HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.F Part 2 07/14/2003u ,
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
•2 MEMORANDUM
3
4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma; CA 94952
5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (7 7) 778 -4498 E- mail., planning@ei petalumaxa us
6
7 DATE: May 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning Commission
10
11 FROM Tiffany Robbe,. Project "Planner
12
13 SUBJECT AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 17 -ACRE PARCEL AT 710 SONOMA
14 MOUNTAIN PARKWAY INTO 49 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS AND 48
15 TOWNHOME LOTS'.AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED
16 UNIT DISTRICT AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
17 AND PUD GUIDELINES. Continued from April .8 2003.
18
•,, " A�Oil®�� ®��
19 �n
t
20
1 On April 25 the applicant submitted a revised. Tentative Map Sheet C 1 (Attachment M) which
includes the following modification to the plan presented to the Planning Commission on April 8th:
23
24 In the attached townhouse portion:
25 2 This area was reconfigured. There are now 48 units proposed where the previous plan had
26 50 units. The alley plan is still used exclusively.
27 9 A 160 feet long by 81 feet wide private park area is proposed with 16 units (26 =34) facing
28 directly onto this green.area.. Guest parking spaces for °these 16 units are proposed at the top
29 of the park on Private Road F.
30
31 In the detached single - family potion of the site:
32 B Lots 20 through,23_ and 30 through 42 have been turned to front the creek.
33 0 Lots 12 throughl3, 30 through 33, and 48 through 49 have been turned to face lots 1 through
34 11.
35 m The row of houses that will back up to the Buckingham Lane houses has been reduced by
36 one (49 homes are proposed) and now no house extends farther toward the urban separator
37 than the last house on Buckingham Lane.
38 Five -foot wide sidewalks and 4.5 to 6 feet wide planter stripes are. provided.
39
40 T ®' pLANN1 NIG" 0 MM 18$1'0 , N 'COMMENTS
41
42 The Planning Commission made the following comments at the April 8t hearing, as reflected in the
adopted Minutes (see.Attachment I):
4
45 Townhouses
46 Propose new plan with less asphalt and more private and public open space
Attachment 3
Page 1
1 ■ Alternative proposed (at April 8` hearing) is an improvem, .ent but doesn't go far enough
2 Consider usefulness of linear greenway, in alternative plan
3 A new plan has been proposed.. It includes .a rectangular park which significa increases
4 the, amount of semi - public open space and which appears to be a more usable space. than the
5 linear greenway seen at the last Commission hearing. Furthermore, units 26 through 32 and
6 35 .through 41 have significantly more private outdoor :space. It is not :clear that, the other
7 units have more private outdoor space, or that the new proposal includes less..asphalt. Staff
8 suggests that the Commission consider recommending that the private alley behind units 1
9 18 be .replaced with °private outdoor ,space for those units, which would result . in a net
.10 decrease in asphalt and additional units with increased private open space (see Staff
11 Analysis item 4 and Condition, 9).
12 Want staff to evaluate alternative planproposed
13 Staff hhas evaluated the new plan to the, extent possible given the short time ;available and the
14 lack of full' details. Those comments are provided below under, the heading of Staff
15 Ana lysis.
16 0 Consider larger spacing between buildings (as is, landscaping will be very difficult)
17 The spacing between buildings was not mo' It remains at 5 feet.
18 Improve middle unit' with regards to front elevation and sunlight
19 The :middle units' have not been altered. However, the previous plan'included '10 middle
20 units while this plan includes 8 `middle` units. Staff has added language to condition of
21 approval 5 for the consideration of the Planning Commission. It recommends' that the City
22' Council direct the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to pay particular- attention
23 to the ,design of the middle townhouse unit.
24 Consiider another unit type �.
25 Another unit type has not been proposed. However if the Planning Commission chooses to
26 forward a recommendation to eliminate the alley behind units 1 -18 (condition 9), a new unit
27 type would'be required.
28 Houses
29 Turn lots to face creek
30 Lots 20..through 23 and 39 through 42 have been turned to front the creek,
31 Meet with neighbors on Buckingham Lane before returning to P. C.
32 Staff understands that the applicant has met with Sheri Dito, 1934 Buckingham Lane the
33 author of the letter dated and ,signed by ten of the thirteen homes on Buckingham Lane and
34 two homes on'Sestri:Lane. The revised plan eliminates one lot previously shown as backing;
35 to the Buckingham. Lane residences and, shows no unit extending fart her toward the urban
36 separator line tharithe last Buckingham Lane (1934) house.
3.7 General
38 Provide additional traffic analysis regarding Riesling Road & ensure the SR_ JC expansion dz
39 newjunior high are included in future condition analysis
40 The traffic engineer updated the: analysis by utilizing the future traffic volumes, obtained
41 from the recently developed City of Petaluma Traffic Model. The traffic engineer found that
42 the'SRJC's plan to triple the student;population was included in the traffic model impacts.
43 The new _junior high was also included. Using the new Traffic Modelvolumess resulted in
44 the same future Level of Service results with or without the project (see. page 16 of
45 Attachment G). The traffic engineer will be available at the hearing to discuss the Riesl*
46 Road conditions.
47 Provide more information about density and respond to letter
48 The density of the modified project is 4 units per acre in. the single - family potion, where `i
49 units per acre rare permitted by the General Plan Land Use Map, and .12.4 units per acre. in
Page 2
i the townhouse area, where '15 units per acre are. allowed., 'Thus the project is under the
!, 2 density maximum.
3 A letter •submitted by Don Weisenfluh, 903 Kensington Place states that the proposed
4 density violates General Plan Policy 7 and is preferential, and than the transfer of
5 development from the urban separator land may violate the General Plan. Staff does not
6 concur.
7
Policy 7 reads that For properties adjoining the urban limit line; it is the intent of the City
8
that projects... be of limited density (as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map). Policy
9
7 is explaining why the, General Plan Land Use Map shows less dense designations near the
10
urban limit line and more dense designations farther in. Th.e 17: -acre Gatti property reflects
11
a lessening of development as it nears the urban separator with the townhouses (12.4 units
12
per acre) farther from the urban separator and the single = family homes (4.0 units per acre)
13
abutting the urban separator. Thus by complying with the General Plan Land Use Map, this
14
project complies with1he- concept of limiting density expressed'in the General Plan.
15
It is not "preferential' to approve a subdivision proposal with a density in the density range
16
set out by the General Plan. If the intention were to require only and exactly the midpoint of
17
the General Plan density range, a precise number and not a range would be listed by the
1 8
General Plan. The northeast quadrant and the entire city have developed according to the
19
General Plan density range and not that range's midpoint.
20
A density transfer from the urban separator to land adjacent is allowed by both the General
21
Plan (Policy 13 Chapter 4) and the Corona Ely Specific Plan (Policy 127).
22
Reconsider or clarify PBAC items regarding Capri Creek Apa rtment gates, bike rack at
23
Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and bike path at alley /in an east /west direction
� 4
Most of PBAC's recommendations were incorporated into the project or recommended as
25
conditions by staff. The Planning Commission requested that staff reconsider or clarify
26
three of those which were not recommended. The f rst was to include bicycle /pedestrian
27
access from Casella. Way to Yorkshire Road on .Private Road E. Previously this was a
28
narrow alleyway which would not typically have sidewalks or bike lanes. Under the revised
29
plan, Road F : is a private street shown as only wide enough for parking on one side and not
30
wide enough for a sidewalk or planter strip. The City - ,Council approved Bikeways Map
31
shows a Class I (Off - 'street, Multi -use) path adjacent to Capri Creek, but not an additional
32
bike lane adjacent to and less than 200 feet from a proposed Class I path. If the project was
33
modified to allow for the width necessary to accommodate bike lanes at Private Road F,
34
staff contends that a sidewalk and planter strip along the northwest or both sides of the street
35
would be more useful. Room to require a sidewalk and planter strip could be gained if the
36
rear alley behind Lots 1 through 18 were eliminated and 'these lots redesigned to utilize a
37
unit type with a,garage that fronted Road F (see condition of approval 9).
38
PBAC's second recommendation was to require Capri Creek Apartments to unlock the two
39
gates at the proposed private alley. It is. not possible to add a condition to the Gatti
40
Subdivision project requiring Capri Creek Apartments to unlock their gates. (As a side
41
issue, staff has reviewed the Capri Creek Apartment approval and while the gates were
42
required to be constructed, staff has not found a condition requiring that the gates be
43
unlocked or requiring an easement allowing public access into the .complex.)
44
PBAC's third recommendation was to provide a bike rack by the bus shelter on Sonoma
45
Mountain Parkway. Since the first Commission hearing, the City's Transit Coordinator
*7
visited the site and stated that room exists for a bike rack to the immediate south and inline
with the existing bus shelter. The distance between back of sidewalk and the Gatti's front
48
property line is five feet. Thus the bike rack would likely be primarily off -site.
49 m
Look at proximity of roadway to creek (compared to the SRJC and in general)
Page 3
1 ■ Talk to SRJC engineer
2 The .applicant's engineer spoke with the president of Brelj'e & Race, the engineering firm
3 working on the SRJC's creek improvement plan. It appears that Brelje & Race had
4 originally reviewed a very old p'l'an. Brelje & Race agree that the :current plan shows all.
5 streets and structures at least 70 feet from the centerline of the creek. This distance ;is,
6 greater than on the SRJC side, which Dean Rose's letter dated April 8, _2003 states is at
7 minimum 35 feet and at maximum 65" feet.
8 How deep is the pond?
9 The owner of the Gatti nursery reports that the ,pond, is approximately 13 feet :deep in the
10 middle with sides gradually sloping toward the middle. He estimates that is holds 1,250,000
11 gallons. :of water.
12 Strike garage conversion and ,accessory dwelling language from PUD guidelines
13 This has been done (see. Attachment L).
14 Add' condition requiring that the applicant submit a Construction Vehicle Plan for approval
15 by the Community Development Department which describes construction vehicle routes
16 and mandates that they use the Gatti driveway to the full extent feasible:,
17 See recommended condition of approval 6.
18
19
���NALVS13111
20
21
Staff
proposes the following modification' to the project: Staff has added them as conditions. of
22
approval for your consideration.
23
24
1.
Reduce the width of Road A to 32 feet, in order to provide an extra four feet of rear:setbac1:
25
for lots_ 1 -t 1, which results in an extra 4 feet of separation between the Buckingham Lane
26
homes. and the proposed homes ,(condition of approval 7). Thirty =two feet. is the minimum
27
acceptable width for a public street with 'parking on each side and is consistent with the
28
Yorkshire Road width.
29
2.
Similarly, reduce the width of'Road C to '32 feet and add 4 feet to rear yards '(condition of
30
approval '7).
31
3.
Shift. the .north property line; of Lot 44 to the north approximately 36 feet so that it is
32
`
coterminous with the start of the Urban Separator (condition of approval 8). Additionally,
33
„
consider moving the Lot 11 house 5 feet to the north so that the main portion.of that house
34
lines up with the last Buckingham Way house (with the, garage at the front of the lot sitting 5
35
feet farther to the north) and moving the south property line of Lot 11 five feet to the north
36
to increase the yard area of Lot 10 and create a larger separation between these two homes
37
(condition of approval 8).
38
4.
Consider replacing the Private Alley adjacent to Capri Creek Apartment with yard, space for
39
units 1 -18. This will require creating anew townhouse /rowhouse plan with a one- car.garage
40
door (tandem deep or with a driveway space in front) facing Road F. `This will provide
41
significantly more private open space for townhomes "1 through 18. However, one
42
recommendation may'result in the loss, of units from this block and, therefore, fewer for -sale
43
townhomes (condition of approval 9).
44
5.
Provide a sidewalk, and planter strip along at!. of Yorkshire Lane and Casella Way, which are
45
public streets (condition of approval, 1
46
6.
Shift , the house on Lot 42 out of the FE'MA 100 -year boundary line (condition of approval •
47
48
Page 4
11j
1 Eng ineering
03. 2 The Engineering Section was unable to review the revised map because only Sheet C1 was provided
and not the remaining 7 .' slie 'ts "that, detail grading, drainage, utilrtles; and cross sections.
4 7. However; concern was expressed regarding the -large volumes of vehicles that will traverse a
5 private street (Private Road F) to access a public street (Yorkshire Road and beyond). The
6 homeowner's association will maintain the private streets and the perception is one of
7 ownership for townhouse access, not a thoroughfare for the public. If condition of approval
8 9 is recommended (conversion of private alley to outdoor space), space might be available to
9 provide the sidewalks, planter strips, and other requirements of a public street.
10 8. Furthermore, concern was expressed that the angled parking on Casella Way will create a
11 situation where cars are backing into traffic and that this type of vehicular movement should
12 be limited where possible',
13 If the Planning Commission is comfortable approving the modified plans'wit'hout.the review of the
14 City Engineer, staff encourages the Commission to recommend condition of approval 12, which
15 requires that a full set of plans'is,provided so that the project can be reviewed by the City Engineer
16 prior to City Council review.
17
18 Fire
19 9. Three on- street iparking spaces (in front of townhouse lots 1, 18, and 19) need to be
20 eliminated so that t
he aerial ladder truck has adequate turning movement (condition of
21 approval 45). By shifting parking spaces and working with the Fire Marshall's required
22 radii template, this loss might be reduced to one or two spaces.
23
�4 Parks & Recreation
25 10. If the developer wishes to construct diagonal parking on the City -owned park site, the Parks
26 Director requests that this parking be signed for park users and limited in hours so that park
27 users rather than SRJ.0 students utilize it. The Director is equally' amenable to parallel
28 parking along the park side of ,Casella Way. Either way,, the Parks Director requires that
29 those parking spaces on the City -owned park be signed for park users and limited in hours
30 (condition of approval 13). Because of the concern preliminarily expressed by the City
31 Engineer about the diagonal parking, condition 13 recommends the parallel parking
32 scenario.
33
34 POLICY AND PREVALENT.DEVELOP.MENT PATTERN ISSUES
35 Single - Loaded Streets at the.treek
36 There is not a policy which specifically states that Capri Creek must be bordered by a single- loaded
37 street. However, a review of Attachment J shows that the concept of the single- loaded street
38 abutting the creek is the prevalent development pattern of the. northeast quadrant of Petaluma,
39 specifically in the Corona Ely Specific Plan. area. It. shows that this area.of Petaluma has developed
40 using a system of single- loaded streets adjacent to the three creeks. No segment of Corona, Capri,
41 or Lynch Creek 'whi'ch developed under the Corona Ely Specific Plan has. more than'three houses in
42 a row abutting directly onto the creek setback and more often .only one of two houses here and
43 there. Even those areas developed before the Corona Ely Specific Plan such as along Capri Creek
44 between. Maria sand .Sonorna Mountain Parkway developed utilizing a generally single- loaded street
45 pattern adjacent to creek. The Specific Plan states that such road configurations provide
.106 maximum visual and physical access to the creek corridors. The current proposal provides for a
47 single -loaded street or alley along: the majority of the creek with two townhouses and an 80 -foot
48 wide private park as the exception. The Planning Commission :should provide direction that this
49 proposal is' generally compatible with the prevalent development pattern of northeast Petaluma.
i, Page 5
1 Single- Loaded Streets at the Urban Separator
2 Along the urban separator, Policy .121 of the, Corona Ely Specific Plan quite clearly states that-.the;
3 undeveloped side of single - loaded streets, rather than rear.lot lines, shall be encouraged along the
4 urban separator.
5
6 Block Pattern
7 While the neighbors on,Buckingham Lane `indicated at the last Commission hearing that theywould:
8 prefer'to have a street over their rear fence rather than the backyards of new single= family homes:,
9 staff has concerns about this developmentpattern:
10 o Because it would result in traffic noise ;for the Buckingham. Lane backyards,
11 e Because ofthe °unattractive nature of a.public,roadfined by a fence- this kind of treatment is
12 usually reserved for a busy arterial road like Sonoma Mountain Parkway or East
13 Washington, :not a:minor residential. street,
14 And 'because% this is °not the. prevalent- 'development pattern. of the northeast quadrant oil
15 Petaluma (as seen by a review of Attachment.J) or of any area of town. In all the other
16 blocks of the Heritage subdivision, for example, rows of homes abut backyard to backyard.
17 This creates a;zone at the interior, of the block that is free from the noises of proximal traffic.
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENTS
20 Two new correspondences have been received since the last hearing. One was emailed by Jeri
21' Shubert of 1926 Buckingham. Lane to the Community Development Department on May 4 ch, The
22 second, a. similar letter with annotations and .Signed by neighbors, was received May 6` Thee letters
23 expresses dissatisfaction with the current development plan, particularly with its relationship to the
24 abutting Buckingham Lane houses (see Attachment K).
25
26 DECISION TIMELINE
27 This application was received by the Community;Development Department 'on August 21 2002.
28 The application was deemed complete on March 1% 2003. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit
29 Streamlining Act, a final' decision must be made by the City Council within 180 days of the project
30 being deemed complete, September'16, 2001
3' 1
32
ATTACHMENTS
33
Attachment A:
Draft Findings for Approval — Mtigated.N'egative Declaration
34
Attachment B:
Draft Findings .for Approval — Rezoning to Planned. Unit District
35
Attachment C:
Draft Findings for Approval,— Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and
36
Guidelines. Development :Standard's
37
Attachment D:
Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map
38
Attachment E:
Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval
39
Attachment F:
Initial Study & Mitigaitoin;Monitoring Plan
40
Attachment G
Updated Traffic -Impact ° Analysis by W -Trans (calculations excluded, for a copy,
41
please the Planning Division), dated April 2003
42
Attachment H:
MeinorandUms :received from Engineering Division April 25' Fire Marshal
43
April 29t and Parks Department May IS`
44
Attachment 1:
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes,,April 8, 2003
45
Attachment J:
Corona —Ely Development'Pattern Map
46
Attachment K:
Neighborhood Correspondence— one dated May 4` and one dated May 6, 2003
47
Attachment .L:
PUD Guidelines dated November. 22, 2002'
48
Attachment M:
Full Size Vesting Tentative Subdivision. Map Sheet C1, dated April, 25, 2003
•
6
Planning Commission,Minutes - 8, 2003
•
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 Engli "sh Street
A
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning(dici.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page ht!p://www.ci.�etaluma.ca.us
•
1
2 Planning Commission ltxcarpt Minutes
3 April 8, 2003 — 7e00.PM
4 J
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett *, Dargie, Healy, Imm, McAllister, von
6 Raesfeld
7
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: George White, Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Tiffany Robbe, Associafe Planner
12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
13
14 Public hearing began: @ 7.00
15
16 NEW BUSINESS;
17 ' PUBLIC HEARING;
18
19 I. GATTI. NURSERY SUBDIVISION, 710 Sonoma. Mountain Parkway
20 AP No: 137- 070 -079
21 File No(s): REZ02003, PUD02002, & TSMO2002
22 Planner Tiffany Robbe
23
24 The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 17 -acre parcel into 50 single -
25 famihy lots and 50 townhome lots and to rezone the property to a planned unit
26 district.
27
28 Tiffany Robbe presented the staff report.
29
30 Commissioner McAllister: Asked the time -line for the development of the park.
31
32 George White: May begin by next spring.
33
34 Council Member Healy: Council is moving toward development of the park sooner
35 rath t han' later.
36
t
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1'5
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
4.4
45
46
47
Commissioner McAllister: Asked about parking requirements: and street widths referred
in Craig Spaulding's letter: 0
Craig Spaulding Clarified'— 28 feet wide-single- loaded with parking on one side only.
Matt Hudson, Mardell, LLC /Gatti, rep_ resentative: Presented the back_ ground of the
project and the project description.
Discussion of the following conditions ofapprova1:
6. Agree except in certain areas, 'Public road D, Casella 'Way and along
Yorkshire— asking forI t. planting area and 5 ft. sidewalk._
9. Do not want to bear the. entire cost of the bridge - prefer to put up bond
rather than build themselves (don't; want to be held up).
10. Agree to path° from urban separator to °the edge of the park instead of to
Sonoma Mountain Parkway. If required, prefer to put up bond rather than
build themselves.
15. If required to make improvements to the pond — do not want it, to hold up
entitlement process.
16:, Will be atfinal.map approval sfage:— do not want to haveto wait..
19. Do not want to be first asked to maintain urban separator land via LAD.
29. Vehicle barrier —define for: applicant.
32. Want to work with Fire Marshall' and City Engineer to determine if 3 /a
meter will suffice.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked' what policy he referred to regarding the townhomes
cannot face the creek. Has the project been revised to meet the needs of neighbors on
Buckingham Way? Would you consider reducing, the homes to single- story?
Matt Hudson: No — lots would not provide adequate space to build single: story homes.
m
Homes that back up to Buckingha will be a height of 27 -29 feet with spaces iii between
Commissioner Asselmeier: Please give consideration to moving those homes forward on
lots that are adjacent to Buckingham _lots. What ideas 'do you have for private and public
green space for the townhomes.
Matt. Hudson: Concept of'townhomes is dense without much open space. Put up an
alternate plan and pointed out 20 to 30 foot wide open, green space in Road F.
Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked if there was a plan for benches or any other amenities
there.
Matt -Hudson:. Just landscaping.
Commissioner McAllister: Asked about; alternatives for single- family homes — does
density change' or do lots' become smaller.
Matt Hudson: Lots become le •
ss deep.
2
i
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1
• 2
Commission von Raesfeld: Asked for alternate site plan to stay up.
3
4
Al Barella, Architect: Presented the architecture.
5
6
Chair Barrett: Referred to the PUD guidelines and accessory dwelling units for Plan 2.
7
Concerned that these units :back up to Buckingham Way.
8
9
Doyle Heaton: Mention of accessory dwellings and garage conversions was an error and
10
will be eliminated.
11
12
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Spaces between units — who would maintain.
13
14
Al Barella: Would be deeded.to homeowner.'
15
16
Doyle Heaton, Mardell. LLC: Gave some background and overview of the project.
17
18
Gary Imm: Asked what the pricing of the homes and townhomes will be.
19
20
Doyle Heaton: Towrih6ni6s will start under $400,000 & single- family homes will be
21
typical of neighborhood at "$465- $600,000.
22
23
24
Public hearing opened:
25
Dan Leetz, 1930 Sestri Lane: lives adjacent to the project: . Traffic concerns with
26
proposed new Junior High and this development, largest, lot is 4,000 square feet, number
27
of homes backing, up. to Buckingham is 12; concerns about townhomes 'next to
28
apartments; will be crammed and congested. Density is too high.
29
30
Jim Rose, Dean of S.R., Junior College Petaluma Campus: - Provided written comments.
31
Will be expanding Petaluma campus to 3 times' the current floor area — will impact the
32
neighbors. Would like to review design elements at creek because it is a shared
33
boundary. Setback on Jr. college side is larger — would like the setback mirrored on both
34
sides for optimal .chance of restoration of the creek. Would like to support the project
35
and be good neighbors:
36
37
Commissioner Dargie: Asked what the difference in the setback on Jr. college side.
38
39
Jim Rose! Six .feet.
40
41
Council Member ;Healy: Does the bridge crossing at Cansella Way fit with the Jr.
42
college's plan.
43
44
Jim Rose: Yes..
45
46 .Council Member' Healy:. Has there been a discussion as part of this proposal for bridge
47 across creek at the urban separator.
3
n
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
2 Jim Rose: Can't speak for board but are planning in that direction.
3
4 Council Member Healy: What is JC's proposal adjacent to this project?
5
6 Jim Rose: Plan 'to .go from 2,0.00 to 6,000 students (full time equivalents): Will be
7 sensitive to the :neighbors — will try to ,put more intense development.:of campus in. the
8 internal space.
9
10 Council Member Healy: Asked, about openness adjacent to this property and ,security
11 issues.
12
13 Jim Rose Will keep density internally as much. as possible. Do not think, there will be
14 security issues.
15
16 Don Weisenfluh, 903 Kensington Place: Submitted written proposal regarding issues and
17 problems of the project. Recommended a total density of 90 units.
18
19 Sheri Dito 1934 Buckingham Lane;. Submitted written statements. Concerned with
20 density and configuration. Showed 3 !alternative plans —'the first was based on her earlier
21 alternative with the elimination of the two central lots at the creek, the second relocated
22 lots 1 -12 to abut lots 13 32, 33, & 50 with Road A behind Buckingham lots; and' the third
23 moved 6 lots into each of the existing 'lots with Road A behind Buckingham lots..
25 Larry ane 1923 S p p b
y estri Lane: Concerned. about impact o€ the:. � r. "o "ect. on the
26 neighborhood. Concerned about the traffic on Sestr, affect on the urban separator and
27 the new pond mellow roose;tax, did not know anything about the project until two weeks
28 ago.
29
30 Jeri. Schubert, 1926 Buckingham Lane Submitted letter for public record. Will fire and
31 police bey able to, handle lincreased. density?
32
33 Mike Dito; ,1934 Buckingham: Concerned because Riesling has already `been .narrowed —
34 additional traffic will impact neighborhood.
35
36 Marilyn Sullivan, 2 Berkshire: Retired school ' teacher. Too many homes without
37 facilities :for - children — the development is overwhelmirng. Wants ,speed `limit sign on
38 Riesling. Concerned with truck traffic on Riesling — G &G Market has delivery trucks
39 exiting on Riesling' illegally.
40
41 Sheila. Weisberg, 2 Sheffield Place_: ,Did not receive notification of project. Traffic is
42 already a nightmare, not a posted speed limit.
43
44 Public hearing closed:
45
46 Break @' 9 :00.
47 "
4
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003
1 Resumed @.9:10
2
3 Matt Hudson: Regarding, traffic — had a peer review done which showed that traffic will
4 be negligible. Project complies with creek setback requirement — believe we have more
5 setback on project site than the Jr. college site. Will cooperate in restoring the creek and
6 landscaping. Addressed. the urban separator and path. No for Meho- roose.
7
8 Council Member Healy: Asked what ischool district?
9
10 Mat Hudson: Probably Old Adobe. No Mello -goose on this property. Project will build
11 out site with density less than the. Corona -Ely plan allows.
12
13 Chair Barrett: Are you willing to go 6 additional feet for a setback to match the Jr.
14 college?
15
16 Mat Hudson: No.
17
18 Dan Hughes, Civil Engineer: Thinks there is a discrepancy regarding the setback on the
19 creek — thinks the project creek setback is actually more than the JC setback. Will talk
20 with the JC engineer to, clarify:
21
22 Doyle Heaton: Propose to either.loose 2 lots or look at the alternatives proposed tonight
23 to work with the neighbors on Buckingham Way.
24
25 Council Member Healy: . Could the access to Ahe nursery be used to for construction
26 traffic?
27
28 Doyle Heaton: Yes, until the park need the land.
29
30 Commissioner Dargie: Where is storm drain going?
31
32 'Dan Hughes: Portion is going toward Yorkshire and Casella Way and the other portion
33 toward Sonoma.Mountain Parkway.
34
35 Commissioner Dargie: Anything into the creek?
36
37 Dan Hughes:, Not storm drain.
38
39 Commissioner 'Dargie: Surface water?
40
41 Dan Hughes: Yes, surface water from about the creek -side path will- go into Capri Creek.
42
43 Commissioner Dargie. Asked about a detention pond.
44
45 Craig Spaulding: There is not a City policy for detention ponds.
4 "6
47 Commissioner Dargie: Confirmed the regular block pattern of homes on Buckingham.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
2
Commissioner McAllister: Was Jr. high traffic pattern included in the .traffic study?
3
4
Tiffany,Robbe:. Yes.
5
6
Council Member Healy: Wanted clarification of Mr. Weisenfluh's comments.
7
8
George White: The project is under the maxitnum allowable density.
9
L
to
Commissioner Iinm: Asked about the policy in the Corona Ely plan and backing. up to
It
creek.
12
13
George White: Is; frowned upon.
14
15
Commission comments:
16
17
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Suggested commenting on townhomes & SFD one at a
P8
time.
19
20
Committee comments on townhomes:
21
22
Commissioner von Raesfeld: Before seeing this •alternative — concurred with SPARC
23
24
member Lynch regarding "too much asphalt ". Still troubling. Can't support; plan as
proposed. Alternative Plan is improvement
"
p p for open space but seems troublesome too.
25
Supportive of "for sale" units. Middle unit of the 3 -unit set is lost. Space between units
26
needs to be carefully landscaped and fenced. Front yards too homogenous.
27
28
Commissioner Asselmeier: Echo von . Raesfeld — alternative is an improvement.
29
Concerned the commission has not had adequate time;to look at this "alternative relative to
30
'the conditions of approval. Want staff to° look ai alternative and bring back- ;conditions of
31
approval.
32
33
Commissioner McAllister: Too much of site , is eaten up by circulation — still-loo much_
34 -.
paving and lack of open space. Front yards: are incredibly small — not adequate. Believe
35
Alt. plan .isa. beginning point doesn't go`far enough. Still need more individual unit and
36
shared open. space - make an open space network. Want the middle open space more
37
useable. Larger cut4hrough between townhomes — 0. between units will not provide
38 .
much daylight and will be very difficult to landscape with anything but gravel —
39
reconsider his in site plan revision. 'Possibly need more than one unit type to solve some
40
of these issues. Concerned about the middle unit of the triplexes.
41
42
Council - Member Healy: First townhomes ' for sale; - ,glad to have that. Alternative is
43
better, need more details and staff review before approval. This needs'to be ,a successful
44
project.
45
46
Chair 'Barrett: Alternative design has the potential to be superior, however, need
47
additional staff "input and time to review: Problem was too much asphalcand not .enough
6
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
•
1 open space. Potential bridge will now be at a cul -de -sac — do not know if that was the
2 intent. What does JC think? Complying with standard that 10% of architecture be
3 . different may solve some problems for you.
4
5 Commission comments on SFD:
6
7 Commissioner von Raesfeld, Supports turning lots at creek regardless. Look at lowering
8 ceiling height of rear garages to reduce total height at rear.
9
10 Commissioner Asselmeier: Appreciated applicant's offer to meet with -the residents on
i l Buckingham Lane. Add condition regulating construction traffic. I am in favor of getting
12 improvements instead of bonding.
13
14 Commissioner lnim: Appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbors.
15 Unfortunate that it did. not happen before now. If there is a hold up in the entitlement
16 process, applicant should be able to bond for the improvements.
17
18 Commissioner McAllister:; Glad the neighbors, Mrs. Dito, carne up with alternatives.
1.9
20 Commissioner Dargie: Reiterate what other commissioner said — glad the developer is
21 willing to work with the neighbors. Want the developer to come back with new site plan.
22
23 Council Member Healy: Issue with residents of Buckingham Lane is what needs to be
24 resolved and will look at the project when it returns.
25
26 Chair Barrett: Agree with the other commissioners. Wish the developer could have met
27 with the neighbors earlier.
28
29 Comments on overall project:
30
31 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Referred to traffic letter pg.12,, table 4 Riesling Rd — do not
32 have specifics - expects some mitigation as already poor. Third bullet on pg. 18 — what
33 about Riesling between Sonoma Mt. and Casella. Need conclusions on density.
34 Comments on conditions, #9 -do not know who to fair share with — think the applicant
35 will need to ;bear .the burden. Do think bonding would be ok rather than holding up the
36 project. #1.5- leave meter issue to City.
37
38 Commissioner Asselmeier: What kinds of improvements are appropriate for the urban
39 separator?
40
41 George White: At a minimum a path would be established.
42
43 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want PBAC recommendations added as conditions middle
44 three bullet points, lines 6 10 and 15.
45
46 Commissioner Imm: Agree with Commissioner von Raesfeld regarding the fair share —
47 would be nice if'JC will bear some expense of bridge.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - April 8, 2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 "2
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
Commissioner McAllister Agree. with Asselmeier regarding bike, , committee
recommendations; some type of east /west pedestr an/bike connection between the at alley
next to Capri Creek Apt; honor, condition froirm the apartments and have a connection.
Bike rack at bus shelter is a minor adjustment. Improvemen "ts on the bridge ,and the park
need. to .coincide need to think about parking for the park. Include the path along the;
creek - ok to be done by bonding. Do developers fund improvements on an urban
separator?
•
George White: Are usually minimal, the pond is `an`unusual predicament in this instance.
Commissioner Dargie: How much of'creek is.being replanted.
Tiffany' Robbe: From. Casella to Road B. Was the desire of the Parks. Director to only
condition replanting in the residential area.
Commissioner Dargie: Support staff s recommendations re: conditions for bridge, path,
and pond — feel. the developer should ld assume full burden,. bonding is: appropriate though.
Condition should be crafted sa that construction- 'truck traffic (especially heaviest) uses
alternative access.
Council Member Healy:, Most points have been addressed. Do think bonding, should be
an option since the timeline may not be the same. Construction access off existing
driveway — agree. Traffic issues are an existing situation, willing to see if we can get
more enforcement on Riesling.. Variety of routes to the Jr. high school be; explored, also
.the path on the urban separator•could'be a route to their.. high.
Chair Barrett: Support bonding 'and `the applicant does need to pay; support city on -the
'loose wording on improvement of pond iat urban, separator, traffic issue, did not. seem to
take into account future conditions such as the junior high school & JC would like that
more developed,, Cannot believe this will not have an impact on water and a 100 -year
flood issues — need to consider when backing townhomes to the creek.
Matt Hudson: Asked to have the project, .approved with two ; additional conditions
regarding having- a road backing up to Buckingham, Lane homes and a revised' site plan
for the townhomes.
Council Member Healy: Valuable to come back.
George White: Next available date is May 13, 2003.
Commissioner Dargie: Clarify the issue of the. policy regarding placement of townhomes
on the creek.
45 Commissioner McAllister: Do not think issues have been resolved — need to have: open
46 space be useable- connecting to other open space in the project.
47
8
Planning Commission. Minutes - April 8, 2003
1 Commissioner Asselmeier: Feel "uncomfortable making a recommendation at this point.
2
3 Requested modifications from the Commission:
4
5 Townhomes
6 0 Propose new plan. with less asphalt and more private'and public open space
7 0 Alternative proposed is an improvement but doesn't go far enough
8 0 Consider usefulness of linear greenway in alternative plan
9 a Want staff to evaluate alternative plan proposed
10 0 Consider larger spacing between buildings (as is, landscaping will be very
11 difficult)
12 m Improve middle unit with regards to front elevation and sunlight
13 ® Consider another unit type
14
15 Homes
16 a Turn lots to face creek
17 0 Meet with neighbors .on Buckingham Lane before returning to P.C.
18
19 General
20 a Provide additional traffic analysis regarding Riesling Road & ensure the SRJC
21 expansion & new junior high are included in future condition analysis
22 0 Provide more information about density and respond- to letter (staff)
• 24 Reconsider
ck at Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and g b bike path t al
ley/ in ngates, bike
east /west
25 direction (applicant & staff)
26 m Look at proximity of roadway to creek (compared to the SRJC and in general)
27 a Talk to JC engineer
28 a How deep is the pond?
29 m Strike garage conversion and accessory dwelling'] anguage from PUD guidelines
30
31 Comments
32 Applicant shall pay for and construct paths, bridge, and pond amenities. It timing
33 doesn't work for applicant to construct these with project, the City will not hold
34 up the applicant, but rather accept bonds for the work
35 Leave size of meter to City staff
36 Add condition requiring that the applicant submit a Construction Vehicle Plan for
37 approval by the Community Development Department which describes
38 construction vehicle routes and mandates that they use the Gatti driveway to the
39 full extent feasible
40
41 M/S von Raesfeld/Dargie to continue, to May 13, 2003. 7 -0.
42
43 Public hearing' closed @ 10:25
44
45
46
47
48
9
r CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
0 MEMORANDUM .
3
4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: April 8, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning Commission
10
11 FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Project Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 17 -ACRE PARCEL AT 700 SONOMA
14 MOUNTAIN PARKWAY INTO 50 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AND 50
15 TOWNHOME LOTS AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED
16 UNIT. DISTRICT ,AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
17 AND PUD GUIDELINES.
18
19 ° vRECOMME1�9
20
21 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
0 2
23 1. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 for the project.
25
26 2. Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve:
27 a. Rezoning to Planned Unit Development District (PUD);
28 b. A Planned Unit District Development Plan and 'Guidelines; and
29 c. A Vesting' Tentative Subdivision Map
30
31 � O C`4''AU NIjARY
,F
32
33 Project: Gatti Nursery Subdivision
34 710, Sonoma Mountain Parkway
35 Access from Casella Way & Yorkshire Rd
36 APN 1:37 =070 -079
37 Project File No(s). TSMO2002, REZ02003, & PUD02002
38
39 Project Planner: Tiffany Robbe, Associate Planner
40
41 Project Applicant:. Matt Hudson, Mardel LLC /Hudson & Scharer Realty
42
Property Owner Gatti Nursery Inc.
4
45 Property'Si2e: 17.17 acres
46
Attachment 5
Page 1
I Site Characteristics: The subject parcel pis relatively flat, and has little significant vegetation and
2 no native trees.. The seasonal Capri. Creek flows at the south.side of the site. The easterly, 4.3 acres
3 contain a well and a pond used for irrigating: the nursery. The subject parcel is circled by County
4 land to the northeast, Heritage subdivision and Capri. Creek Apartments, to the northwest, the City
5 owned Gatti park site to the southwest, and the Petaluma campus of the Santa Rosa Junior College
6 to the southeast. Southwest of the park, site and Cap
ri Creek Apartments is' the Parkway Plaza
7 shopping- center with a supermarket and other services including a bank, video store, and
8 restaurants.
9
10 Existing Use The site is currently utilized as a commercial houseplant nursery. Most of 'the parcel
11 is covered with greenhouses.
12
13 Proposed Use: Fifty single - family detached units' on individual lots `and 50 attached townhouse
14 units on individual. lots are proposed for the site, along with the dedication of a. 1.12 -acre strip for
15 incorporation, into the adjacent city park, a "L22 -acre portion adjacent to the seasonal Capri . Creek:
16 for riparian habitat and a path, and 43 acres for incorporation into the urban separator.
17
18 Current Zoning: A, Agricultural with FP -C, Floodplain. Combining District along Cap_ ri Creek
19
20 Proposed Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit District with FP-C, Floodplain Combining; District along;
21 Capri Creek
22
23 Current General, Plan Land Use: The parcel 'is- comprised of four General Plan- designations (see
24 attachment. F). The; 70 -foot wide strip adjacent to Sonoma Mountain Parkway and currently used as-
25 an access road to the nursery is designated Open Space (the applicant'proposes dedicating this 1._12 --
26 acre strip to the City for incorporation into the future park). Land abuttirig the southeasterly
27 property line, hugging. Capri Creek, is also designated Open Space (the applicant proposes
28 dedicating this strip to the City for open space, ,riparian ;habitat, and a path),., The next 3'.86 -acre
29 portion of the site is designated Urban High which allows for 10.1 15.0 units per acre (the
30 applicant proposes 50 townhomes which results in a density of 13 units per acre), Further `to the
31 northeast the designation is Urban Standard :which allows for 2.1 to 5.0 'units per acre (the , applicant
32 proposes .50 single - family homes, which :results in .a density of 4.1 units per acre with density
33 transfer from, the urban separator property pursuant to the General Plan. and Corona Ely Specific
34 Plan policies). Furtherstill to the northeast, the last 300 linear feet of theparcel' is designated. Urban
35 Separator (the applicant proposes to dedicate this 4.3 acre area to the Cityfor the continuation of the
36 urban separator).
37
38 Proposed General .Plan Land' Use: No change
39
40 Subsequent Actions. Required:
41 ■ City Council Review and. Approval
42 ■ Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee° (SPARC) .Review and Approval
43 ■ Improvements Plans/Final. Mdp
44 Building Permits
45
•
•
Page
PRO E
OE
0�9
V
3 The applicant is seeking approval fora Tentative Subdivision Map and a Rezoning to Planned Unit
4 District (PUD) and for a 100 -lot residential subdivision on a 17.17 -acre lot. The site is located on
5 the east side of Sonoma. Mountain Parkway, east of the vacant lots soon to become a City park.
6 Access to the subdivision would be from Casella Way and Yorkshire Road. A Development Plan
7 and PUD Guidelines forrthe project are also proposed.
8
9 Fifty two -story single - family detached homes are proposed on lots ranging from 4,017 to 4,865
10 square feet on the east. side of :the parcel. Four house plans are proposed and these range from 2,179
11 square feet to 2,612 square feet. Every plan has a two -car garage and two parking spaces in the
12 driveway. Every plan 1 and 3 fits together with a Plan 2 or 4 in a "zipper lot" configuration (see
13 Attachment N, Tentative Map C7). Fifty two - story attached townhomes are proposed on lots
14 ranging from 1,264 to 1,396 square feet on the west side of the parcel. The townhomes are attached
15 in groups of two and three units each forming either duplexes or triplexes. Three duplex /triplex
16 elevations are proposed. Each townhouse will be 1,524 square feet with a two -car garage accessed
17 from an alleyway at the rear.
18
19 The applicant is proposing the following land dedications to the City: 1) the western 70 -foot wide,
20 1.12 -acre strip for incorporation into the adjacent city park, 2) approximately 70 feet from the
21 centerline of the seasonal. Capri Creek (1.22- acres) for riparian habitat and a path, and 3) the eastern
22 4.3. acres of the parcel for :incorporation into the urban separator. The dedicated land totals 6.64
Adh3 acres.
25 BACKGROUND
26
27 The property has been a hay growing pasture for most of its recorded history. In approximately
28 1980, Gatti Nursery, Inc. purchased an 80 -acre parcel, which included the subject site, and
29 developed a commercial nursery operation in which ornamental plants, principally azaleas, were
30 propagated in greenhouses. In 1989, the City Council adopted the Corona/Ely Specific Plan which
31 covered the 675 acres along the outer edge of the City's northeast quadrant. All of Gatti Nursery
32 was within the specific plan boundary and the balance of the original 80 acres has been developed
33 over the last nine years with single - family homes, apartments, and a shopping center, pursuant to
34 the specific plan. The City acquired 7 acres of the original site for a park, located between the
35 subject property and Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
36
37 The project was preliminarily reviewed by SPARC on January 9, 2003. SPARC provided a number
38 of recommendat ons , tol the applicant (see Attachment L). While some of their concerns were of a
39 strictly architectural nature an d will come back to SPARC as part of their formal review of the
40 project, other'concerns regarded larger scale modifications and included recommendations to:
41
42 Redesign the townhouse portion of the site plan and the townhomes themselves with a focus
43 on providing more private open space per unit. SPARC was especially concerned about the
44 center townhouse units (those on Private Road F) that do not benefit from direct proximity to
creek or park-land. SPARC felt that while an alley system can work well, this alley system 1)
with all garage doors, is overbearing and 2) results in a predominance of asphalt.
47
Page 3
1 Consider turning houses 21 -24 & 40 -43 toward the creek and losing two units; from the
2 northeastern block.
3 ^1_
4 Provide at least one and not more than two bridges over the creek.
6 ■ Continue the creek side path to Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
7
8 The applicant chose not to modify the proj ect based. on these recommendations prior to' submitting;
9 the proposal 'to the Planning Commission.
10
11 STAFF ANALYSIS
12
13 General. Plan _Consistency:
14 The parcel is comprised of'four General Plan .Land. Use designations .(see Attachment F fora map).
15
p y
16 The 70 -foot wide. stn adjacent to Sonoma Ivlountatn� Parkwa and currently used, as' an, access road „
17 to the nursery is designated Open Space. The applicant proposes dedicating this 1,12-acre strip to
18 the City for incorporation into the future park. The Open Space designation continues up the.
19 southeasterly property line, hugging Capri Creek. The designation is intended to underscore the
20 City's desire to maintain these creeks in a natural or existing state. Land designated as open space
21 shall be essentially unimproved and devoted to the ,preservation of natural resources,, outdoor
22 recreation, or pub;licliealth, and safety. The proposed; project is consistent with this designation iti
23 that the creek setback area would be improved only with a bike and pedestrian path; native trees,
24 benches, and the like and would be dedicated to the City.
25
26 The next 3:86 7 acre portion_ of the site :is' designated Urban High which allows. for a density rang,
27 between'10.1 and' 15.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposal calls for 50 townl oines; this results in
28 a proposed density of 13 dwelling units per acre.
29
3o Further to 'the northeast the General. Plan Land Use designation is Urban Standard which�allows for
31 a density range between 2.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposal calls for 5.9 single- family
3,2 homes; this results in a density of 4.1 units per acre with a density transfer from the urban
33 separator property pursuant to Policy 13 Chapter 4 which states that on residentially designate
34 properties, the '- separator shall: function a s an overlay, `the intent of is to provide
35 property owners with the opportunity to transfer the development potential of wand designated as
36 urban separator to another portion of the _same site. (Without the density transfer policy, the
37 single - family densitywould be '6.4 units per acre)
38
39 F still to the northeast, the last 300 linear feet' of the ,parcel is designated Urban Separator a nd
40 the applicant proposes to dedicate this 41-acre area to t City, for the continuation of the urban
41 separator;'a pnmarily space area.
42
43 Thus, the current proposal complies with the density and use specified by the General Plan.
44
45 There are also numerous. General Plan policies that relate to this proposal.
46 � 47 Community Character Element_
48 Objective b Preserve the rural backdrop and maintain Views of important natural features::
Page 4
A
1 ■ Views to Capri Creek are being maintained due to the proposed primarily single- loaded street
pattern along the creek. Access ;along the creek is also being enhanced by a bicycle and
3 pedestrian path along the north side.
4
5 Program 9: Require meaningful amounts of usable urban open space in and between developments.
6 ■ A total of 6.64 -acres of open space and parkland -38.7% of the total site acreage - will be
7 dedicated to the City.
8
9 Land Use and Growth Management Element.
to Policy 7. For properties adjoining the urban limit line, it is the intent of the City that projects ... be
11 of limited density (as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map).
12 The General Plan Land Use Map does show a density more limited at the urban limit line
13 than it is farther into the site and the development proposal is consistent with this layout.
14 .
15 Policy 28. The City shall support' residential development only in those areas where adequate City
16 facilities are available or will be provided. with "development:
17 ■ All utilities and roads have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development.
18
19 Open Space, Conservation, and,Energy Element.
20 Policy 1. The City shall utilize waterways and waterway buffers (setbacks) to connect open space
21 and activity centers.
22 The Class 1 path along Capri Creek can serve as a connection to Gatti Park and the urban
* 3 separator.
25 Section 6.4 Objective r. Establish a continuous strip of native vegetation. along waterways.
26 ■ The riparian habitat potential of 'Capri Creek will be .increased; by the removal of the non-
27 native, inappropriately located, and unhealthy trees ;(Japanese loquats, African sumac, and
28 Italian stone pines) along the creek as recommended by the tree evaluation prepared by
29 MacNair & Associates and the City Arborist and the replanting of native riparian species
30 such as big leaf maple and `southern live oak.
31
32 Policy 23. Streams and streamsides shall be used to provide natural open space, recreation, or
33 activity areas for adjacent development.
34 ■ The' creek side dedication will p7ovide for these types of opportunities.
35
36 Housing Element
37 Objective a: Provide arrange of housing types.
38 ■ The proposed project'includes an !equal mix of attached townhomes and detached homes that
39 range from 1,524 to 2,61.2 square feet. The developer will also be required to contribute to the
40 in -lieu housing fund per Policy 10 of the General Plan Housing Element.
41
42 Corona/Ely Specific Plan Consistency:
43 There are also a number of Corona/Ely Specific Plan policies that relate to this proposal.
44
45 Chapter 3 Municipal Services-
6 Policy 3: It is strongly recommended that 200 feet of open space be maintained along the centerline
47 of all creeks to provide adequate cross section for flood control-. In some instances, it may be
48 possible to' reduce the total flood -way cross - section to 140 feet. -based on the recommendations of
49 a thorough hydrological study.
Page 5
1 The. applicant provided a, hydrological stud and the. City contracted with Klienfelder, Inc. to
2 provide peer review of the hydrological work. Klienfelder concurred with the: study's,finding
3 that during a 100 -year storm event, water would -. bei contained within the ,channel. Therefore,
4 from a :hydrological perspective, a setback 'of 70 feet from the creek centerline, as shown on
5 the tentative map, is adequate.
6
7 Chapter 4 Land Use and,Design
8 Policy 95: All CoronaOy residential. streets shall have 4 -5 foot planting strips within the right -of
9 way on both sides of the street between the curb and sidewalk, rather than, having the sidewalk
10 adjacent to. the street.
11 In the detached houses portion of the proposal, the proposed tentative map depicts a. planting
12 strip between the curb and sidewalk 4 to '6' feetz wide in compliance with• this policy.
13 However, where lots 13 and 32 abut Road A and where lots 22 and 23 abut`Road D, n
14 planting strip is provided. In the' ,attached townhouses.,,portion of the proposal, the tentative
15 map does;. not include any planting strips in front of the units. This policy- would not; be
16 applied to the private roads or alleyway`proposed, unless the Council chooses to require it.
17
18 Staff has recommended a condition of approval ( #6) that along all public streets; a planting;
19 strip a minimum width of 4 feet ;shall be required. Application of this policy ,is likely to
20 reduce: the private .open space allocated to each unit and/or reduce the number of units
21 proposed. Planning Commission may recommend that this condition be eliminated or
22 modified.
23
24 Policy 100: To avoid monotonous - repetition, residential development plans shall emphasize
25 variation in building massing, setbacks, and height.
26 The project consists of two unique�house plans (Plans 1 & 3 and 2 & 41ook-substantially the
27 same) with each plan_ having four elevations and three townhouse elevations. These, will be
28 subject to SPARC review and -approval.
29
30 Policy 101: The placement and configuration, of residential driveways and garages shall.. be varied
31 to increase visual interest and avoid monotonous repetition.
32 Half of the houses have garages that are. set back 42 feet, from the front porch while the other
33 half of the garages are setback '12; feet from the front porch. The 'towrihouse portion of they
34 project utilizes an alleyway system to remove the garages: from the front, elevations, although
35 this configuration does result iri a monotonous repetition of garage, doors along these
36 alleyways.
37
38 Policy 121 and 136: The undeveloped side of single - loaded streets, rather than rear lot lines •shall
39 be encouraged along; the urban ,separator. Homes along creek open space corridors. shall be sited to
40 face rather than back. onto the,open,space.
41 ■ The proposal calls for single4oade,d streets with dwellings generally fronting onto the creekk.
42 and urban separator land. A condition of approval has been added to require that at. the
43 minimum, townhouse lots 10 and 50 and house-lots- 23, 41, and 42 shall be modif'ed to also
44 front the creek.
45
46 Policy 127; The: number of units transferable from the urban iseparator shall be .calculated on the
47 basis of the adjoining. land use. designation:. For:example, if the. designation on the affected property
48 abutting the separator is Urban Standard (up to 5 du/ac) and there is four acres of urban separator,on
49 the property, then a maximum of 20 units could' be transferred from the separator.
Page 6
1 ® The urban separator'land consists of 4.3 acres; thus as`many as 21 units could be transferred.
ct ro ose 11 units:
This project p p s transferring
3
4 Additionally, a review of Figure 1 -3 of the specific plan shows that the original 80 -acre Gatti parcel
5 was anticipated to have 447 residential units. Totaling the, unit counts built on this land: Heritage
6 subdivision (97 units), Americana subdivision (100 units) Tuxhom subdivision (32, units), Capri
7 Creek Apartments (100 units), and the proposed Gatti subdivision (100 units) results in 429 units.
8 Thus, the 80 -acre original Gatti parcel when fully built out will fall 168 units short of, but come near,
9 its expected build -out.
10
it Many other Corona Ely Specific Plan policies provide direction to SPARC such as policy 37
12 (quality & harmonious design); 38'!(improve elevations on corner lots) 48 (limit number or exterior
13 materials), 49 (utilize genuine materials) 50 (use subdued color palettes), 53 (integrate roof design),
14 57 (emphasize native and low - maintenance plants), 61 (provide street trees along: all street
15 frontages), 96 (provide complete 'street, landscape plan), 99 (utilize quality street lighting), 100
16 (emphasize variation in elevations); 122 (provide complete urban separator landscape plan), 126
17 (utilize earth tones adjacent to the urban separator). Additionally, the specific plan directs SPARC
18 to determine whether the intent of the General Plan policy requiring that 10% of the housing units
19 be significantly different from the remaining units in architectural style has been met.
20
21 Zoning Ordinance Consistency
22 This proposal includes the request for a'parcel rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Unit District
(PUD). A Development Pian (Attachment N) and PUD Guidelines (Attachment M) have been
proposed. The Guidelines state setbacks shall be as noted, on the PUD (Development) Plan: The
3 e
25 final draft of the PUD Guidelines will be subject to SPARC review and approval.
26
27 A very small portion of the "property along Capri Creek has a Floodplain Combining overlay. No
28 structures are proposed within this overlay.
29
30 Traffic /Circulation:
31 As part of the project submittal the applicant provided a traffic impact study prepared by Whitlock
32 & Weinberger Transportation Inc. (W- Trans) dated December 2002.
33
34 The five intersections of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Junior College, Sonoma Mountain
35 Parkway /Shopping Center entrance, Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road, Sonoma Mountain
36 Parkway /Ely Road- Colorribard Road, and Riesling Road/Casella Court were studied. 'The project is
37 anticipated to generate an „average of 772 new daily vehicle tri ps including 60 new trips during the
38 morning peak hour and 78 new trips during the evening peak hour. Upon addition of the project -
39 generated traffic, all of the study intersections are expected to 'continue operating at acceptable
40 levels of service °(LOS'):
41 13 The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Junior College is anticipated to continue
42 operating at LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
43 0 The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Shopping Center entrance (west bound right)
44 is anticipated to continue operating at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
45 0 The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Riesling Road is anticipated to go from LOS
N, B to an LOS C for the a.m. peak period (as a result of the average delay going from 19.3
X47 seconds to 20.1 seconds) and the continued operation of LOS B for the p.m. peak periods.
48 The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Ely Road - Colombard Road is anticipated to
A 49 continue operating at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
Page 7
I M The intersection of Riesling Road/Casella Court is anticipated to continue operating -at LOS A
2 during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods:.
3 The future conditions show no deviation in expected levels of service with or without the project.
4
5 The study also found that traffic volumes on the local residential streets including ,Sestri Lane;
6 Casella Court, and Yorkshire Road are . expected to ,remain below or near 1,000 vehicles per day
7 with the addition of the project.. This amount of traffic is below thresholds for ,acceptable traffic
8 volumes on "livable" streets, which are general lyconsidered to have no greater`than 1,500 ADT.
9
to Additionally, the study recommended that a pedestrian warning sign be added at the Riesling Road
11 mid -block crossing_ for westbound traffic. The sign should. be installed in the, existing' median so as_
12 to be more visible to through traffic on Riesling: Road This recommendation is for aft improvement
13 to an existing neighborhood condition and is included:as.condition of project approval, 8.
14
15 This study was peer .reviewed by the City's contract Transportation Engineer,_ Walter Laabs of
16 TJKM Consultants. It was Mr. Laabs determination that the analysis of .existing plus project, traffic
17 conditions was completed in accordance with standard. practice. He concurred. with the conclusions
18 and recommendations of the traffic impact analysis..
19
20 Parking:
21 Four on -site (two garage and two driveway) ,parking spaces would be provided for- each single- -
22 family dwelling and two on -site (garage)- pparking spaces would be provided for each townhouse,
23 Additionally, over 100 on- street. parking spaces are provided. Therefore, inadequate parkin;
24 capacit
25 y is not expected to be , a significant impact.
�.
26 Transit
27 Petaluma Transit and Golden Gate Transit. provide public transit service to the site. Petaluma Transit
28 Route 3' operates along Sonoma Mountain Parkway near Riesling Road and provides access to
29 downtown ;Petaluma. Golden Gate Transit Route 76 operates on Sonoma, Mountain Parkway and
30 provides access between Rohnert Park -and San Francisco. These transit routes provide increased
31 freedom to those residences that, do not drive as; well as alternatives to residences that do. The; Class
32 Il bike lane .in the form of six- foot concrete aprons, on Sonoma, Mountain Parkway provides further
33 transportation alternatives to residents.
34
35 Sidewalks
36 The tentative map proposes a _five -foot wide sidewalk or eight -foot wide bicycle /pedestrian path
37 along most public streets. Sidewalks are not proposed along short distances of :Road. D. Condition
38 of approval 26 has been -added to require sidewalks on both sides of;all public streets pursuant to the
39 City's Subdivision Ordinance section 2032. This section also states that the Planning Commis5101a
40 may recommend that sections of sidewalks be omitted''in a ;PUD by making the finding that public
41 safety.is not jeopardized by such an omission.
42
43 Pedestrian. and'Bicycle ,Committee Recommendations:
44 In March , of 2000, the City Council adopted, the City of Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and
45 Map as an amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Plates that the City
46 shall route development ; plans to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
47 (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The PBAC reviewed the proposed
48 project and had specific recommendations. The full text of the PBAC recommendations is included
Page 8
1' as attachment J. Staff has reviewed these recommendations and placed them in -the following
2 categories:
. 0 3
4 PBAC Recommendations included as Conditions of Approval` 9 14
5 Provide a bridge over Capri Creek at Casella Way. Both PBAC and the Parks Department
6 Director recommended this condition. Discussions with the SRJC indicate that they also feel
7 this to be a suitable location° for a creek crossing.
8 Provide a Class I path along the entire project adjacent to the creek; A Class I path is proposed
9 from the park property 'to the urban separator path. A condition of approval requires that the
10 path continue on to Sonoma Mountain Parkway pursuant to both PBAC and the Parks
11 Department.
12 ° Provide benches along the urban separator path.
13 ■ Provide a sign along Sonoma Mountain Parkway identifying the creek path .and the connection
14 to the urban separator path.
15 ■ Provide no lighting that creates �a direct glare into cyclist /pedestrian eyes.
16 ■ Use pesticides/herbicdes only utilizing Best Management Practices.
17
18 PBAC recommendations that have .already be incorporated into the project:
19 ■ Minimize the width of the, creek side roadway.
20 The roadway adjacent to the creek is 28 feet wide with. parking allowed only on the
21 residential side. This is the narrowest allowed by the City.
22 ■ Provide a multi -use path on the urban separator connecting to the existing' path on one end and
23 crossing the creek via a bridge on the other end.
�4 A path measuring 8 feet wide is' proposed along the urban separator from the northwest to
25 the southeast property line: However, the applicants are not proposing and cannot be
26 required to construct an off -site path and bridge. The SRJC has indicated that they are
27 interested in continuing 4the, path on their property and will consider it as part of future
28 expansion plans.
29 ■ Construct no fences alongrthe creek.
30 No fence is proposed along the creek.
31 ■ Install creek side landscaping in keeping with the landscaping currently being done by SRJC.
32 The landscape plan proposes, native landscaping as the SRJC has utilized on the east side of
33 Capri Creek. A detail creek side planting plan will be by SPARC.
34 ° Maintain a substantial setback from Road D to the creek.
35 Road D was pushed back farther from the creek than when PBAC first saw this proposal., A
36 setback of 70 feet from centerline is maintained except for a small area where Road D turns
37 eastward. The `Department of Fish and Game, and the hydrology study find this to be
38' acceptable.
39 Provide secured bike parking for all residents.
40 Each of the 100 proposed units includes a 2 -car garage.
41
42 PBAC Recommendations not included as Conditions of ' Approval:
43 ■ Make 'Road D ;a greenway /multi -use bike /pedestrian trail. Create a cul' -de -sac on Road C and
44 Road B with pedestrian and, bicycle access to Capri Creek via Yorkshire Road and Casella Way.
45 Rename Road D "Capri Creek Greenway.
046 PBAC's recommendation that Road D be replaced by a bikeway /greenway has not been
!' 47 added as a condition of approval as it is not shown on the Bicycle Plan Map and a Class I
48 bicycle /pedestrian path 'is proposed within the 70 -foot wide creek side setback adjacent to
.' 49 Roadway D.
Page 9
I Provide two addition bridges: one .at Yorkshire and one at the urban separator path.
2 The Parks Director has requested only one bridge and that it be .located_ :at Casella Way. In
. 3 the urban separator, the creek veers off the property line toward the SRJC and neither side, of
4 the creek is on the Gatti property: The applicant is. not proposing and cannot - be required to
5 1 construct a'bridg"e entirely off-site..
6 Provide bicycle /pedestrian access on Private ;Road E from Casella Way to Yorkshire: Road
7 (Private Road E is most often labeled .as Private Alley and is adjacent to Capri Creek
8 Apartments),
9 This is a narrow alleyway. Alleys do not typically have sidewalks, or bike lanes.
10 ■ Open the public access conditioned in Capri, Creek. Apartments development along.;Private Road
11 E and Yorkshire Road.
12 Two gates were constructed in, the fence between the Capri Creek Apartments and Gatti
13 Nursery that can be unlocked once this project is built. However,, this is not a, condition for
14 this application.
15 Provide bike racks by the bus shelter on Sonorna Mt. Parkway:
16 This is an off -site improvement toiwhich.the applicant has not agreed.
17 Provide obvious and easy bike /pedestrian access along Gatti Park to access' the G &G Market.
18 The Parks Commission is undertaking the design of Gatti Park.
19
20 Biological Resources:
21 The Biological Resources Reconnaissance conducted by Zander Associates found that the. conditions
22 of'the pond and creek make it highly unlikely that any of the three special - status animals recorded in
23 ponds and aquatic habitats in. the greater Petaluma area the California red - legged frog; the California
24 tiger salamander; and the western pond turtle" could successfully become ,established-' on this site.
25 The pond is an, artificially excavated reservoir on high: ground isolated from any watercourse and
26 supplied by pumped groundwater. The pond 'is exposed and does, not support. well - developed aquatic
27 or woodybank vegetation 'that could provide cover' for red- legged frogs or, pond turtles not would the
28 adjacent developed nursery property provide suitable retreat opportunities for the California tige -r
29 salamander. Finally, the ,pond supports a population of bass that would pose a serious threat to
30 successful species establishment. The creek, with its absence of sustained flows, I its :lack of well -
31 developed cover, and its isolation and distance from the Petaluma River make this reach of Capri
32 Creek less than ai ideal migration corridor., However,, the applicant proposes no development within
33 the creek setback of 70 'feet;from creek centerline; no modification to the pond, and dedication of both
34 of these areas to. the City.
35
36 The Water Resources Department evaluated the , Well and pond and determined that it could' not
37 provide potable: water "for the City as the: ori ginal sanitary seal, constructed. in 197& does not meet
38 current standards and that since recycled water would meet the City's • future irrigation : needs the.
39 well is unnecessary for those purposes. However, since verbal response from the ;Department of
4o Fish and Game 'indicates that they believe the pond has :habitat value for wild ducks, egrets, etc.,,.
41 staff has not added..a condition that'ihe pond'be removed. A condition (915) has been added. that: the
42 landscape plan be modified prior to SPARC review to address improvements -to the pond as
43 determined by the Community Development Department, Parks Departments and Water Resources
44 Department.
t
1. •
45
46 All on =site trees are -on portions proposed to be dedicated to the City and therefore are not proposed
47 for removal by the applicant. The tree evaluation prepared by 1Vlacnair &Associates: found two -
48 types of trees: 1) Japanese loquats,, sumac, Italian stone pines, and Eucalyptus -that were
49 planted in the 1'980's or more recently in the creek and immediately adjacent to the pond and that
Page: 10
1 are non - native, non - riparian,, and sometimes unhealthy and 2) "seven Monterey. cypress to the east of
the pond that date to at 'least the 1950':s and have symptoms of cypress canker; a disease affecting
3 most Monterey cypress in .inland locations and eventually causing the decline of the trees, as
4 evidenced by the poor structural condition of the trees. The tree evaluation recommended that the
5 trees be removed and replaced with native riparian trees. The City's arborist concurred and
6 recommended that all of the trees be removed and all stumps ground. This condition has been
7 added as condition 17. The applicant is proposing replanting the creek side area with native,
8 p
riparian species. Staff has added a condition that the creek side replanting continue down to
p
9 Sonoma Mountain Parkway, A mitigation measure of the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that
10 if site construction is scheduled to commence during the spring or early summer months, a qualified
11 biologist should check 'the mature cypress trees in the urban separator land to assure that no active
12 raptor nest will be disturbed
13
14 Also, of note, the existing gravel driveway into the Gatti nursery, which lies as close as 16 feet from
15 the centerline of the creek will be removed, so the creek corridor can be restored in this area as well.
16 While Gatti Park is still in the preliminary design phases, the Parks!'and Recreation Department has
17 recommended a condition (#16) that the applicant work with staff on this area.
18
19 The Parks and Recreation Department has recommended a condition (which is included as
20 condition 19) that requires a subdivision Landscape Assessment District to maintain the Urban
21 Separator and that portion of Capri Creek northeast of Casella Way from back of curb to top of
22 bank.
Site Plan and Architectural ,Review Committee:
25 SPARC will review the project only after the project receives City Council approval and prior to
26 building permit issuance. SPARC will review site plan design, building and accessory structure
27 design, PUD Guidelines, colors and materials, landscaping, and'lighting.
28
29 Story Poles:
30 At the time of the writing of this staff report, the story pole draft policy had not been reviewed by
31 SPARC or approved by the Planning Commission. In the past, story poles have not typically been
32 required for infill projects with similar characteristics as the surrounding uses and on flat land.
33 Thus, story poles were not required by staff.
34
35 Summary & Primary Concerns of Planning Staff:
36 In summary, the applicant is proposing a subdivision on ai infill site that has been slated for
37 residential development since 1989. It will provide a mixture of .attached and detached for -sale
38 housing at a density that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and the Corona Ely
39 Specif c. Plan. A total of 6.64 acres of land, 38.7 percent of the total parcel, will be dedicated to the
40 City for use as parkland and open space.
41
42 Since the project;w.as first submitted, the applicant has worked with staff to improve the project and
43 eliminate a number of staff concerns. The following items are 'those which continue to be of
44 primary concern to planning—
staff-45 m The applicant's response or lack there of to the site plan concerns stated by SPARC at the
Preliminary Review such as the need for more private outdoor space and less asphalt for the
47 townhouse units and the need for full -scale lot orientation to the creek.
48 m Public .streets that are missing small segments of sidewalk and larger segments of planter strip.
49 While conditions of approval have been added to require sidewalks and planter strips on each
Page 11
I side of public streets,, application of the planter strip condition is likely to result in a reduction
2 in units or open, space in, the townhouse portion and the lots 22 to 32 house block.
3 The provision of an 8 -foot wide path acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Department
4 between Sonoma Mountain. Parkway and Casella Way. Staff is recommending that this be
5 required byway condition of approval 10.
6 The provision of a bridge near Casella Way acceptable to the Parks and Recreation.
t
7 Department and the SRJC. Staff is recommending that this be required by way of condition of
8 approval 9.
10 PUBLIC COMMENTS
11 A Notice of .Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public H- earing was published in
12 the Argus Courier on February '19, 2003 and sent to all residents and property owners within 500
13 feet of the project site. All correspondence received are included in Attachment K.
14
15 Prior to the, noticing of the public hearing, one written communication was received expressing
16 concern with the proposed development. The letter was addressed to ,the Planning 'Commission,
17 City Council, and S'PARC, from Don Weisenfluh, residing at. 903 Kensington Place, and dated
18 January 6, 2003. The letter expressed concerns that the, density transfer policy should not be
19 applied to properties adjoining the urban separator as General Plan policy '7 states that there is to. be
20 a gradual and deliberate lessening of development intensity as development nears the urban
21 separator.
22
23 Policy 7 also states that For properties adjoining the urban limit line, it is the intent of the City that
24 projects,...be of limited density (as shown on the General Plan Land Use, Map), :and shall be
25 designed to preserve -the visual and .physical openness and preserve the aesthetic and natural
26, features of that portion of the property proximate to the rural areas outside of the designated. urban
27 limit; 'line. Thus, Policy 7 is, explaining, why the General Plan Land Use Map shows less dense
28 designations near the urban limit line and more dense designations farther :in.. In fact, the 17 acre
29 Gatti property does show a lessening of development as it nears the urban separator with the
30 townhouses at 13 units per acre and the, single family homes at 6.4 gross' units per acre or 4:1 units
31 per acre based; on the urban separator density transfer as stated in the General Plan (Policy 13
32 Chapter 4) and "Corona Ely Specific Plan (Policy 12,7).
33
34 Since notification of the public hearing, one written communication has been received signed'by the
35 owners often of the thirteen homes on Buckingham Lane and two homes.on Sestri,Lane (Heritage
36 Subdivision). They request that lots 1 through 12 be ;relocated to sit between Road D and Capri
37. Creek and. that .a sidewalk with grass replace these lots. Staff has concerns about this, proposell
38 because of General Plan and Corona Ely Specific Plan policies, which advocate2 for single:- loaded'
39 streets adjacent to creeks .and for homes 'to face the creek. Alternatively, the homeowners .suggest
40 single -story homes adjacent to their homes or fewer homes and a play structure adjacent to - their
41 homes (lots 1 through 12).
42
43 IMPACT FEES
44 The project will be subject to the following development fees: sewer and water, connection,
45 community facilities development; storm drainage impact, park. and recreation land. improvement,
46 school facilities, in -lieu' housing and traffic mitigation.
47
Page 12
1 : REVBE
ENVIR
i
3 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Enviro_
q ' - nmental. Quality Act (CEQA), an .Initial Study
4 of potential environmental impacts was prepared. The potential for the following significant
5 impacts were identified: noise and biological resources. Mitigation measures have been proposed
6 and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to : less than significant. In addition,
7 there is no substantial evidence'that supports a fair argument that the project, as mitigated, would
8 have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Mitigated Negative
9 Declaration be adopted. A Mitigation Monitoring Report has also been prepared. (Initial Study and
10 Mitigation Monitoring Report attached as Attachment G.)
11
12 DECISION TIMELINE
13
14 This application was received by the Community Development Department on August 21, 2002.
15 The application was deemed complete on February 19, 2003. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit
16 Streamlining Act, a decision must be made within 180 days of the project being deemed complete.
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F`
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Draft Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft Findings for Approval — Rezoning to Planned Unit District
Draft Findings.for Approval — Adoption of Planned Unit District Map and
Guidelines Development Standards
Draft Findings for Approval — Tentative Subdivision Map
Draft Recommended Conditions of Approval
Context Map and General Plan Map
Initial. Study & Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Studies: Biological Resource Reconnaissance by Zander Associates,
Environmental Site Assessment (exhibits excluded) by Harris & Lee,
Hydrological Study by Reicher Spence & Associates (cross sections excluded),
Traffic Impact Analysis by W -Trans (calculations excluded) Tree Evaluation by
MacNair & Associates — for a copy of excluded items, call Planning Division
Peer Review of Specified Studies: Kleinfelder, Inc. of the Biological, Tree, and
Hydrological Studies and TJKM of the Traffic Study
Memorandums received from City departments and committees: Department of
Fish & Game, Engineering Division, Fire Marshal, Parks Department, Pedestrian
& Bike ,Committee
Neighborhood Correspondence Received
SPARC Preliminary Review Excerpt Minutes, January 9, 2003
PUD Guidelines dated November 22, 2002
Full, Size Tentative Subdivision Map and 11x17 Development Plan, Architectural
Plans, and Landscape Plan
Attachment I:
34
Attachment J:
35
36
37
Attachment K:
38
Attachment L_:,
39
Attachment M:
40
Attachment N:
41
C
Page 13
:Cit I•i f t •n II 4
[7
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11 English•Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
707/778 -4301
Initial Study
of Environmental Significance
E3 Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code, Section 21000 'et seq), .and. the 'CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein
includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals,
staff report, General Plan, EIR and'Technical. Appendices, and other applicable ,planning documents (i..e., Petaluma River
Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of
Petaluma Planning Division.
Project Name: Gatti Nursery/Stratford Place
Site Address: 710 Sonoma Mountain,Tarkway
Access from Casella Way ,& Yorkshire Rd
Posting Date: March 19, 2003
File No: TSMO2002, REZ02003, & PUD02002
AP N 137- 070 -079
Comments Due: April 8, 2003
Lead Agency Contact: TiffanyRobbe, Associate Planner Phone: (707) 778 -4301
Applicant: Matt Hudson, Mardel LLC1Hudson & Scharer Realty Phone! (707) 778 -9299
6 Petaluma Blvd. North # B -11
Petaluma, CA 94952
Property Owner: Gatti Nursery,Inc.
Project Description: The applicant is seeking approval for a Tentative Subdivision'Map and a Rezoning to Planned Unit
District (PUD) and fora 1004ot,residential subdivision on a 17.17 -acre lot. The site is located. on the east side of Sonoma
Mountain Parkway, east of the vacant1ots soonto become a City park. Access to the;, subdivision would be from Casella Way
and Yorkshire Road. PUD guidelines, for the project are also proposed. Fifty single family detached homes are proposed on
lots ranging .from 4,017 to, 4,865 square feet on the east side of the parcel. Fifty attached townhomes are proposed on lots
ranging from 1,264 to ,1,39.6 square; feet on. the west side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing the following land
dedications to the City: '1) the western 70 -foot wide, 1.12 -acre strip for incorporation into the adjacent city park, 2)
approximately 70' feet from the centerline of the seasonal Capri Creek for riparian habitat and a path, and 3) the eastern 4.3
acres of the parcel for incotporationinto the urban separator. Together the dedicated acreage totals 6.64 acres.
Environmental Setting; , The project_ would be located on a 17,17 -acre infill site. The parcel' is currently utilized as a
nursery and most of °parcel is covered with greenhouses, The seasonal' Capri Creek flows at the south side of the site. The
easterly 4.3 acres contain a well and a pond used for irrigating the nursery. The subject parcel is circled by county land to the
northeasterly, Heritage subdivision and Capri Creek Apartments to the northwesterly city owned property soon to be a park to
the southwesterly, , and the Petaluma campus of the Santa Rosa Junior College to the southeasterly. Past the park site and Capri
Creek Apartments is the Parkway Plaza shopping center with a supermarket and other service& including a bank, video store,
and restaurants. The subject parcel is relatively flat and has little significant vegetation and no native trees.
Res onsibie Trustee Agencies: The p roject requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval b
I?, /, g P J q g_ PP Y
the City Council of a Tentative Parcel Map, Rezoning, and Planned Unit District:Design Guidelines. Following approval from
the City Council the project will -go before the Site Plan and Architectural Review�Committee for approval. Lastly, the project
will be subject to building permit review and approval by the Community Development Department.
Attachment 6
Page 1
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision . File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 2
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
'Impact
wNitigation
Impact
1vleasdes'
Environmental Factors PotentiallyAffected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the°checklist on the'following pages.
1.
2.
3.
Land Use & Planning _ 7. Noise _ 13. Utilities Infrastructure
Population,Employmet• &Housing: _ S. Visual, Quality &'Aesthetics _ 14. Mineral Resources'
Geology& Soils 9. Hazards &`Hazard'ous Materials 15. ,Cultural Resources.
4. Air
5. Hydrology & Water'Qiality'
6. Biological Resources
N Determination
X
10. Transportation/Tra-ffic 16. Agricultural Resources
11. Public Services 17. Mandatory'Findngs of Significance
12. Recreation.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant: effect on the environment and. a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION should be prepared.
I find that v significant effect on the'. environment there will not 'be a
st rnficant effect in this case becauseereviss t ons h in the project'have been made by or agreed g P P project �
.g � _ fo by the Project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will' be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL
I'MP "ACT REPORT''is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact "' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact. on the environment but, of least one effect" 1) has been adequately 'analyzed in. an earlier
document pursuant -to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based " oil the
earlier analysis : as described',, on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required', but it
must analyze: only the effects that remain:to be #addressed..
I find that although the proposed' project could,have a significant on the environmenfbecause'all' potentially _
significArifeffects a) have been analyzed'adequately`in an, earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION _pursuant
to applicable standards and. b), have been, avoided or mitigated pursuant to: that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION including' revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project "nothing
further is required.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be" prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period'
of March 19 through April 8, 2003.
Prepared by: Tiffany Robbe
Name
Associate P
Title
•
Si a Date
Projecf Name: Gatti Subdivision 'File No. TSM'0200`1, R_EZ02003,.8- POD02002 . Page 3
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant,
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Measures
M Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported.if the referenced information sources show that, the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g., the projectfalls;outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact!answer should be explained.where it
is based in project - specific factors as well as general standards, i.e., the, project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on.a project-specific screening analysis.
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: off-'site as well as on -site cumulative, project-
level indirect, direct, construction, and, operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that. a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may significant: If there
are one or more "Potentially Sgnificant'Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant. With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures,has reduced.an,effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The .lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from.Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses may be cross- referenced).
10 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to�Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used; Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation. Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead : agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g, general plans, zoning, .ordinances). Reference to a .previously, prepared or outside > document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and' other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue. should identify:
a). The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate :each question; and
b) The mitigation measure, identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
7
Page 3
Proiect Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002
® Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Planning Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicableland use`plan,_policy or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not litnited to the general plan specific
plan, local coastal,program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with, any habitat.conservation.plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Page 4
X
X
X
Discussion: 'The parcel is comprised° of four General - Plan designations. The 70 -foot wide: strip .adjacent to ;Sonoma Mountain
Parkway and currently used as an access road to the-`nursery is designated. Public Park and the applicant proposes dedicating
this 1.'1'2 -acre strip to the City for incorporation: into the future: park. The next 3:86 -acre portion of ihe site is designated'Uirban
High (10.1 — 15.0 units per acre) and here the applicant proposes 5,0 townhomes (13 units per acre),. Further to the northeast
the designation is Urban. Standard' (2.1 to 5.0 units per acre); and the applicant' proposes 50 single - family ;homes' (4.1 ,units, per
acre with density transfer from the urban separator property pursuant to the Corona Ely Specific'Plan). Further still to the
northeast, the 1ast 300 lineal feet of the parcel is designated Urban Separator and the applicant proposes: to dedicate: this :4..3-
acre area to the City for the continuation of the urban separator;, a primarily open space area. Thus, the, current proposal
complies with;the density anduse. specified by the General Plan.
0
A specific plan called the Corona Ely'Specific Plan was adopted 'for the'northeast part' of Petaluma including this parcel in
1989. This proposal, is consistent with the density and uses specified by the specific plan which mirrors the general .plan
designation described above. This ,proposal .is a finale piece of the development laid out in the Corona Ely �Specific Plan and
continues the existing;development pattern as laid out'by the specific plan.
The Zoning Ordinance designates'the parcel as.Agricultural, its current use. This:proposal includes a request for rezoning to a
Planned Unit District -that would comply with the General Plan density�and.the Corona Ely Specific Plan.
There is no existing habitat conservation plan or. natural 'community conservation plan that exists for this area of the city.
Therefore, no impact :to'the current land use would occur,as a °result ofthe proposal.
Mitization.Measures/Monitoring N/A
2. Population; Employment and' Housin% Would the project:
a. Induce isubstantial , population growthJn an area,, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers,of existing, housing, X.
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of. ople necessitating the X;
construction; of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision would allow °for IOO.housing units to be constructed: in an i ll area at a density and c
nature that was' allowe&and expected by the Petaluma General Plan, and Corona Ely Specific Plan. Thus, this project would
•
Page 4
Potentially
Less than
LessTfian
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
:Impact
Measures.
® Environmental Analysis
Land Use and Planning Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicableland use`plan,_policy or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not litnited to the general plan specific
plan, local coastal,program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
C. Conflict with, any habitat.conservation.plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Page 4
X
X
X
Discussion: 'The parcel is comprised° of four General - Plan designations. The 70 -foot wide: strip .adjacent to ;Sonoma Mountain
Parkway and currently used as an access road to the-`nursery is designated. Public Park and the applicant proposes dedicating
this 1.'1'2 -acre strip to the City for incorporation: into the future: park. The next 3:86 -acre portion of ihe site is designated'Uirban
High (10.1 — 15.0 units per acre) and here the applicant proposes 5,0 townhomes (13 units per acre),. Further to the northeast
the designation is Urban. Standard' (2.1 to 5.0 units per acre); and the applicant' proposes 50 single - family ;homes' (4.1 ,units, per
acre with density transfer from the urban separator property pursuant to the Corona Ely Specific'Plan). Further still to the
northeast, the 1ast 300 lineal feet of the parcel is designated Urban Separator and the applicant proposes: to dedicate: this :4..3-
acre area to the City for the continuation of the urban separator;, a primarily open space area. Thus, the, current proposal
complies with;the density anduse. specified by the General Plan.
0
A specific plan called the Corona Ely'Specific Plan was adopted 'for the'northeast part' of Petaluma including this parcel in
1989. This proposal, is consistent with the density and uses specified by the specific plan which mirrors the general .plan
designation described above. This ,proposal .is a finale piece of the development laid out in the Corona Ely �Specific Plan and
continues the existing;development pattern as laid out'by the specific plan.
The Zoning Ordinance designates'the parcel as.Agricultural, its current use. This:proposal includes a request for rezoning to a
Planned Unit District -that would comply with the General Plan density�and.the Corona Ely Specific Plan.
There is no existing habitat conservation plan or. natural 'community conservation plan that exists for this area of the city.
Therefore, no impact :to'the current land use would occur,as a °result ofthe proposal.
Mitization.Measures/Monitoring N/A
2. Population; Employment and' Housin% Would the project:
a. Induce isubstantial , population growthJn an area,, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers,of existing, housing, X.
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of. ople necessitating the X;
construction; of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion: The proposed subdivision would allow °for IOO.housing units to be constructed: in an i ll area at a density and c
nature that was' allowe&and expected by the Petaluma General Plan, and Corona Ely Specific Plan. Thus, this project would
•
Page 4
•
•
•
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File, No.. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 5
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
X
induce substantial population growth. The site is currently developed with greenhouses and its residential development will not
displace any housing or people. In fact, the.project would increase housing supply.
Residential development projects of 5 or more units are required to contribute to. the City's affordable housing ,program
pursuant to Policy 10 and Program 11 of the Housing Element of the Petaluma General Plan. The applicant shall. participate by
paying an in -lieu housing fee for each residential unit payable at the close of escrow.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
3. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a. Expose people or, structures to ;potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a,kknown earthquake fault, as
delineated'on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
EarthquakeFault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist.for the area or'based on other
substantial evidence of a known, fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic °ground shaking?
iii. Seismic- related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as•a: result of an on or off -
site landslide lateral spieading;,subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d. Be located on;expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e. Unstable;.earth conditions or changes in geologic
substructures?
f. Disruptions, displacements; compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
h. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
i. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
j. Changes in;deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes -in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify'the channel 'ofa river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay; inlet or lake?
►91
M
Page 5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 5
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision He No. TSM 02001; REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 6
Potentially
Less than,
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact'
Measures`
k. Exposure of people'or property to geologic. hazards such X
as earthquakes landslides, mudslides, ground failure or
similar hazards?
Discussion: The Bay Area is a seismically active region with faults characterized by right- lateral, strike -slip movements
(movement is predominately horizontal). The major active faultstin this area are the San Andreas (approximately`8 miles north),
and the Rodgers Creek faults (approximately 23 miles east). Other faults in the vicinity include the Tolay fault however,
recent studies indicate this is not an active fault. The ^site is not located within a presently designated Alq`uist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential' for earthquake - induced ground failure from soil liquefaction at the site is considered
low.
•
The project is an'in -fill development: Theproject4illnot resultAin "unstable earth or geologic conditions, The project will result in
minor changes in topography. or ground surface relief features; however, these changes are not considered to "be significant in
scope and will not adversely impact the environment.' The site contains expansive soils; however, all ,ffoundations will be
engineered and constructed to success in this condition, as was the ,case with most east side. residences. The creek and the;
within the creek setback will be maintained in. its current. status or improved by way' of removing.exotic and. planting
native tree canopy species. The project will not result, in destru"ction'or covering of any geologic ;features,, result in changes or
erosion to water channels or'water bodies, or expose people to any, geologic .hazards not typically associated with this region.. The
project site is relatively flat. Existing drainage patterns, maybe altered with,,grading, but any modifications are subject to review
by the City and :Sonoma .County Water Agency: The level of impervious surfaces will remain fairly constant with homes
replacing; greenhouses.
Landscaping will be installed to help :mitigate erosion at the site. The Site Plan Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
Will review the landscape plans for the location, size, type` and species of plant material tube installed.. The applicant will be,
required to submit foundation and structural designs' for the proposed structures to demonstrate compliance wittl all.
requirements of "the Uniform Building Code: Additionally,, the review of grading, public improvement& and, erosion control
plans by the Engine&ing,Division will mitigate any impacts to soil erosion that may result from•the proposed construction..
With the application of the City's standard mitigation measures such as those that follow these4mpacts would be short- terra.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit building permit, or.approval of an irriprove;nent or Final Map the Applicant
shall provide a Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared, by a registered professional civil engineer for
review and approval of the City Engineer'and Chief Building Official! in accordance' with the Subdivision :Ordinance and
Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. Tfie soils'report•shall address site specific soil conditions'(i:e. highly expansive
soils) and include recommendation for: site preparationfand foundation and soil engineering design; pavement
design; utilities, roads, bridges and structures.
Final project improvement and grading plans shall be prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer (P.E ); and
accepted by City staff prior to Final Map : approval. The plans sh all 'be prepared in compliance with the Cily of
Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion, Control Ordinance. A comprehensive 'erosion control
plan.shall be prepared, paying special attention to prevention of increased discharge control. plan;required above shall
include :measures such as: a). restricting grading 'to the non- rainy season; b) protecting storm drainage outlets from
erosion and siltations c) use of silt fencing, and straw wattles to retain sedimeriCon •the project site or :Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as, recommended by the Regional 'Water Quality Control, Board (RWQCB). Required
improvements shall be reflected on plans submitted:in conjunction with .the project's improvement drawings and shall
be reviewed and approved bythe Planning Director and the City En prior to Final Map ;approval:. Prior to- City
acceptance, all public improvements shall' be subject to inspection - by City staff for compliance with the approved
Public Improvement Plans, construction permits and' project' ntigation measures /conditions of approval. All public
and/or private improvements shall be subject'fo inspection by City staff for compliance with the approved Improvement
Plans, prior to City acceptance:
All construction activities shall comply with the Uniforin Building Code regulations, for seismic `safety (i.e reinforcing
perimeter and/or'load'bearing wall's, bracing parapets, etc.). 'Foundation and structural design - for building&shall conform
Page 6
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 7
1 ]
.Potentially
Less than .
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
to the requirements'of the Uniform Building Code, as well as state and local;laws /ordinances: Construction plans shall be
subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be
subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved
improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
4. Air. Would the project:
a: Conflict. with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially' to an existing,or.projected air quality
violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an`applicable, federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including.releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thesholds for ozone precursors)?
• d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e'. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
X
X
X
04
04
Discussion: Temporary short-term increases in:exhaust emissions and dust would result from the use of construction equipment.
However, with the application of the City's standard. mitigation measures (such as watering graded.surfaces to reduce dust and
shutting down vehicles when not :in use), these impacts would be short-term. Per City" requirement, the project would
incorporate only gas- burning fireplaces or approved wood - burning fireplaces with ,a low particulate per hour rating as
described in Ordinance 1881 effective on April'2, 1992.
Per City requirement, the applicant shall incorporate the following Best Management Practices into the construction and
improvement plans and. shall,clearly these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor' shall incorporate
these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit ftigitive dust and exhaust emissions during
construction.
Grading and construction: equipment operated during construction activities shall be properly mufflered and maintained
to minimize enissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use.
■ Exposed soils shall be 'watered a minimum of twice daily during construction. The frequency of watering shall be
increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
■ The construction site shaltprovide a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction
entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the
vicinity of .the project shall be routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction
vehicles.
• ■ During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to
reduce dust. emissions.
Page 7
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 8
Poictitially
Less than
Less;Than
No
Significant
Significant-
Signcant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation.
Impact
Measures.
Post- construction re- vegetation repaving or soil. stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in
, a timely mariner
according to the approved Erosion and. Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of
improvements or i'ssuance,of Certificate of Occupancy:
Applicant 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'gfadingpermits.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
5. Hydrolo and Water Quality Would the project`
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete ; groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater', recharge such that there
would be a net deficitin aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local gr level (e.g., the production
rate of.pre- existinng nearby wells would. drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been, granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the +site
orr, area, including through the alteration of the,course of a
stream orriver in'a manner which would result
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- 'site?
d. Substantially,alter'the existing:drainage�pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of course of a
stream,or.river, or substantially.increasethe rate or
amount of surface'runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding`on- or off- site?
e. Create or contribute. runoff water which would,exceed
the capacity existing :or planned stormwater: drainage:
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantiallydegrade water
& Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary orFlood•.
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. 'Place within a 100 7 year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose,people or structures to ,a significant risk loss, .
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the1ailure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
•
Discussion: Only Capri Creek and the °area within the creek setback are within a floodplain No developtmerivwill occur within
the creek setback except a pedestnan/bicycle path and associated amenities'sucIh as benches; which is consistent with other creek
Page 8
Project Name: Gatti. Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 9
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Measures
enhancements in the Corona Ely Specific Plan : area. The course of the stream will not be altered but will be left in its existing state
with the exception of the removal of non- native introduced ornamental trees in poor health and their replacement with native
species. The project would not result in alteration to the course of floodwaters, affect ground water, or expose people to water
related hazards. No change to the existing water or sewer service or capacity will be created as a result of this proposal as these
services are already available at the site and have been anticipated by the General Plan. The runoff that will be created by the
proposal can be handled by the additioniof storm drain inlets that will connect to the existing drainage system or discharge into
Capri Creek. The proposal will not deplete,groundwater supplies, interfere with the existing-groundwater tables or contaminate
the groundwater. In fact, an existing'.well drilledand used by Gatti Nursery, if not used by the City to irrigate the nearby park
until it is served by tertiary - recycled water (purple pipe), would pump only enough water to maintain the pond, less water than
is currently pumped. The proposal would not result in a significant addition in runoff as much of the site is now covered with
greenhouses and other non - pervious surfaces.
A hydrological study was submitted by'Riecher, Spence & Associates and it,calculated that a 100 -year flood would be contained
within the creek channel. The City contracted with Klienfelder, Inc. to provide;peer review of the hydrological work. Kleinfelder
found the hydrological work to be adequate and recommends that the conclusions of the study be accepted.
The project may change existing drainage patterns. However, these will not be significant alterations as all hydrologic, hydraulic,
and storm drain system design shall be'subjectto review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and the
City Engineer. No lot -to -lot drainage shall be permitted unless private storm drain easements are created to collect rear yard
surface water runoff. Surface runoff shall be addressed within each individual lot, and then conveyed to an appropriate storm
drain system.
In accordance with requirements set by the State Water Resources Control. Board, the applicant would prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest state requirements to be implemented throughout project construction and
operation. The Applicant shall complete and submit an NOI and appropriate filing fee to the SWCB. The applicant shall file a
Notice of Termination (NOT) with the SWRCB' upon project completion. The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and
approval as well as compliance with SWPPP by the 'Engineering Division prior to approval of improvement plans, final map or
issuance of grading or building permits: City inspectors shall inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to
acceptance of improvements. The SWPPP shall comply with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements and include the following as appropriate:
Provision for vegetated streamside, buffer areas separating formal landscape and developed areas from creek channels
and drainage ways. The stream buffer zone shall be landscaped with.native plant species to filter and absorb sediment
and chemical constituents and provide -a zone for rainfall infiltration next to the creek channel.
All drainage improvement plans:'sl all include installation of permanent signs (concrete stamps. or equivalent) at each
storm drain inlet. The sign- afeach inlet shall read "No Dumping, Flows To The Petaluma River" or equivalent, and
shalL.be installed atahe time of construction and verified prior to acceptance of public improvements or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
All construction activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the sediment and/or pollutant entering directly or
indirectly into the storm drain system or ground water. The applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the
construction., plans and specifications, to .be verified by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of grading
or building permits.
The applicant shall designate on the improvement plans construction staging areas and areas for the storage of any
hazardous materials (i.e., motor oil, fuels, paints, etc.) to be used during construction. All construction staging areas
shall be. located away from any drainage areas to prevent runoff from construction areas from entering into the
drainage system. Areas designated for storage of hazardous materials shall include proper containment features to
prevent contamination from entering drainage areas in the event of a spill or leak:
No debris, soil, sand, cement, or washing thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum
products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All discarded material
including washings and any accidental spills shall be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal site. The
Page 9
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 1
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Ivleasu "res
applicant shall designate appropriate disposal methods and/or facilities on the construction plans or in the
specifications.
•
No heavy ,equipment shall be operated in any live creek channel. The creek channel shall be protected with orange
construction fence along the -top of bank or five feet outside of tree canopies whichever is more restrictive.
Replacement of the non- native and inappropriate,(for'the riparian area) Monterey cypress, African sumac; and Italian
stone piries: and the location of one or more bridges" §Ball be .the only in- stream channet work, shall be limited to' the
dry season, and shall be performed in accordance with conditions specified by the Department of Fish and Game;in'a
Strearribed Alteration Agreement. The applicativshall provide copy of the approved Streambed._Alteration Agreement
and proof of corripliance with the perm_ it' conditions prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of grading
permits for work within any channel.
Pesticides land fertilizers shall not be applied, to public landscape areas during the rainy .season {O,ctober. l st -April
1'5th). The applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices regarding ,pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to
Integrated Pest., Management techniques: The applicant shall be required, when pesticide/heibic'ide use - occurs., to post
appropriate signs warning pedestrians.
The Applicant shall be ,subject to the payment of the City's Storm Drainage Impact Fee ; , Drainage ; Impact Fees shall be
calculated at the time of Final Map approval and a. fair share portion shall be paid for each ,residential unit prior to - . final
inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mitigation- Measures/Monitorine N/A
6. Biolooical'Resources Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate sensitive, or special status species inlocal
or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the
California Department ofTish and Game or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect'ori any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in,local, or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, pool,
coastal, etc.) ihrough,direct removal, filling; hydrological'
interruption, orother means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement iof any native
resident or migratory fish of <or with
established native residenfor migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife- nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or.ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as. >a tree preservation.policy:or
ordinance.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Ll
Page l o
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 11
ry `•
Potentially
Less than,
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion: Zander Associates conducte.d a.Biological Resources Reconnaissance,on the project. The reconnaissance found that
the conditions of the pond and creek 'make it Highly °unlikely that any of the three special= status animals recorded in ponds and
aquatic habitats in the greater Petaluma area, the California red - legged frog the California tiger salamander, and the western pond
turtle, could successfully become established on this site. The pond is an artificially excavated re servoir on high ground isolated
from any watercourse and supplied by pumped ,groundwater. The pond is exposed,and:does not support well - developed aquatic or
woody bank vegetation that could provide. cover for red- legged frogs or pond turtles, not would the adjacent developed nursery
property provide suitable retreat opportunities for, the California tiger salamander. Finally, the pond supports a population of bass
that would pose a serious threat to successful species; establishment. Also, the absence of sustained flows in the creek, its lack of
well - developed cover and its isolation and. distance; (from the Petaluma River make, this, reach of Capri Creek less than an ideal
migration corridor. The Zander's study does state that if site construction is scheduled'to'coninience during the spring or early
summer months, a qualified biologist should be check the larger cypress trees in the urban separator land to °ensure that no active
raptor nest will be disturbed. A mitigation measure has been added to require this.
The California Department of Fish and Game regulates all the vegetation from the channel bottom to the upper bank area as
riparian habitat and, as such, it is considered a,special status habitat. This habitat area will be protected as no homes or roads will
be built within this area. Additionally, a creek setback of 70 feet from the creek centerline will be deeded to ,the City of Petaluma
with nothing to impede the area from serving as;a migratory wildlife corridor. The riparian habitat potential of the narrow portion
of the site adjacent to Sonoma Mountain Pa' y p removal of the gravel access road which is
y Parkway will be improved the,r parian habitat potential will be increased by the
• currently as close as 15 feet to the center line of the creek. Additionally,
removal of the non- native, inappropriately located, and unhealthy trees alongthe: creel(as recommended by the tree evaluation
prepared by Macnair & Associatestend, the City' Arborist and the replanting of native riparian species such as big leaf maple
and southern live oak. Thus there would be no direct impact to Capri Creek as a result of this project because the special status
riparian habitat will be avoided by respecting the approximately 1.22 -acre creek setback area.
The man -made pond and the well that serves it will remain and be dedicated to the City as they are located on the urban
separator land. Adjacent to the pond, the'Japanese loquats and,Monterey cypress with symptoms of,'cypress canker disease will
be removed as recommended by the tree evaluation prepared by Macnair & Associates and the City Arborist but this is not
expected to adversely affectthe pond.
The City contracted with Klierifelder, Inc' to provide peer review of the biological resources reconnaissance and tree evaluation. It
is Kleinfelder's opinion that the assessments were conducted appropriately and were sufficient to identify the presence of
wetlands or special status species were they present.
While the City's policy is to preserve trees wherever possible, at this site there are no native trees and the existing, trees are
diseased, unhealthy, and/or unsuitabilit y for.
: the location in which they are planted. For these reasons, the City Arborist
'
recommends removing these trees on site and replanting them with appropriate species.
There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation. Plan, or other local, regional,. or state habitat
conservation plan that exists ;for Petaluma, which would regulate the proposed development on, this parcel. Review of the Open
Space Lands Map of the- Petalurr - General Plan Technical Appendix indicates that the site is not designated open space. The
project is an in -fill site within an urbanized'area surrounded by existing residential uses to the northwesterly, City owned property
soon to be a park to. the southwesterly, the Petaluma campus of the Santa Rosa Junior College to the southeasterly and county
land outside the'urban growth'boundary to the northeasterly.
The residential development of the site will not be a significant impact as that portion of the site is now developed with
greenhouses and other infrastructure. New landscaping is proposed as a part of the proposed facility. The type, location, size, and
species of the landscaping to be installed will be reviewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
Page 11
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. T,SM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 1
Potentially.
Less than
Less'Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Measures
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin :
Prior to commencement of grading or construction beginning during, the ,spring or early summer :months,, a qualified
biologist shall check the larger cypress, trees to ensure that:, no active raptor nest will be disturbed. if `active nests are
observed, appropriate setbacks from the trees: or modified scheduling shall be established,
Noise Would the projectxesult in;
a. Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoise:levels in.
excess of standards established in,the local general plan
or noise °ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation,of excessive
groundborne or groundborne noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
'in the projecvvicinity above level's ; existing without the
project?
d., A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise'levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without -the' project ?'
e. For a;project located with n land use plawor,
where.such a plan1as adopted, within two miles
of public airport or public use airport, would.the'project
expose people residing or working-in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f. For a,pr "oje_ct within the vicinity of:a private airstrip
would the project expose people residing'or'working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
•
Discussion: Temporary increase in noise ,levels, would occur' 4i", construction.due to the use. of heavy construction equipment. .
However,'this:noise.would' be short =term and:temporary, An alteration,in'the type of noises.occurring I atahe site would occur with,
the residential development of this;site. With residential deve'lopmentthe noises would be attributable <to itypital residential type
activities and therefore =generally compatible with the adjacent residential, open space, park, and''educational uses.
This site is within the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan area prepared by ,Coffman Associates, Inc. dated
January 2001.. However, the site is not within their referral are any of their „designated zones and therefore'no special measures; I.
are recommended by. the Plan.
Standard conditions of approval: include that:
■ All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance �Standards:in the Petaluma Zoning;Ordinance, and
Municipal Code.
■ All construction equipment powered by internal combustion equipment shall be `properly muffled and maintained to
minimize noise., Equipment shall be turned off when not in use
res'id htiae.
etc., shall
ment shall
Construction. maintenance, storage, and staging areas for construction equipment shall avoid proximity to
areas to the maximum extent practicable. Stationary construction. equipment, such as� compressors,, mixers,
be placed away from_ residential areas and/or provided' with acoustical shielding. Quiet construction equip
be used. when possible.
Page_ 12
U
IA
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 13
•
Mitigation Measures/Monitorin�
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant.
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
X
a. All construction activities shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction shall be
prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays and all holidays recognized 'by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first
secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. There will be no start up of machines nor
equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through, Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor
past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 5 :30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plans
submitted for City permits shall include the language above.
b. A fair disclosure covenant shall:.be recorded on the title of each property and,shall reference the noises associated with
the soon to be built adjacent Sonoma Mountain Parkway (possibility called Gatti Park).
c. Prior to issuance of a building/,grading ' the applicant shall designate a Project Manager with authority to
implement the mitigation measures and who will be responsible for responding to any complaints from the
neighborhood. The Project Manager shall determine the cause of noise complaints (e.g. starting too early, faulty muffler,
etc.) and shall take prompt action to correct the problem.
8. Visual Quality and Aesthetics Would'the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially.damage',scenic resources including, but not
• limited to, trees, rock,outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the'existingvisual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion: The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic; resource or which requires scenic protection. No healthy,
native trees would be impacted :and no rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the site. Many non - native trees (such as
Japanese loquats, African sumac, and Italian stone pines) which provide greening and seven mature Monterey cypress which
are an attractive and tall trees visible along the east portion of the creek shall be removed. However, these are all non- native,
diseased, or unhealthy trees which were recommended for removal by in the Arborists Report by MacNair & Associates 1. and by
the City's Park Maintenance Supervisor /CityArborist because of their ill- health, unsuitability for the location in which they are
planted, or so that native species may be reintroduced along the creek. Native species such as'big leaf maples and live oak that
will provide, tree canopy over port ions'of the creek are being proposed to replace the removed species. Site landscaping is
also proposed which will help screen and green the proposed project.
Consistent with the Corona. Ely Specific Plan, site amenities such as Capri Creek and the urban separator lands shall be preserved,
thus protecting the,existing visual character of the site. Access to.Capri Creek shall be improved byway of a creek side path, thus
enhancing visual access to this resource-Access to the urban separator shall exist for the first time as it will transfer from private to
public ownership and a path,will be constructed. Site improvements are•proposed which will help tie the proposed project in with
the neighborhood such as sidewalks ° and the creek side and urban separator paths. Architectural details, landscaping plans, and
detailed site plans shall be subject to review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, prior to issuance of building
permits. Review by'SPARC will serve to protect the existing visual character and .quality of the site and its surroundings. The
"applicant has submitted,Planned Unit District Guidelines for the project. These guidelines will also be subject to final review
and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
The project would have lighting typical of any residential use and would not increase light in the area such that it creates a hazard.
Proposed outdoor lighting �in conjunction with development shall include design measures to reduce private light impacts such. as
Page 13
X
X
X
X
Discussion: The site is not located in an area designated as a scenic; resource or which requires scenic protection. No healthy,
native trees would be impacted :and no rock outcroppings or historic buildings exist on the site. Many non - native trees (such as
Japanese loquats, African sumac, and Italian stone pines) which provide greening and seven mature Monterey cypress which
are an attractive and tall trees visible along the east portion of the creek shall be removed. However, these are all non- native,
diseased, or unhealthy trees which were recommended for removal by in the Arborists Report by MacNair & Associates 1. and by
the City's Park Maintenance Supervisor /CityArborist because of their ill- health, unsuitability for the location in which they are
planted, or so that native species may be reintroduced along the creek. Native species such as'big leaf maples and live oak that
will provide, tree canopy over port ions'of the creek are being proposed to replace the removed species. Site landscaping is
also proposed which will help screen and green the proposed project.
Consistent with the Corona. Ely Specific Plan, site amenities such as Capri Creek and the urban separator lands shall be preserved,
thus protecting the,existing visual character of the site. Access to.Capri Creek shall be improved byway of a creek side path, thus
enhancing visual access to this resource-Access to the urban separator shall exist for the first time as it will transfer from private to
public ownership and a path,will be constructed. Site improvements are•proposed which will help tie the proposed project in with
the neighborhood such as sidewalks ° and the creek side and urban separator paths. Architectural details, landscaping plans, and
detailed site plans shall be subject to review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, prior to issuance of building
permits. Review by'SPARC will serve to protect the existing visual character and .quality of the site and its surroundings. The
"applicant has submitted,Planned Unit District Guidelines for the project. These guidelines will also be subject to final review
and approval by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee.
The project would have lighting typical of any residential use and would not increase light in the area such that it creates a hazard.
Proposed outdoor lighting �in conjunction with development shall include design measures to reduce private light impacts such. as
Page 13
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001', REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 1
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
:Significant.
Impact
Impact
w(Mitigation
Impact.
Measures
no floodlights, only low profile light standards and /or'wall.mounted lights, lights attached to buildings shall- provide. a "soft wiish"
of light.against:the wall-, no direct glare, no pole mounted.lights, etc. Plans; submitted for Site Plan itectura_J Review shall
incorporate 'lighting plans, which reflect the location and design of'!all - proposed street and other exterior :lighting proposed sand
conform to City Performance Standards.
Mitigation' Measures/MonitorinQ N/A
9. Hazards & Hazardous,Maferials Would the,project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public'ortle
environment through the routine transport; use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create,a signif canfliazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accidentconditions involving the release.of hazardous
materials - into the environment?
C. Emit` hazardous . emissions or handle hazardous.or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be,located on a,site which is included on ,a list:o_ f
hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a:significant hazard;to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project' located within an airport !land..use plan or,
where such;a plan has' not been adopted, within`two miles
of,a public airport or public use airport, would the project
resukin a safety liazard.forpeople working in
the project area?
f. Fora project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project resultin.a safety hazard, for people
residing or'working in the project area?
g. Impair implententation of or'physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation.plan?
h. Expose people or structures to:a significant risk of loss,
injury ovdeath involving wildland fires, `including where
wildlands are adjacent:twurbanized areas or where
residences areeintermixed with wildlands?
•
01
Discussion: The site was a hay growing pasture for most of the, recorded history of the property, In approximately 1.980 the
property was developed,as part.of a commercial nursery operation in which- ornamental 'housePlarits were propagated. A Phase 1
Environmental. Site Assessment was. conducted by Harris_ & Lee Environmental Sciences in conformance with , the scope and
limitations of ASTM Standard of Practice E'152 in March o0002. This assessment revealed no:Recognized'Environmental
Condition in connection with the property as defined bythe ASTM. •
The propo sed project would not create a risk of an explosion or the release !of hazardous substances: including but not limited to
oil, pesticides; smoky chemical's, or radiation, in the event of an accident. The project will -not interfere with emergency
Page 14
PtojectName: Gatti'SUbdivision ' File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 15
•
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Ampact
w/Mitigation
Impact
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b.
Measures
service standard; established by the county congestion
evacuation plans, create potential lealth'hazards, or result in an increase in fire hazards due to flanunable brush, grass or trees. No
storage of chemical or hazardous materials is anticipated with the use of this site :, Except during construction when equipment
may be used requiring various types o f fuel, the project does not involve hazardous substances.
The project is located within two :rifles of an airport and within an airport land use, plan. However, the airport land use plan
requires that planes turn north toward'the: county land and not toward the city.. Thus, planes are required to tarn 'away from the
subject site. For this reason, the safety hazard forpeople residing in the project area appears to be less than significant.
During construction, the applicant shall comply with all existing Federal and State safety regulations related to the transport, use,
handling, storage, and/or disposal of potentially hazardous substances. A. Sto mwater Pollution Prevention Plan. (SWPPP) that
will include specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to hazardous materials will be implemented during construction.
For construction activities involving storage, of chemicals or hazardous materials�on =site, the applicant shall file a declaration form
with the Fire Marshal's office and shall obtain hazardous materials storage permit.
If hazardous materials are to be used or stored on -site, the applicant shall prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for approval by
the Fire Marshal. The RMP shall include the;following as appropriate:
The applicant shall provide for proper containment within storage areas for hazardous materials and shall maintain
emergency equipment and supplies, as specified by the Fire Marshal, to address any spills or leaks from the facilities.
■ The applicant shall identify any potentially hazardous substances or contamination existing on -site and shall provide for
proper treatment, removal,.'and disposal during construction.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
10. Transportation
/Traffic Would the-project:
a.
Cause an increase in.traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in asubstantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b.
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard; established by the county congestion
management ,agency'fordesignated`roads or highways?
C.
Resultin a change in- air 'traffic patterns, including either
an increase m traffic levels or a change in location that
results insubstantial safety risks?
d.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e.
Result,in inadequate emergency access?
f.
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g.
Conflict with policies, plans or programs
supporting-alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Page 15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 15
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 1
Potentially.
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
lmpact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures.
Discussion; As part of the project. submittal the applicant provided a traffic impact study prepared by Whitlock & Weinbe:rger
Transportation Inc. (W=Trans) dated December 2002. -
Existing Conditions
The five intersections of Sonoma Mountain :Parkway /Junior College,, Sonoma Mountain ;Parkway /Shopping Center entrance
Sonoma Mountain_ Parkway/Riesling Road, 'Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Ely Road- Colombar-d Road, and Riesling :Road/Casella
Court were studied. All. intersections are currently operating; acceptably at LOS (Level of Service) C or better, d ingthe a.m. and
p.m. peak periods.
Project Trip Generation
The project is anticipated to generate,an average of 772, new daily vehicle trips including 60 new trips during the morning peak
hourand 78 new trips, during the,evening peak hour.
•
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon addition of the project- generated traffic, all of the study intersections are expected continue operatingat.acceptable levels
of service (LOS)'.
The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Junior College'is 'anticipated to continue operating at.LOS`B, during the a.m. and
p.rrL peak periods.
The intersection of Sonoma Mountain;Parkway /Shopping Center entrance,(west bound right) :is anticipated to continue operating.
at LOS A during the a.m. and p :m. peak periods.
-
The intersection of Sonoma Mountain,,Parkway/Riesling Road is anticipated to go from, LOS B to an, LOS' C :for the a.m. peak
period (as a result of the average delay going 'from 193 seconds to 20:1 seconds) and the continued operation;of LOS B fo:r the
P.m. peak periods.
The intersection of Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Ely Road- Colombard Road is anticipated to continue operating. at LOS C during -,�
the a.m. and p.m. peak periods.
The intersection of Riesling periods..
Court is anticipated to continue operating at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. 'peak
periods.
The study also found that traffic volumes on -the local;residential streets including Sestri;Lane,.Casella Court, and Yo kshire Road
are expected to .remain; below or near 1,000 vehicles per day with the addition of the project. This amount of traffic ,is b glow
thresholds for acceptable traffic volumes on "livable"' streets, which are generally consIidered have:no greaterthan 1,500 ADT.
Future' Conditions
The future: conditions show no deviation in expected level of service with.or without the;project:
Recommendations
• A pedestrian warning sign should be added. at the Riesling, Road mid -block crossing for westbound traffic. The sign
should be installed in the, existing median so as to be more visible to through traffic; on Riesling Road. This
recommendation is for. an improvement to an existing.neighborhood condition and shall be included as a condition of
project approval.
This study was peer reviewed 'by - the City's contract Transportation`Engineer, Walter Laabs of TJKM'Consultants. It, was Mr:
Laabs determination that the analysis of existing plus' project traffic conditions was completed. in, accordance with staridard
practice. He concurred`with,the conclusions and recommendations of the.'traff c impact analysis.
The project would not result in-a' change in air traffic patterns, substantially increased hazards due_ to a design feature or
incompatible uses, orresult'in inadequate emergency access.
Four on- site (two garage and two driveway) =parking spaces would be provided for each single- family,'dwelling; and two on -site
(garage) parking spaces would'be provided for eachtown -home Additionally, over 100 on- street spaces are provided.
Therefore, inadequate parking capacity is not expected to be a significant impact.
Petaluma Transit. Service.: and Golden Gate Transit provide public transit service, to the site. Petaluma Transit; Route 3 operates
along Sonoma' Mountain Parkway near Riesling Road and provides access ,to.downtown Petaluma. Golden,Gate'Transit Route '76
age ,16
r
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 17
All
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
operates on Sonoma Mountain Parkway and' provides access between kohnert Park and San Francisco. These transit routes
provide increased freedom to those residences that do not drive' as well as alternatives to. residences that do. The Class II bike
lane in the form of six -foot concrete aprons on Sonoma Mountain Parkway' provides further transportation alternatives to
residents.
The project shall be subject to the, City's Special Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation. Traffic Mitigation Fees shall be
calculated at time of a building permit and shall be due and payable before final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
In March 2000, the City Council adopted the City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan and Map as an amendment to the City's General
Plan Circulation Element. The Plan states thatthe City shall route development plans, to the Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PBAC), allowing consideration of bicycle /pedestrian issues. The P_BAC reviewed the proposed project
and had specific recommendations which. were that the applicant shall: make Road D a greenway /multi -use bike /pedestrian
trail, provide bike racks by the bus !shelter on Sonoma Mt. Parkway, minimize the width, of the creek side roadway, provide a
multi -use path on the urban separator ,corinecting to the existing path on one , end and crossing the creek via a bridge on the
other end, provide benches along the "urban separator path, not construct any fences along the creek, install creek side
landscaping in keeping with the landscaping currently being done by SRJC, create a. cul -de -sac on Road C and Road B with
pedestrian and bicycle access to Capri Creek, Yorkshire and Castella Way, provide bicycle /pedestrian access on Private Road
E from Castella Way to Yorkshire Road, open the public access conditioned in. Capri Creek Apartments development along
Private Road E and Yorkshire Road ` " maintain - a substantial setback from Road D to the creek, provide a Class I path along the
entire project adjacent to the creek;-Provide, 3 bridges - one at Cassella Court; one at Yorkshire and one at the urban separator
path, provide obvious and easy bike /pedestrian access along Gatti Park to access the G &G Market, provide secured bike
• parking for allsesidents, rename Road D "Capri,Creek Greenway, provide signs on Sonoma Mountain Parkway identifying the
creek path and the connection to the urban separator path, provide no lighting that creates a direct glare into cyclist/pedestrian
eyes, and use pesticides /herbicides only utilizing Best Management Practices: Staff will include these and other
recommendations as possible conditions of approval for review and approval by the Planning Commission/City Counil/Site
Plan and Architectural Committee'. Thus, the project would comply with the adopted policies, plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
11. Public Services Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse' physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental .facilities,.need °for.new or physically
alteredagovernmental facilities, the construction ofwhich
could cause, ,signif cant environmental impacts, in order
to, maintain' "acceptdble Vice ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
® Other public facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
Discussion: The development is proposed to occur in an area that is urbanized, developed and served by a variety of public
services. Additional fire and.police service calls may occur as a result of this,proposal,, but no more so than would be expected
based on the 'General Plan designation. Increased usage of the soon to be developed park tentatively call Gatti Park may be
Page 17
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No_ TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 1
Potentially
Less - than
Less.TMn
No
Significant
Significant, .
Significant
Impact
Impact
w%Mitigation
Impact
Measures
expected,,but development of this project will also °result in I.A2. acres being added to the park as well as the provision of new
open s ace interim of the 1.22-'acre creek corridor and the 4.3 acre urban . separator land., Furthermore, theimpact to: other
goveinmental,services and public facilities would
be minimal as.a result of this proposal. The applicant will be,re g uired to paythe
applicable development fees that are assigned to other pro posals, "to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ,to address the
incremental impact that the proposal presents to all public services.
Mitigation Measures7Monitoring N/A
12. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks of other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does, , 'the projectinclude recreational facilities or require
theYconstruction or expansion,of recreational facilities
which °might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
0
Discussion: The subject:property was not formally used'for recreation. The proposed residences are expected`to iMcrease the
use of existing, neighborhood and regional parks, However, the proposed 'project will increase the area - of the adjaicent
neighborhood park by 1.12 -acres and provide new open space in terms of the 1.22 -acre creek corridor and the 4.3 ,acre urban
separator land. 'It is not expected that these facilities will have any adverse .physical effect on the environment 'Also:, thele
applicant will, be required to pay the applicable park fees, that are assigned'to °all proposals prior 'to':issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy to address the incremental impact to,,park usage.
' Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
13. Utilities Infrastructure Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment,,requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Qiality.Control,Board?
b. Require or result: in the construction of, new water Or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion :of existing.
facilities, the construction of 'which could cause
significant environmental effects?
C. Require or result in the construction,of new storm4ater
drainage facilities or:expansionrofexisting facilities the.
construction of which could cause;significant
environmental =effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve. the
project from existing entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination.by thewastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the'project'saprojected demand .
in addition,to °the provider's existih&conunitments?
f. Be served'by a landfill with sufficient perrrtitted capacity
to accommodate the, prcjectis solid waste disposal needs?
Page: 18
X:
X
0
Discussion: The subject:property was not formally used'for recreation. The proposed residences are expected`to iMcrease the
use of existing, neighborhood and regional parks, However, the proposed 'project will increase the area - of the adjaicent
neighborhood park by 1.12 -acres and provide new open space in terms of the 1.22 -acre creek corridor and the 4.3 ,acre urban
separator land. 'It is not expected that these facilities will have any adverse .physical effect on the environment 'Also:, thele
applicant will, be required to pay the applicable park fees, that are assigned'to °all proposals prior 'to':issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy to address the incremental impact to,,park usage.
' Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
13. Utilities Infrastructure Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment,,requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Qiality.Control,Board?
b. Require or result: in the construction of, new water Or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion :of existing.
facilities, the construction of 'which could cause
significant environmental effects?
C. Require or result in the construction,of new storm4ater
drainage facilities or:expansionrofexisting facilities the.
construction of which could cause;significant
environmental =effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve. the
project from existing entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination.by thewastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the'project'saprojected demand .
in addition,to °the provider's existih&conunitments?
f. Be served'by a landfill with sufficient perrrtitted capacity
to accommodate the, prcjectis solid waste disposal needs?
Page: 18
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002
•
g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to. solid waste?
Paae 19
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w/Mitigation
Impact
Measures
Discussion: Development of the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment .requirements established by the
RWQCB. The site is already served by Pacific Gas & Electric and will have adequate' water and sewer service. The City's
treatment plant has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional flow anticipated froin the proposed development. The
proposed project is an inf ll site and would ,require extensions of existing service .lines to provide water, sewer, natural gas,
electric, and storm drain utilities to the new residences. This extension is consistent with the service needs expected by the
General Plan.
The proposed development will comply with all federal, state, and local requirements for solid waste reduction and recycling.
Empire Waste. Management, Inc. will provide solid waste disposal services to the proposed,project site. Solid waste from the
general area is transported to the Sonoma County Central Landfill, which has sufficient - capacity, to adequately handle all solid
waste generation projections in.the City of Petaluma until the year 2014.
To minimize impacts on landfill capacity, .the project will include the following:
• Construction and demolition debris recycling to the maximum extent feasible and
• Residential interiors designed.to accommodate recycling containers.
All new 'development approved within the City shall connect to the City's sewer and water system. The applicant or
subsequent owner/builder shall be responsible for _the payment of Sewer and Water °Connection fees to offset impacts on City
utilities. Water and sewer connections, fees are calculated at time of building. permit, issuance, and are due and payable prior to
final inspection, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or connection to the City's utility system.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
14. Mineral Resources Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents or the state?
b. Result in.the loss of availability of a locally- important
mineral resource recovery'size delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
V1
Discussion: There is no information about this site from the General Plan or additional studies, which indicates that this site has
never been known to be a,m neral resource.
Mitigation measi res/Monitorin>? N/A
15. Cultural Resources Would,the project:
a. Cause a substantial; adverse change in the significance of
a historical,resource'as.defined in §15064.5?
b. Causeaa substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
Page 19
X
X
X
X
Project Name Gatti.Subdivision File No. TSM 02001., REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 2
Potentially
Less than
Less Than.
No
Significant
Significani
Sig ant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
outside of formal cemeteries?
•
Discussion: No prehistoric or historic- period cultural resources are known within the study area. 'The area was an, open
field. No old buildings, foundations, or other, structures were noted .within the parcel. boundaries and ,the site is, not within. a
historic district. Aerials from the i960s and earlier may indicate a :building nestled into the :group ofcypress that still exist on
the site`: This area is of the land to be dedicated to the City as urban separator lands. The orily'earthwork proposed in this
dreads the removal ofahe diseased cypress trees and native tree planting. A standard condition of approval states that should: any
a rcheological/historical remains be encountered during grading, work "shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist
shall be consulted to evaluate the and to recommend further action. The project will not, cause thanges,'which' would
affect ethnic or cultural values, affect religious uses, or result in adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a historic
archaeological resource.
Mitigation MeasuresiMbriitoring N/A
16.
Agricultural' Resources In determining whether impacts to,agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (:1'99.7)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing `impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, for Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shownon.the
m .ps;prepa "red pursuantfothe Farmland - Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
tomon- agricultural use?
b. Conflict_ with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to °iheir location or nature; could result inconversion
of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
Discussion: The =site is,not designated as Prime'Farmland, Unique Farmland,..or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), by
the Farmland. Mapping and, Monitoring Program. Portions of the area to be dedicated to the City as the urban separator. are
designated Farmland of'LocatImportance and:Other Land,;however this area is not used for agricultural purposes now nor will
itbe developed or significantly modified from'its current use. The rest of the site is designated as Urban and Built Up.
The project area is an infill site which has been designated for residential; development since 1989 bv-the Corona Ely Spf:cific
Plan and the General Plan. The current agricultural zoning is in conflict with these plans and this application includes the
request to rezone the property for residential uses that comply with the specific and general plans. Development of the site
would not conflict with existing Williamson.Act contracts..
The development of this site will not result.in the conversion of adjacent farmland as all nearby farmland is outside of the city
limit line as well as the urban growth boundary and as such is could hot, be.a „vexed into the City until at lease 2018'. County
policies severely restrictahe level of development that: could occur on this adjacent land.
Mitigation Measures/1Vlonitori : 'N /A
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes No •
a. Does the project'have: the potential.to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat fish or wildlife species', cause a fish or wildlife
Page.'20
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003, & PUD02002 Page 21
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Signifcant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the 'range °of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cuinulatively considerable" means-that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future, projects)?
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
a
Discussion: The-project with mitigation measures, would not have a significant effect on the environment, achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals, have cumulative adverse impacts,. or cause substantial adverse impacts on
human beings.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring N/A
IMPLEMENTATION:
10 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain all required permits from responsible agencies and provide , proof of
compliance to the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
2. The applicant shall incorporate all: applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions
into the design and improvement plans and specifications for the project.
3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, and agents involved in the project implementation of the
mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures
and conditions. The applicant shall notify all assigns and transfers of the same.
MONITORING:
1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions, and the Fire Department shall review the improvement
and construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes,
conditions,:mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review,
improvement plans, grading, or building permits.
2. Mitigation Measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading
pchnits and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved plans and conditions
of approval.
CONSTRUCTION:
L The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and
conditions of approval and provide a statement of his/her name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to
issuance of any grading or building permits. The applicant's statement appointing a project manager shall be
signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
2. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits
and signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
Page 21
Project Name: Gatti Subdivision File No. TSM 02001, REZ02003i & .PUD02002 Page :22
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
w /Mitigation
Impact
Measures
J
3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with the approved . plans and conditions
of approval.
POST- CONSTRUCTION;
1. The City shall retain a qualified professional to nioriitor completion of restoration plans or mitigation plans
and reports on the success criteria and management- needs.
I, L L , the project applicant „have reviewed this Initial Study and h ereby
agree to incorporate the ritigation °measures and monitoring programs identified herein into the project.
G
b5120-3
Signature o ,nnlicant /J Date
�J� 3
s: \pc\is \Gatti I.S.
•
Page 22
w�ALU City of Petaluma, California
a`• = Community Development Department
Planning_ Division.
Ab J,Sye 1 l English Street, Petaluma, CA 94052
Project Name: Gatti Nursery /Stratford Place
File Number: TSMO2002,,REZ02003, & PUD02002
Address /Location: 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway
Reporting /Monitoring Record - Mitigation Measures
This document has been developed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resource Code Section 21.081.6 to
ensure proper and adequate monitoring or reporting in, conjunction with project(§) approval which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
ONE
Biological Resources Mitigation,Measures
a. Prior to commencement of grading or construction beginning; during the spring or early
summer months, a qualified' biologist shalt. check the larger cypress, trees to assure that no
active raptor nest will be disturbed. If active nests,are observed, appropriate setbacks from
the trees or modified scheduling shall be established.
Noise: Mitigation Measures
a. All construction activities shall be limited to 7::30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday.. Construction shall be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays and all holidays
recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless ,a permit is first secured from the City
Manager. (or his /her designee) for additional hours. There will be no start up of
machines nor equipment prior to 8 :00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of
materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
no''servicing of equipment past 5,30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plans submitted for
City permits shall include the language above:
b. A• fair disclosure covenant shall be recorded on the title of each property and shall
reference the noises associated with the soon to be built adjacent park on Sonoma
Mountain Parkway (possibility called Gatti Park).
c. Prior to issuance of a building/grading permit, the applicant shall designate a Project
Manager with authority to implement the _mitigation'measures and who will be responsible
for responding to any complaints from the neighborhood. ' The Project Manager shall
determine the cause of noise complaints (e g. starting too early, faulty muffler, etc.) and
shall'take prompt action to correct the problem
t ' Department
Reguested.Bv
or Due Date Page 1
PD
Planning Division
FM
Final Map
FM
Fire Marshal
BP
Building Permit
I' ENG
Engineering
CO
Certificate of Occupancy
BD
Building Division
SPARC
Site Plan and Architectural Review`Committee
LTM
Long -Term Monitorin
City of Petaluma, California
ReportinglMonitoring.Record - •.Mitigation Measu.resfor Approval
SRN If ���d° KEQ 6V', 1 \TF
ds
i;Sllllr ��" OkDIE" tFIIS1111
{n ;
4V41 us'.
r V t
Mandatory Findings of Significance Mitigation
IMPLEMENTATION:
I . The ,applicant shall be required to obtain all required "permits from responsible agencies
and provide proof of'compliance to the City prior to issuance- of grading or building
permits.
2. The applicant. shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and :required ntigaton
measures ° and conditions into the design and improvement plans and specifications "for the
project.
1 The applicant shall notify all employees,, contractors, and agents 'involved in thie project
implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and
shall ensure comliance with such °measures and conditions. Theapplicant shalli►otify'all
assigns and _trans 1 fers of ihesame.
MONITORING:
1. The Building; Planning, and Engineering Divisions, and the Fire Department shall
review the improvemen.f and. construction plans ;for conformance with the 'appr
project description'.and all applicable codes, conditions, mitigation measures, and AW
requirements prior to :approval of a site design review, improverne nt plans,
grading, or building permits`.
2. Mitigation. measures required during construction shall be listed' as conditions on the
building or grading permits and -signed by the contractor,responsble for construction.
3. City inspectors shall.insure' that construction activities occur consistent with'the approved
plans and conditions. of approval.
CONSTRUCTION:
1. The applicant shall. designate a project. manager, with :authority to impl: .-ment all
mitigation measures and' conditions of approval and provide a statementof his/her name,
address, and phone numbers to -the City prior to issuance of any grading oz building
permits. The applicant's: statement appointing a. project manager shall be signed by the
contractor responsible fouconstruction.
2. Mitigation measures required during.,.construct on shall b.e listed as conditions on the
building orgrading permits and signed by the contractor,,responsible for construction.
3. City inspectors shall insure that construction activities occur consistent with , ih6 approved
plans and conditions of approval.
lu
Department Requested By`or.Due Date Page 2
PD Planning, Division FM Final Map.
FM Fire Marshal BP Building. Permit
ENG Engineering CO Certificate of Occupancy
BD Building Division SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM' LongJerm,Monitoring
a�.
City of Petaluma, California
�� # � �RCQiIS�lt �JDV�'tFiPh ��i�DFPT�J� �d
{���,�,UFI I C I IIOItPI F; i� 11'VltillEC I i ST1fF�l�;��
�rv��m�i I UAIP�inl ° a tllNir AL'T "li
�G
POST- CONSTRUCTION:
S Amonitori ng \Pttisubdivision.doc
1. The City shall retain a qualified professional to monitor completion of restoration plans
or mitigation plans and reports on the success criteria and management needs.
' Department
. Planning Division
'FIv1 Fire Marshal
ENG Engineering'
BD Building Division
Requested By or Due Date
FM Final Map
BP Building Permit
CO Certificate of Occupancy
SPARC Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
LTM Long -Term Monitoring
Page 3