggested a range of fences to be considered
46 by SPARC for lots 1 -4 and 14, 15 and .16 so that "mile's" of fencing are not so visible.
47 Need side yard fencing and landscaping on corner lots.
5
ro- I I " p„
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1 Regarding architecture – need clear, inspired and well thought out architecture. Some
2 sensitive lots – critical rear elevations on.lots 1 -4. Lots 13 -17 sit on the fill promontory– •
3 need to be unique homes – will be prominent. Corner lots offer opportunities – needs to
4 be taken advantage. of Subdivision could benefit from a unit that is ,further articulated,
5 rather than regular geometry.
6
7 Commissioner McAllister: Not sure I can make the fmdings for the Prezoning and PUD.
8 Do not think it has been adequately addressed. Referred to staff report regarding the
9 required findings. Packet was similar to last packet additional materials provided were
10 superficial. Sections provided were useless. Sections and story poles were; ignored. "Do
11 not think Victoria residents can really tell what this is going to look" 'like. Other
12 jurisdictions demand a lot more in terms of what a development will look like. Want to
13 see open space networks that weave through developments would, really like this to be
14 better. Need to see exhibits that show what community is getting. Need. to go further
15 with quality of development. Gave an example of a development in -Davis with
16 meaningful open space. Visual quality unchanged from the last packet, grading has been
17 improved but it is not the only issue: Need a broader continuum of house sizes =would
18 help the visual quality. Need story poles on prominent lots, 14, 15, 16 and 17.- These
19 homes would impact Edinburgh homes more than the open space path. Agree to have a
20 connection all the way through. Would like a connection from cul de sac want lots 46,
21 47 and 48 to connect to the park. I support making the detention basin more of a
22 landscape element and an amenity and completing the trail network and connecting to the
23 county with Parcel I. Support ownership of open space. Need a well thought out
24 landscape plan for all the parcels – a rustic, designed park – would direct SPARC to a
25 native, rural landscape., No landscaping proposed between the project and the north
26 neighbors. Rural property does not need to be treated in an urban way – rigorous lining
27 of streets with trees not appropriate. Grading does not address keeping the tree clusters
28 in park preservation of trees needs to be addressed by a certified arborist. Think rural
29 vernacular is appropriate here rather than the" houses represented. Concerns about traffic'
30 – particularly pedestrians and safe.route to schools.
31
32 Commissioner Barrett: Think it is important to give SPARC strong direction: Feel the
33 developer has moved a long way and would ask you to move further. Want, to see story
34 poles – not just for lots 14 through _17 but also lots 43 through 48. Concerned about ridge
35 line development —want to make sure we are .doing the right thing. Project is visible
36 "from Chileno Valley Road. Am comfortable that we will not add to flooding problems
37 on Cleveland Lane. Send Bike Committee's recommendation re Parcel I on to the
38 county. This is not. different than Westridge and would like this development to do 'the
39 same in terms of open space and paths. Want to see it conditioned that is the most
40 energy efficient. Western Avenue .is a real concern here – am concerned about directing
41 traffic to Western Avenue from Windsor Drive into downtown.. Think the City needs to
42 address this issue even though it is county property. Can't approve a project that creates
43 an unsafe condition.
44
45 Commissioner Dargie: Think the open space should be public. Convinced "the project
46 will not cause more problems for the downstream neighbors. Do not think 62 more
47 homes will cause more traffic on Western to Chileno Valley, however, will add traffic to
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002"
• 1 Western going into town. Think we do need sto ry poles,. computer animation is not
2 sufficient. Detention basin should be a landscape feature. Definitely improve the park
3 before dedicating to the city.
4
5 Commissioner Asselmeier' In agreement with all comments thus far. Would like to add
6 condition of approval that the bike committee memo dated today be incorporated. If
7 excluding -the road to access adjacent parcels would put the city in a difficult position —
8 would not condition it. Need story poles and notices on the property — should be put up
9 now. In lieu housing fees of $150 do not seem adequate. — would like to see that be
10 increased. Would like the home and lot sizes to be reduced. Have concerns about
1.1 whether this is in conformance with the general plan. Would like open space to be
12 public. Think there should be a way to move around and through the project within the
13 open space. Integrate the open space in a more holistic way. Trail behind parcels 38
14 through 43 — could show. off wetlands. Detention basin,should be an amenity. Refer the
15 applicant to Village Homes in Davis — good idea for the detention pond. Parking along
16 Windsor near Parcel I if possible. Recommend that the applicant speak with the county
17 and city about an agreement for a fair share contribution for improvements to Western
18 Avenue.
19
20 Chair Glass: Agree with other ,Commissioners comments: Do not see moving forward
21 without story poles.
22
23 Commissioner von Raesfeld: What are we asking with story poles? Is it an issue of
24 whether the lots should be there?
25
26 Commissioner Barrett: Is an issue of visibility and the ridgeline.
27
28 Commissioner Dargie: Agree with Commissioner Barrett
29
30 Commissioner McAllister: Agree ` with Commissioner Barrett. Have concerns with Lots
31 15 and 16.
32
33 Commissioner Dargie: Need to establish where we want the story poles.
34
35 Vin Smith: Would be willing, to put up story poles on key lots for the SPARC process,
36 however, do not think is appropriate for Planning Commission. This has never been
37 requested in the two years prior. Feel as though we have met the demands regarding
38 traffic, drainage and grading. Would put story poles on lots. I through 5 and 14 through
39 17 at SPARC. Do not want to put up story poles regarding the land use process.
40
41 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Identified the following is
42
43 ❑ Story poles
44 ❑ Western Avenue ,tra'ffic — contributefairshare
45 ❑ Contouring °issues —golf course not engineering
46 ❑ Detention pond as landscape feature integrated into the project
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3.7
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
❑ Designing and building the park with trails and benches before dedicating to the
City
❑ Contiguous open space concept
❑ Submit to SPARC proposed fencing for variety of conditions
❑ Side lot landscaping and fencing for corner lots
❑ Open space given to City — irrevocable offer
❑ SPARC review of Lots 1- 4,14 -17 rear;elevations and corner lots
❑ Further articulated units with multi- volume concepts
❑ Cohesive landscape plan — do not look at it as separate parcels
u Include PBAC recommendations
Planning Commission liaison to SPARC can ensure conformity.
Commissioner McAllister: Wanted clarification on contiguous open space concept - do
you agree with Commissioner von Raesfeld's plan.
Vin Smith: Agreeing to the plan as presented by Commissioner von Raesfeld.
Commissioner Barrett: Have problems with discussion regarding the lots — would like
access between adjacent properties at the north end of the project.
a
. 40
Commissioner McAllister: Have concerns about moving the project on without seeing it
do not necessarily. agree °with the placement of lots 15 and 16 or views of Lots 1 •
through 4. Applicant should consider single story homes on periphery.
Commissioner Barrett: Referred to Council minutes from March 4, ,2002 regarding
integration of proj ect with the surroundings.
Commissioners Asselmeier Dargie, McAllister and Barrett: Want to see story poles.
Commissioner Asselmeier, Barrett, Glass: Want all PBAC recommendations included.
Chair Glass: Can single story homes be on the prominent lots?
Commissioner McAllister: Want story poles that reflect the height and mass of the
houses.
Vin Smith: Want to move the project forward.
Dargie: How visible will the houses. be?
Vin Smith: They will be less visible due to the grading "that has been done.
Commissioner McAllister: Can we condition this with story poles?
George White: Can require story poles to be in lace before the City Council meeting.
g q Yp p Y . g
8
Planning Commission Minutes October 22, .2002
• pp project p erhe g a / roventhe rfojt s h t findings cond do recommendation approval to the City Council to
2 and the following
3 additional recommendations:
4
5 ® All proposed open space parcels, with the .exception of the parcel to be dedicated
6 to the County as part of Helen Putnam Park, shall be dedicated to the City as
7 public open space.
8 • .
9 The applicant and staff should work with appropriate County staff ' to develop a
10 formula for fair share contributions from the applicant for addressing increased
11 traffic on Western Avenue especially in the vicinity of existing schools.
12
B The design, development and dedication of the proposed public park, including
14 trails and benches, shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any individual
15 housing unit.
16
17 The conceptual unit:.developmentplan shall be revised as follows:
18
19 1. Show a contiguous open space concept with a cohesive landscape plan -
20 do not look at the property as separate open space parcels.
21 2. Recommend possible relocation of Lot 15 to the end of the cul de sac "G"
22 Court.
23 3. Integrate detention pond into theproject.as a landscape feature
24 4. Respond to concerns about contouring and propose solutions that are more
25 like grading for golf courses than just engineering
26 5. Lots 43 -48 — need particular attention to the' rear of these lots — revise
27 architecture and elevations to reflect rural vernacular ' recommendations
28 from SPARC.
29
30 ® Applications materials for SPARC shall include:
31
32 1. Proposed,fencing for variety of conditions
33 2. Side lof landscaping and fencing for corner lots
34 3. Particular attention to the most visible elevations for rear and corner lots,
35 specifically Lots 1 -4, 14 -17
36 4. Provide further articulation on individual proposed residences with multi -
37 volume concepts
38
39
40 In addition' story poles will be in place at least 10 days before the hearing for Lots 38-
41 45, Lots 1-4, Lots :14-16, a sign placed. at bottom of hill. on Windsor Drive describing the
42 proposed project, graphics enhanced with an illustrative plan,, and 62 -lot desired density.
43
44 All in favor:"
10 45 Commissioner Dargie: Yes
46 Commissioner McAllister: No
47 Chair Glass: Iles
9
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
EN
1
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
2
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Yes •
3
Commissioner Asselmeier: Yes
4
5
Draft Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
6
7
1.
An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial
8
evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have
9
a significant effect on the environment.
10
i 1
2.
That the project does not :have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
12
in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is
13
exempt from Fish and Game filing fees.
14
15 .
3.
The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous, Waste Site List
16
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
17
Code.
18
i9
4.
The* Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered. public
20
comments before, making a recommendation, on the project.
21
22
5.
That a Mitigation Monitoring :Program has been prepared to ensure compliance -
23
with the adopted mitigation measures. •
24
25
6.
The record of proceedings of the decision on the project. is available for public
26
review at the City of Petaluma .Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street,
27
Petaluma, California.
28
29
Draft.Findings of Approval for Prezoning:
30
31
1.
The proposed Prezoning of the Rockridge Pointe property to PUD is consistent
32
with the Petaluma General Plan, and is in general conformity with ,the .zoning
33
regulations of the City of Petaluma as described in the project staff report.
34
Additionally, the Fire Marshal, Police Department', and the Engineering. Division
35
have prepared conditions of approval to address safety issues and design criteria
36
for grading, site improvements and construction of the residences.
37
38
2.
The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit the adoption
39
of the Prezoning in that the zoning designation will result in residential uses that
40
are appropriate and compatible with the existing surrounding uses. The proposed
41
density would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project
42
plans present a unified and organized , arrangement of residential lots and public
43
streets, appropriate to adjacent and nearby properties. Proposed landscaping
44
would further insure compatibility. The proposed project would also require
45
review and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
46
•
47
48
Draft Findings of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
10
' Planning Commission 'Minutes - October 22, 2002
• 1
2 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the
3 provisions of Title '20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code (Subdivision
4 Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act.
5
6 2. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and
7 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, and will not be detrimental to
e
p y, , at,.adequate public facilities exist or will
9 be installed, int luding roads sidewalks water, 'sewer, ' storm drains, and other
10 infrastructure.
11
'
12
3.
That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development
13
proposed.
14
15
4.
That the design, of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
16
substantial enviro nmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will
17
occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared indicating
18
that there would be no significant, environmental impacts that could not be
19
mitigated.
20
21
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
22
<23
From the Planning. Division:
24
25
1..
The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial compliance
26
with the Vesting Tentative Map, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary
27
Grading Plan, dated September 3, 2002, received September 4, 2002.
28
29
2.
All mitigation measures ,adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative
30
Declaration for the Rockridge Pointe Project, revised September 4, 2002, are
31
herein incorporated by reference as conditions of prof ec't approval.
32
33
3.
Upon. approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of
34
Determination fee to the' Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to
35
the County Clerk. .Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the
36
County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval.
37
38
4.
Architecture plans shall be reviewed and approved. by SPARC including building
39
location, entries compatibility with surrounding residences, architectural design
40
andIandscaping.
41
42
5.
The' applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management Practices regarding
43
pesti61de/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest Management
44
techniques °for the protection of pedestrianibicyclists. The applicant shall be
45
required to post signs when pesticide /herbicide use occurs to warn pedestrians and
46
bicyclists.
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1
2 6.
3
4 7.
5
6
7 8.
8
9
10
11 9.
12
13
14 10.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 11
25
26
27 12
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
13
Parcel C shall be dedicated to the City of Petaluma as a park.
Parcels A, including the Detention Basin, shall be maintained by the Homeowners.
Association.
The applicant shall dedicate Parcel I to Sonoma County as an addition to the
Helen Putnam Regional Park., Evidence of an initial offer letter and acceptance
shall be submitted with the Final Map.
The proposed park at Parcel C shall be constructed prior to receiving occupancy
for 80 percent or 50 units of the total 62 units.
All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 9 :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be
prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless
apermit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional
hours. There will be no start up of machines nor equipment prior, to 8:.00 a.m.,
Monday through Friday; 'no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m.
nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday. Plans submitted for City permits shall include the
language above.
Construction and demolition. debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent
feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
CC &Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior
to approval of the Final Map.
Concrete ditches and drainage structures draining the open space areas shall be
tinted earth colors.
14. The applicant shall construct a public trail through Parcel I consistent with the
Sonoma. County Regional Park standards to - connect to Helen Putnam Park. The
public trail shall be completed prior to final occupancy of the project.
15. Prior to recording the Final Map, the developer shall submit names for the internal
streets and cul -de -sacs to the Planning Division for review and approval
40 16. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all drainage inlets, clean-outs,
41 berms, debris basins, slide repair areas, v- ditches, sub -drain and other facilities
42 located in the project area. CC &R's shall include a provision requiring that the
43 city consent to' any revisions regarding maintenance.
44
45 17. The. .CC &R's' for the project shall provide that the Homeowners Association shall
46 be responsible for performing ongoing maintenance and or repair of geologic
47 conditions, debris basins, ditches
12
LA
•
•
r
r d
i
Planning. Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
• 1
2 18. Plant materials to be .installed as ,part of, the'Landscape_.Plan shall . consist of a
3 minimum of 15 gallon can size for trees and 5 gallon can size for shrubs.
4
5 From the Engineering Division:
6
7 Frontage Improvements
8
9 19. Half- street ' frontage improvements along the northeasterly side of Windsor Drive
to shall include but not be limited to, 5 -foot wide striped on- street bike lane, curb and
11 gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, handicap ramps, curb return at Western Avenue,
12 striping, channelization, signing, landscaping and roundabout (per Traffic Impact
13 Study dated December 2000 by WTrans).
14
15 20. Half- street frontage improvements along the southeasterly side of Western Avenue
16 shall include but not be limited to, 5 -foot wide striped on- street bike lane, curb and
17 gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, handicap ramps, striping, channelization, signing and
18 landscaping.
19
20 21. The City requires a traffic index of 6 (T.I. = 6) for Western Avenue. A geotechnical
21 report addendum i's required and shall ideintify the existing pavement section and
22 traffic index for the existing County of Sonoma portion of Western Avenue along the
• 23 project frontage. In the event that the existing pavement section does not meet T.I. = 6
24 standards, the developer shall be responsible for reconstructing the existing portions
25 of Western Avenue; from centerline, along the project frontage, An asphalt overlay
26 conform shall be required as necessary to provide a smooth street crown and insure
27 positive cross sectional drainage of 2% minimum.
28
29 22. In the event that the Local. Agency Formation Commission requires annexation of
30 adjacent assessor parcel numbers 020- 030 -013 and 020- 030 -015 or any other adjacent
31 parcels, the applicant shall provide for a future public roadway and emergency access
32 as well as access to utilities. An irrevocable offer of dedication through the
33 Rockeridge Pointe Subdivision with sufficient width to accommodate future
34 maximum dwellings located on all,developable parcels in the immediate area, or
35 another scenario acceptable to the City Engineer is required. Off -site public
36 easements for public sewer and water utilities may also be required.
37
38 23. City standard public improvements shall be installed'within" the boundary of the
39 subdivision:including but not limited to, full street widths, curb and gutter, sidewalks,
40 streetlights, handicap ramps, sewer, water and storm drain systems, signing, striping
41 and' landscaping.
42
43 24. In the event that the contractor damages any portion of Windsor Drive during
10 44 construction, the project applicant shall restore Windsor Drive to pre - construction
45 conditions prior to acceptance of the project by'the City of Petaluma.
46
13
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1 25.7he pavement sections for the proposed interior streets shall be designed for a traffic
2 index of 5 (T.I. = 5) and shall contain a minimum of four inches of asphalt concrete.
3
4 26. The pavement section for the emergency vehicular access road shall be designed to
5 accommodate typical fire track loads.
6
7 27. Sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of all streets throughout the boundary of the
8 subdivision. with the ; exception of "A" Street. A sidewalk on one side ,of "A" Street
9 shall be allowed between lot 45 and Windsor Drive if approved by the Planning
10 Commission.
11
12 28. Stop- controlled intersections shall be installed per City standards at. all interior
13 intersections.
14
15 29. Parking shall be prohibited alongAhe entire Windsor Drive (both sides of,street) and
16 Western_Avenue (development side of street) parcel(s) frontages. Na parking street
17 signs shall be installed.
18
0
19 30. All subdivision street widths shall be 32 -feet wide with parking allowed on both
20 sides. Parking may be limited in cul -de -sacs per Fire Marshals. requirements. Cul -de-
21 sac and hammerhead dimensions shall also be subject to the Fire Marshals approval.
22
23 31. Maximum street grades shall be 15 percent..
24
25 32. All retaining walls shall be located on private property.
26
27 33. All PG & E distribution electric lines and other overhead utilities and service drops
28 along the street frontages or through or traversing the site shall be placed
29 underground. All new services shall be underground.
30
31 34: All Windsor Drive and Western Avenue street transitions /conforms shall besubject to
32 thereview and approval by the City Engineer.
33
34 Sanitary Sewer Collection and Water Supply Utilities
35
36 35. Each.lot shall have separate sanitary sewer laterals and water services.
37
38 36. A 1,0 -foot wide public water main and public access easement. is required for the
39 proposed water line located within the boundary of the subdivision and through two
40 Cal Water parcels prior to final map approval. The access road within the easement
41 shall be paved (or similar hardscaped treatment). The final location and grade of the
42 easements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer.
43
44 37. A 12 -inch diameter water main shall be installed from the LaCresta water tank; site to
45 the subdivision per the preliminary water system calculations prepared by Milani and
46 Associates.
47
14
•
Plgnning Commission, Minutes - October 22, 2002 .
1
38. The homeowners association shall be responsible for contributing to the maintenance
• 2
costs of the sanitar sewer um station located near the ro'ect entrance along with
y. pump p J
3
the Victoria Subdivision Phase III homeowners association.
4
39. All water main piping shall be Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) in hillside areas.
5
'. 6
40. All water main piping within the boundary of the subdivision shall be 12 -inch
7
diameter pipe as determined by the preliminary water system calculations prepared by
8
Milani and Associates.
9
10
41. All units with top finish floor elevations above elevation 270 feet require installation
11
of a privately owned and maintained air -gap water pressure booster bump system.
12
13
Grading and Drainage
14
15
42. Hydrology calculations for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma
16
County Water Agency (SCWA) prior to final map and improvement plan approval.
17
18
43. Hydrology calculations shall include all on -site drainage facilities including the
19
proposed detention basin system and Western Avenue storm drain.
„ 20
21
44. Parcel "A" (detention basin site) shall be designated as a common area and
22
maintained by the subdivisions homeowners association through the conditions,
23
covenants and restrictions. An 'operations and maintenance manual shall be created
" 24
for perpetual maintenance of the detention basin during and after construction of the
25
subdivision. Provisions in the manual shall include but .not be limited to, construction
26
and post - construction maintenance for dredging, periodic inspection, functionality,
27
landscaping and repair.
28
29
'45. An annual report shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma Community Development
30
Department identifying annual maintenance provisions as prescribed in the operations
31
and maintenance manual.
32
33 '
46. The .detention basin shall be constructed and operational prior to and during the first
34
year's rainy season defined as October 1 — April 15.
35
36
47. A public storm drain easement shall be provided over the entire parcel "A ".
37
38
48. Additional,;geotechnical and hydrological information shall be provided for the design
39
and construction of the detention basin at the improvement plan stage. The detention
40
basin shall be designed to accommodate a 100 -year storm event.
41
42
49. Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed without drainage /storm drain easements.
43
44
50. The storm drain from the end. of "H" Court to the detention basin shall be eliminated.
0 45
All" street storm drain's shall be directed to the detention basin by a single pipe from
46
"A" Street as shown on the tentative map.
47
15
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1
51. All backyard and hillside drainage shall be collected in swales and sub surface storm
2
drain lines and discharged into a public storm drain system. Rooftop and, driveway
•
3
runoff from lots 31 -45 shall not be allowed to flow across the northerly boundary of
4
the subdivision. -
5
6
52. All storm drain systems located on lots 1 -62 and parcels `B" through "I" shall be
7
privately owned and maintained.
8
9
53. conforms to adjacent- developments and parcels shall be subject to the review
10
and approval of the City Engineer.
11
'
12
54. The applicant shall submit a. Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water
13
Resources Control Board and provide a copy of the filed notice to the City of
14
Petaluma prior to final map approval.
15
16
55. The applicant shall submit a detailed Storm. Water Pollution Prevention Plan
17
( SWPPP) in accordance with latest state standards for review and approval by the
18
City Engineer prior to final map approval. The SWPPP shall be available on -site in
19
the job trailer at all. times throughout the 1construction process. The SWPPP and NOI
20
copy shall be submitted, with .the improvement plan application package. The
21
developer and/or contractor 'shall update the SWPPP throughout the 'construction
22
23
process per the latest state standards. A section 404 permit (U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers) may be required for work within the creek area.
S
24
25
56. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan is required as a part of the improvement
26
plans and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
27
28
57. The applicant shall.`file a Notice of Termination (NOT) with the California State
29
Water Resources Control Board and a copy to the City of Petaluma upon completion
30
of the project.
31
32
Easements
33
34
58. Ten -foot wide public utility easements (P.U.E.) are required on all parcel frontages to
35
public streets or letters from appropriate public utility companies approving reduced
36
width P.U.E.'s will be accepted.
37
38
59. Appropriate on -site and off -site public and private access, drainage, utility, etc.
39
easements are required prior to final map approval.
40
41
Miscellaneous
42
43
60: The final map and improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with latest City
44
standards, codes, policies and ordinances.
45
46
61. All public improvements shall be completed and accepted by the City of Petaluma
47
prior to releasing the final 20 percent of certificates of occupancy.
16
Planning Comm'i'ssion 'Minutes - October 22, 2002
• 1
2 62. The homeowner's association shall maintain' all private utilities..
3
4 63. Any existing wells or septic systems located on the site shall be abandoned per
5 County of Sonoma Environmental Health Department standards.
6
7 64. The applicant shall submit either a digitized data fee in the amount of ten dollars per
8 lot or provide electronic base map information for updating the City's base map
9 system prior to final map approval.
1 0
11 From the Fire Marshal:
12
13 65. Proposed street widths of 28 feet are acceptable as long as no parking is permitted on
14 either side of the street.. Thirty two (32) feet street widths shall be permitted for
15 parking to exist on both sides of the street.
16
17 66. Cul de sac radius shall be designed to meet the turning radius of the Fire Department's
18 aerial ladder truck.
19
20 67.Hammerhead turn around appears to be substandard on "C" Street. Con
21
22 68. Roadway grades shall not exceed 15 percent maximum.
0 23
24 69. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300 feet and or 150 feet from the furthest
25 structure. Hydrant, locations- subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal's Office.
26
27 70. This subdivision is within the boundaries of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
28 (VHFHSZ). Buildings constructed in this zone are subject to the conditions outlined
29 in Section 17.20.060 �petaluma Municipal Code.
30
31 71. All residences are required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13 -D.
32 Additionally, because the structures are in the VHFHSZ they must be "fully
33 sprinklered which includes extension of the sprinklers into the attic, garage or
34 unprotected space. A minimum two -head calculation for the attic is acceptable.
35
36 72. Fire flow is required to be a minimum of 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual. Verification of
37 minimum flows must be calculated and provided to the Fire Marshal's Office by a
38 registered engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
39
4o 73'. All fire lanes,, EVA'.s, turnarounds and no parking areas shall be designated as such
41 with appropriate signs and/or red curbs. Sign and'curb language, including letter size,
42 shall be in accordance with city standards.
43
44 74. Open space areas are subject to the provisions of annual weed/brush abatement. A
• 45 plan that outlines the criteria for provisions for abatement shall be developed and
46 approved by the Fire Marshal's Office. The plan shall include provisions for fire safe
m,�d r
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1 landscaping, as required, and firebreaks in accordance with "fire safe standards"
2 developed by the State of California.
3
4 75. Barriers blocking the EVA must be approved by the Fire Marshal's Office.
5 Typically, this is accomplished with a gate. All gate supports must be two feet wider
6 than the approved roadway width of the EVA.
7
8 76. Provide a dedicated access point from the hammerhead. turn around (court H),
9 approved by the Fire Marshal's Office, to allow emergency vehicle access to the
10 brush/open space behind lots 16 to 21.
11
12 77. Provide a dedicated access point from the cul de sac (court F), approved by the Fire
13 Marshal's Office to allow emergency vehicle access to the brush/open space near and
14 behind lots 30 -34 at the end of the cul de sac.
15
16 78. Provide a dedicated -access point from the cul de sac (court G), approved by the Fire
17 Marshal's Office, to allow emergency vehicle access to the brush/9open space near
18 and behind Jots 23 to 26 at the end of the cul de sac.
19
20 79. Proposed :roundabout` at Windsor Drive and the entrance to the subdivision shall be
21 designed -to accommodate the turning radius specifications of fire apparatus.
22
23 From Parks and Recreation: t
24
25 80. Parcel "C" (proposed .park) and.the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to be deeded
26 to the City of Petaluma, and maintained by the City of Petaluma.
27
28 81. The interior park (Parcel " "C "), shall be designed in conjunction with, and meet: the
29 approval of the Recreation, Music and - Parks Commission, and the Parks and
30 Recreation. Department.
31
32 82. The proposed EVA connection from "A Street to Western Avenue to be constructed
33 per City of Petaluma Standards, with an asphalt surface.
34
35 83. Open Space (Parcels "A ", "B ", "D "), Common Landscaping and Detention. Basin,
36 shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
37
38 84. Parcel "I" shall be dedicated to the Sonoma County Regional Parks as part of Helen
39 Putnam Regional Park.
40
41 From the Sonoma County Water Agency:
42
43 85. Drainage design for the project shall comply with the Agency's Flood Control Design
44 Criteria. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted with the Improvemerit.Plans.
45 •
46 From Pacific "Gas and Electric Company:
47
18
Planning, Commission Minutes October 22, 2002
1 86. Costs of any relocation of existing PG &E facilities necessitated by this project shall
2 be the responsibility of the applicant,
3
4 87. In order to-provide gas and electric service to the parcels, PG &E will require the
5 following:
6
7 a. Property owner shall dedicate 7.5 foot wide Public Utility Easements (PUE's) along
8 the front of all lots bordering "A Street, "B" Street, "C" Street, "D" Court, and "E"
9 Court "F" Court "G Court as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map dated September
10 3, 2002.
11
12 b. Property owner shall offer for dedication "A" Street, `B" Street, "C" Street, "D"
13 Court, and "E" Court, "F" Court, "G" as PUE's or franchise streets.
14
15 From the Police Department:
16
17 88. The width of the streets and cul de sacs shall be wide enough to accommodate
18 emergency vehicle traffim, including fire engines.
19
20 89. Windsor Drive shall have sidewalks. on the north side of the street to accommodate
21 pedestrian traffic. The new sidewalk shall connect to the 'existing sidewalk on the
9 22 , north side of the street at .'Edinburgh Drive.
23
24 From the Pedestrian and Bicycle, Advisory Committee:
25
26 Bike Parking:
27
28 90. A street -level bike rack shall be installed at Park Parcel C.
29
30 Class I Bikeways:
31
32 91. Developer shall install interior multi -use Class I pathways of feet on 20 foot
33 easements. These pathways shall.originate from D Court, between lots 4 and 5 and
34 lots .12 and 13, and between lots 56 and 57 and, lots. 21 and 22 to connect to Parcel D
35 open Space. Pathways shall include: low ground-cover for high visibility and shall be
36 maintained by the Landscape Assessment District.
37
38 92. There shall be a Class I path along Marin Creek; The perimeter path is particularly
39 appropriate given that this site also contains the "urban separator General Plan
40 overla designation Y gn ion which requires a 300 foot setback from the south and west
41 properties line" as °noted in Rockridge Pointe Project description and Analysis, July
42 11, 2000. This path can be constructed of permeable surfacing.
43
44 93. The 10 foot water main- access road shall also serve as a Class I pedestrian path
• 45 accessible by bollard at either end of the road.
46
19
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
94. Class I path along both sides of Marin Creek one of which shall connect to the •
sidewalk on Windsor Drive. These paths shall have permeable surfacing,
95. The EVA path shall also serve as Class I path from Western Ave. terminating at A
street.
Class ILBikeways:
96. There shall be Class 11 bike lanes along both sides 'of Windsor Drive.
Signs:
97. "Share The Road" signs shall be installed on the Class II lanes on Windsor..
98. There shall be signs indicating bike paths and parks /open space on Windsor, Western
and within the project, including signage for Helen Putnam Park. In addition, there
shall be ;signs.regarding;children's usage of bike /pedestrian paths-between this project
and Petaluma Junior High School, Petaluma :High School and McNear'S:chool.
99. A,sgnage:plan shall be submitted to the PBAC for final approval prior to issuance-of
Certificate of Occupancy
Pedestrian Needs:
100.- A public- access easement shall be provided on all of the dedicated open space.
Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the Landscape Assessment
District.
Benches:
101. There shall be 2 benches and a picnic table on Parcel C.
102. There shall be 4 benches in the open space on Parcel B.
103. There shall be 2 benches on each side of Marin Creek.
104. There shall be at least 2 benches in Parcel_ I, on the prominent knolls.
105. There shall be '2 benches along the eastern boundary of Parcel D.
Drinking Fountains:
106. A drinking fountain shall be provided in C Park.
Intersection Improvements: •
20
•
21
Planning Commission Minutes - October 22, 2002
1
107. There shall be a crosswalk across Western where the EVA/Class I path meets
2.
Western Ave.
3
4
Lighting:
5
6
108. Project lighting shall not direct glare into cyclist /pedestrian eyes. This
7
includes security lighting.
8
9
Pesticide /Herbicide Use.:
10
11
109. Under no circumstances shall any pesticide/herbicide'be'applied in areas used by
12
pedestrians/bicyclists anywhere in this project or the surrounding areas
13
without appropriate signs warning of the use of chemicals, a policy currently
14
employed by the Music, Recreation and Parks Department. This project shall
15
utilize Best, Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully
16
commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection of bicyclists
17
and pedestrians.
18
19
20
Adjournment: 11:52 p.m.
21
L, 22
0 23
C:\Documents and Settings\awindsoi\Desktop\PC Minutes \102202.doc
24
25
26
27
•
21