HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/01/2004March. 1, 2004 Vol. 39, .Page 399
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to
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
`~ ~' L ~~r
aw '~
~' ®f'Petalua, C'al~fo~°~-~aa
~rg5s MEETING OF PETALUAflA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Minutes
Monday, March 1, 2004 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Cdll
Present: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt
Absent: O'Brien
Pledge of Allegiance
OATH OF OFFICE
Clark Thompson sworn in as the appointed Council Member to fill the temporary
vacancy created by Keith Canevaro.
Thee Oath of Office was administered by the City Clerk to Clark Thompson.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no .public comment.
COUNCIL COMtVIENTS
Council Member Torlidtt reported and gdve an update. on the recent Water Advisory
Committee Meeting and ihdicdted they had approved the proposed budget. She noted
she had voted "no" on the budget for two reasons° 1) the clarification regarding Park
Reclamation costs were passed out at the meeting and she did. not have adequate time
to review them; and'. 2) she had a problem with the proposed Study -and Evaluation of
the Future Water 8~ Supply Demands. for Sonoma County Water Agency as there was no
Scope of Work included.
Uice Mayor Moynihan announced. Council Member O'Brien had recent heart by-pass
surgery and was doih_g well. He 'indicated if people wanted to send "Get Well" cards to
do so through City Hall.
Vice Mayor Moynihan also noted it had been some time since the Council has reviewed
Claims- and Bills, received a Quarterly Report and that he would .like to receive a
Variance Report.
.CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
`There were none.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
T4
T5
16
17
}8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4.9
50
51
Vol. 39, Page 400
March 1, 2004
AGENDA CHANGES.AND DELETIONS (Changes to currenf agenda only).
There were none.
A. APPROVAL OF F ROPOSfD~ AGfND'A
Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council Meeting of Monday, March 15, :2004.:
MOTION to approved the proposed: Agenda for Ivlarci 15, 2004.
M/S Healy"and Moynihan:. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC COM'IVIENT
'Dorothy Bertucci, Petaluma,. addressed the City Council on behalf of the Library
Advisory Board and thanked them for°consicleration of the Petaluma Library
Meeting Roorn Expansion.
Council Member Torliatt remarked. on the monies raised by the Friends of the
Library for this project .and recommendsed theCity expend. the "City's" amount
first and "if there .are additional funds leffi over'tfat they be "returned. to'theFriends:
of the Library to support their programs.
Council Member Thompson thanked Vice Mayor Moynihan for h'is efforts toward
this project as he has served: on the" Library Advisory Board.
Council Member Torlidtt requested'Itern l.B.be"removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate discussion.
MOTION to approve the balance of the' Consent Calendar as presented. Iv1/S
Torliatt and Moynihan:
MOTION CARRIED.UNANIM'OUSLY.
A. Resolution. 2004'-021 N:C.S. Awarding Contract :for 2003 Petaluma 'Library
Meeting Room Expansion Projec# ~ 9028,2; The Estimated Project Cost':
`$160,000. Funding Sources: Sonoma County and Community Facilities.
(Skladzen/Castaldo)
B. Resolution Approving 'Termination. of the Lease_ WBth_,MaBail Company'for
the Alderwood`Well: (Ban/Nguyen)
- Removed from. the Consent Calendar for separote discussion:
C. Resolution 2004-023.NCS: Accepting Hi foric6l Museum Roof
Replacement Project'03'-3360-1. (Skladzien/Castaldo)
D. .Resolution 2004-024 N.C.S.. Declaring Vehicles- and Eguijpment Surplus fo"
the City`s: Need"s grid ..Directing th"e City Manager f.o Dispose of the
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 40'1
Vehicles and .Equipment in Accordance with Provisions of the Petaluma
2 Municipal Code. (Thomas)
3
4 E'.: Resolution :2004-025 .N.C.S. Awarding Landscape Maintenance Contract
5 to Sonoma County Tree Experts for the Pruning of Trees in the Willowglen
b Landscape Assessment district. (Anchordoguy)
7
8 F. Adoption. (Second Reading) of Ordinance 21.75. N.C.S. Incorporating
9 Recommeridatiohs Made by the Fireworks Taskforce and Amending
10 Petgluma's. Fireworks Ordinance. (Albertson)
11
12
G.
Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2176 N.C.S. to Amend Lease for
13 Mangon Aircraft, a Business Located at the Petaluma Municipal Airport.
14 (Skladzien/close)
15
16 Items Removed from Consent for Discussion:
17
18 B. Resolution: 2004.-026 N.C.S. Approving Termination of the Lease With McBail
19 Company for the Alderwood Well. (Ban/Nguyen)
20
21 Council Member Torliatt questioned. asked the reason for terminating the
22 lease wheh the City has the rights until 2027.
23
24 Staff responded that the water quality was poor and there was not much
25 capacity.
26
27 Council Member Torliatt indicated she would not be supporting this
28 request, as it doesn't cost the City anything to maintain it.
29
30 City Council discussion ensued regarding the possible need for access for
31 future wager needs and' staff conveyed that the well has not been used
32 for many years because it does not meet current Department of Health
33 Services standards for water quality. By terminating the lease, the .property
34 ownerwould then have the property rights to the well site.
35
36 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004-026 N:G.S. M/S Healy/Moynihan.
37
38 MOTION CARRIED by the following vote:
39
40 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Vice Mayor Moynihan
41 NOES: Torliatt, Mayor Glass
42 ABSENT: O'Brien
43
44 2. NEW BUSINESS
45
46 A. Introduction of Ordinance .277.7" N.C.S. Amending Petaluma Municipal
47 Code Section ~ 1.118., "Claims Against the City" to Authorize the City
48 Manager to Settle Claims for Amounts of $20,000 or Less. (Rudnansky)
49
50 City Attorney Rudnansky gave the staff report and urged Council
51 approval.
52
Vol. 39, Page 402 March 1, 2004
Council Member Harris commented he felt this would result in a snore
efficient process.
MOTION to introduce Ordinance 217.7 N:G:S. M/S Moynihan/Thompson.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
B. Resolution. 2004.-027 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, Amending the, Rotation
Tow List Franchise Agreement Eliminating Frdnehise Fees Charged to fhe.
Tow Operators for Tows Under Vehicle Code Sections 226. 51(k) and (o);,
'(Thomas%Hood)
Tim Lyons, Police Department, gave the staff report and recommended.
Council dppcoval.
MOTION to adopt Resolution 20b4-027 N.C.S. M/S Moynihan/Healy.
MOTION CARRIED U,NANIM'OUSLY.
C. .Discussion of Property Acquisition and disposition: (Bierman)
^ .Martinelli et al
^ Station l Fire House
^ Casa Grande Motel.
City Manager Mike. Bierman briefly commented on ttie .Martinelli property,
indicating that the purchase has been completed.
Vice Mayor Moynihan.. remarked: on his desire to ge"t Capital Irriprovemeht
Project information, including what the. funded sources are and what is
.being spent. He also requested, based on future development:; to -get
projected figures on the. need for, possible future water rate increases due
to increased water needs.
Council M_ ember Torliatt confirmed. with the City Manager fh.e City is on a
three-year incremental increase for water rates and that there is no .need
for discussion regarding water rdte: increases at this time.
City ,Manager Bierman continued. on .regarding the. S atio.n 1 Fire House
Relocation issue. He~ briefly commented on the issues of why sfdff is
recommending locating; Fire ;Mouse #1 to 'the Casa Grande cite, He :nofed
"the Casa Grande site remains tiffs recommendation based on reasons of
Fire Depdrtment needs, geographic preference, site. avdildbility,
economics, and City Redevelopment.
Vice Mayor Moynihan cornmerited he would like- to see the City secure
what funding they could from a developer to find a site and would prefer
the recommended options # 1 or ~2 submitted by. the .Fire Chief.
Council Member Healy :commented if the Casa Grande property is still
available, fhe City could: make the information available fo the.. public
and schedule public meetings to discuss th'e proposed relocation prior to
the decision being placed on a City- Council agenda for action.
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 403.
1
2 Council Member~Torliatt expr,.essed concern that'the relocation of Station
3 #1 to this site vvas never discussed' during th'e Central Petaluma Specific
4 Plan or General Plan :discussions and' feels making this land use decision
5 outside of that' process would be problematic. She questioned what the:
6 actual costs would be fora new Fire Station to be built, including the
7 differences from one site to another.
8
9 .`
Vice .Mayor Moynihan commented the City has a Five-Year Capital
10 Improvement Program that does,not include this project. He questioned if
1 1 Basin. Street 'was creating an impediment by building the garage so close
12 tothe current Fire Station. - ,
13
14 Chief Albertson responded that "the Fire Department would be having a
15 loss _of parking ,and storage- space for vehicles and that there will be
~ (, increased traffic at the current location,. which is problematic due to the
17 increase in the number of emergency calls.
18
19
Mayor Glass stated his support for the relocation of the Fire Station and
20 indicated he 'feels the Casa Grande site has mef its useful life. He
21 suggested the old fire station could perhaps be converted to a restaurant.
22
23 PUBLIC CONI`MfNT
24
25
Patricia. Tuttle Brown, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
26 commented she was a member of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
27 Committee. She stated -her frustration with how far this .issue has gotten
28 without public noticing of the surrounding neighborhood of the Casa.
29 Grande Motel. She pointed out that Case Grande is surrounded by low-
30 income housing and stressed the need for public input prior to making this
31 kind. of decision. She further noted the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
32 committee has never heard, about this proposal to move the Fire Station
33 to this location. She indicated if the Council goes along with this, it would
34 be as though Basin Street is dictating land use in the City. She expressed
35 her desire to have the Fire Station remain next to the parking garage, as it
36 would create a safer environment.
37
3$
City Council .discussion ensued regarding what would be done with the
39 existing structure and the City Manager noted there would be a public
40 process and proposals would be received regarding the existing Fire
41 Station site.
42
43 Council Member Healy noted-the next step should. be to host a workshop
44 regarding information on the disposition and relocation of Fire Station # 1.
45
46 Council Member Torliatt expressed the desire to hear from staff as to the
47 timeline and notification process that will be utilized.
48
49 City Manager Bierman confirmed he will work with staff and come back
50 with. the timeframes and process at the March 15, 2004 City Council
51 Meeting.
52
Vol. 39, Page 404 March 1, 2004_
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated a desire, to have:the CIP "fleshed out" and
brought back,. with information on resources; expenditures;: and funding
sources.
Council Member Thompson commented he feels it is up to the experts; to
decide where the Fire House. should, be located'. He, would ,like to see a
thorough public process once the site is established.
John Barella, North Bay Construction; noted they would be doing the
demolition., of the Casa Grande-site and~that theywould :be demolishing it
for.$75,000'-or less.. He added' after demolition the value of the property
would. be approximafely $60:.00 a. square foot"~ for the .land alone and
stressed.. that real estate: is .going up hig""her qnd higher each day.
There was no Council action taken..on .this item.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
19 A. Motion for Reconsideration of Action Taken February 2, .2004 Regarding
20 Boulevard :Apaitinents {Buckel'ew Programs) "A Request to Approve
2] Mitigated Negative DecJaratio.n; Rezone to PUD; Adopt Proposed Unit
22 Development Plan; Adopt Proposed Development Standards' fbr PUD.
23 (Gaebler) - Mofion carried - ,reconsrderation of the matter will be
24 heard at the March 15, 2004 City- Council Meeting. .
25
26 Council ,Member ,Hea/y left the ,Council Chambers at' this time.
PUBLIC CO'MNIENT
Mdry Beth.. Ray, Petalumd, :addressed, the City Council. in :opposition to the
proposed Buckelew Apgrtments, stressing that the housing is needed, but
this. is d poor choice, of location.
Torn .Fry; Petaluma, addressed the City Council in opposition. to the
proposed Buckelew Project,.
.Miguel, A. Jimenez,: Petaluma, .addressed the City Council' and inquired if
this will be a public works project.
Mayor Glass indicated the ,project would be subsidized' with :public
moriies.
11Ar. Jimenez indicated. that.. project. should be a union. project and he
would like to. see a union labor agreement.
Mayor Glass noted the discussion regarding' the project will actually fake
place at the next Council Meeting.. and would not be discussed this
evening.
March'l, 2004 Vol. 39; Page 405
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
V.icfor Chechanov.er, Petaluma; addressed the City Council and
requested that"when the item is reconsidered, it, should be reconsidered in
the evening and'it~should be a.public hearing.
Council Member Thompson noted that Council Member Healy had to
leave tiie' meeting as he was` needed at a court appearance. Council
Member Thompson continued by stating he has read all the materials
regarding this issue and indicated he will be supporting the
reconsideration: He concluded by stating h'e most likely will support the
project-when'the Council reconsiders the item next week.
Vice Mayor Moynhan~commented the denial of the project has never
been;.,an issue regarding the capabilify :of the Buckelew Program; it is a
bad land use decision. He indicated there are other locations available
that:woulci be:,more suitable,.
Council- Member ~ Harris also noted he feels this is about a decision
regarding land use.
MOTION made by Council Member Healy at the February 23, 2004 City
Council Meeting, SECONDED by Mayor Glass.
MOTION CARRIED by the follawing vote:
AYES: Thompson;;Toriidtt, Mayor Glass
NOES: Harris, Vice Mayor Moynihan
ABSENT: Healy
This. item will be reconsidered and discussed by the City Council
at their March 15, 2004 City Council Meeting.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 4:15 p.m. with the City Attorney reading
into the record the matters to be discussed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none. .
CLOSED SESSION
^ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - Pursuant to Govt. Code
§54956.9 (a)..
o Bobby Thompson vs. City of Petaluma et al (Thompson I), Sonoma County Superior
Court Case No. SCV-225677
o Bobby Thompson vs. City of Petaluma .et al (Thompson II), United States District Court
(Northern District) Action No. C03-0033 EDL
o City of Petaluma vs. Petaluma Properties, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.
SCV 226706
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL ..COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to
Litigation Pursuant to Govt. Code,§54956.9(b). - 1 matter
Vol. 39, Page 406 March 1, 2004
CONFERENCE. WITH REAL, PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8.
Property: Three parcels located dt the northeast corner of ,Lindberg Lane and Lakeville
Highway, APN'`s 05-005=020-003, -039, 040. 'Negotiating Party` Michael Bierman. Uhder
Negotiation: Price, Terms orP:aymenf, or Both..
CONFERENCES WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to. Government Code §549568.
Property'Description: 74.71-acre property, APN'01'9-330-009,.located adjacent to the Petaluma .River.
Negotiating Party: Michael Bierman. Under°Negotiation: Price; Terms or Payment, or Both.
CALL TO ORDER'
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Glass; ,Harris, .Healy, `Vice ,Ntayor Moynihan, Toclia_ tt
Absent: O''Brien, Thompson ~ ,~
1 b B. Pledge of Allegiance; - /ed by,Counci/ Member ..Harris
17 C. Moment of Silence
18
19 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED'SESSION - No reportab/e action.
PUBLIC C011AMENT
Don Weisenfluh; .Petaluma,, stated his .belief that claims byschool districts>ofi cutbacks ih.
education are false. He recommended voting " no"' on school 'faxes.
Patricia Tuttle Brown,. Petaluma,. stated that the offer from Basin Street Properties to
"donate" the Casa Grande Hotel as a possible ;future :Fire Station site was in reality d
"curd pro qvo" to reduce the requirement for green space at the Southgate
Development. She thought there should be public input on the location of the fire
station..
COUNCIL COMMENT
Vice Mayor Moynihan spoke regarding traffic.rnitigdtion fees owed to the City for 5 years
by Chelsea GCA. He thought that once someone made•a promise to the' community, it
should be fulfilled. When those fees are collected;, they should:be earmarked for a.
crosstown connector.
Regarding the Kennilworth acquisition, he wanted to go on record to saythat traffic
mitigation for d retail development there would only be possible with. a crosstow, n
connector.
He hoped that when moving forward on projects, Council would keep in mind the need
for Little League playing, fields.
Coun¢il;Member Healy reminded. voters that absentee ballots could be turned in at any
polling place. They should not be mailed .on .Election Day, as they would not be received
in time to be. counted.
He thought Ms. Tuttle Brown°s comments had some misconceptions.
Council Member Torliptt referred to a letter from Pisenti and Brinker regarding their annual
audit of the City. She would like City staff to respond to recommendations in that letter.
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39> Page 407.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
She had the opportunity to go to the. all-weather soccer field at Lucchesi Park for the
State Gup Championship. A Petaluma tears played in the under,-12 finals. Rick Hewko,
Rick Mitchell and Greg Gehring were the coaches, and deserve a lot of credit for getting
those girls~where they were. The event was hosted by Petaluma United Soccer -Corky
Cabrera, Tom Siragusa, and Danny Ortega. The City needs another all-weather soccer
field. New. development must include enough park space to accommodate those
residents it will bring to the community.
Mayor Glass thanked Pauline Potter, Dr. Andersen and others who had contributed
money to the City. These were. exceptionally generous donations from individuals
wanting their town fo have a little extra to get through these times.
He attended a Priddy night celebration of Black History Month. Music was the theme,
and he found it informative and enjoyable. He hoped the community would participate
in Black History Month events.
On Saturday night he attended the American Cpncer Society's celebration of 25 years in
Petaluma. This was the final year for this particular event.
Tomorrow he wilt be reading from Harry Potter. He urged- citizens to "take d little time to
read to your child or grandchild."
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Resolution 2004=038 IV.C.S. Establishing a'Schedule of Fees and Charges
for City Services and Repealing Previously Adopted and Conflicting Fees
and Charges for Such Services. (Thomas)
finance Director Bill Thomas presented the.staff report and explained that
the January 2002 fee study prepared by Revenue Costs Specialists has
been revised'by the author, and the recommendations presented to
Council tonight are based on that revision. He stressed the importance of
keeping fees in line with costs.
Vice Mayor Moynihan recalled that-when the initial fee study was done,
an administrative overhead charge was built into the cost structure.
Mr. Thomas explained that the same process was used for the update.
Vice Mayor Moynihan noted some charges were going up a lot. He asked
if there was a cap.
Mr. Thomas replied that the fees were based on the study, which
determined the cost of providing the service
Vice..Mayor Moynihan wondered if some of the increases were reflecting
a more involved process,. rather than the actual cost. He thought fee
increases enabled inefficiencies to occur. He preferred to streamline
processes.
Vol. 39, Page 408 March 1, 200,4
Council MemberT.orliatt'thought the reality could be that the City is
processing more applications, etc.
Mr. Thomas .agreed.
Council M'em6er Healy asked w. hat the City's expectdtions were for
recovery of ambulance fees, -
Mr. Thomas said:; that "The reality is, you .get what the insurance
companies=pay you.'"
Council Member;Healy pointed out that on the staff report, the swim
team pool rental is indicated as $3,000 "per mon h," but in another place,
the report reads $3;000 "per year.;"
Jim Carr, Parks and Recreation Director explained that was q
typographical error - it should te.ad "per month." The Recreation, Music
and Parks Co,mmission's recommendation. is'$3;000 per mohth.
Council Member Healy announced that the Swim Center opening would.
be delayed' until April 1 for teehn.icgl:reasgns. Donations for the Swim
Center- have been coming in. He thought some of the fee increases
seemed steep.
Mr: Carr replied that the commission was looking at cost per hour toruse
Their recommendation was based on a very reasonable cost for the
service provided.
Council Member Healy looked forward to when the Swim Center could
be modernized.
Council Member Torliatt referred to "softball" under "Ad.ult.Sports:"'-She
asked'whaf effect the openin, g of"RESA (Redwood Empire Sports Arena)
would hdve.
Mr. Carr answered that once R_ESA came on line:, the City would be "out
of fhe softball bu"siness.'' He added that softball, for the City;, is close to
being "revenue neutral."
Council Member orliatt would.like: fo get input from the Animal Services
;Advisory Committee regarding proposed fee; increases for adoptions, etc.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Council Member Hedly.dsked if other Council Members would like to find
away to reduce the impact Qn the cost of recreational swim.
Council Member Torliat# thought it important to go ahead. with fhe fee
increasesand ce-evaluate afters year. There are rnany`issues that need
to be addressed,,including making sure that everyonewho comes in is
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 409
1 actually paying the fees grid improving the. management of the Swim
2 Center.
3
4 Mayor Glass and Council Member Harris agreed.
5
6 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he "had d problem" with the proposed
7 Community Development fee increases. He has received feedback from
8 citizens that processes are taking longer. He thought the City needed to
9 .evaluate the services offered and make sure they're done as efficiently as
10 possible. He thought it would send the wrong message to the department
1 1 to increase fees. He supported the other proposed fees.
12
13 - CounciF Member Torliatt thought the goal for the Community
14 Development Department was self-sufficiency. She supported the
15 proposed fee increased "absolutely." Fees should be .compared to those
16 charge~'by neighboring cities
17
18 MOTIflN to adopt Resolution 2004-028 N.C.S. M/S Healy/Harris.
19
20 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if the motion included approving the
21 Community Development fees.
22
23 Council. Member Healy said that it did, as modified in the memo Council
24 received at the dais this evening.
25
26 MOTION CARRIED 4-1-2 as follows:
27
28 AYES: Mayor Glass; Healy, Harris, Torliatt
29 NOES: Vice Mayor Moynihan
30 ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson
31
32 B. Discussion and. Possible Action on an Appeal by Delco Builders and.
33 Developer, Inc., of the Site Plan and .Architectural Review Committee's
34 (SPARC) Decision to Denythe 46-Unit Single Family and 46-Unit Townhouse
35 GattiiStratford Place Subdivision. at 710 Sonoma Mountain Parkway. This
36 item will be continued to a date certain. (Moore/Robbe)
37
38 Mike Moore, Community Development Director, explained that Delco
39 Builders would like to move forward with their appeal. He asked Council to
40 set a date certain hearing on the appeal for afternoon session of the
41 March 15, 2004 Council Meeting.
42
43 - Council consensus was to agendize a Public Heoring on the matter
44 for the afternoon session of the March 15, 2004 Council Meeting,
45
46 At the request of Council Member Torliatt, these minutes were withdrawn from
47 the April 5, 2004 Council Agenda, and re -transcribed from this point forward
48 to include .all discussion.
49
50 C. Consideration and Possible Action on a Recommendation from the
51 Planning Commission Regarding Basin Street Properties Applications for
Vol. 39, Page 410 March 1, 2004
1 the Southgate~~ Development, a 40; acre Planned Unit Development, which
2 Proposes 216 Detached Single-.Family Homes, a Park Site and a Parcel to
3 be Retained for Future Affordable Housing.. A Stormwater Detention:
4 Facility/,Linear Open Space Area (Urban Separator.)' is Also Proposed Along
5 the South Side of the Site Adjacent to the City limits: The project
6 entitlements include:
7 Resolution 20U4-029 ,N.C:S., Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
8 Declaration for`fhe project.
9 ~ Resolution :2004=0030 N:C:S. Amending the General Pldn land use
0 .designation from "Specific Plan Area" and "Transit Terminal'' to "Urban.
1 Diversified."
• Introduction (First Reading)' of :Ordinance 2:178: N:C:S.. Rezoning from
the existing."Study" Zoning classification to Planned Unit. Development°
(PIJD);
• ~ Resolution 2004-0031 N.G.S. Approving the Southgate Unit
Development ,Plan. and PUD :Development Standards;
• Resolution .2004-0032,. N:C.S., Approving Vesting Tentative Iv1ap and
Conditions of Approval.
Mayor Glass announced that Council` Member Thompson had recused
himself`from this item due to.a conflict of interest.
.._
Jagni' Allsep, Project. Planner, presented the staff report,, and the Planning
Commission's recommendations to Courcil~regarding the project. She
noted staff'=s opinion. thaf the project, as currently proposed, does not
reflect that all the directives of fhe Planning Corn_ mission have been;
addressed. Staff drafted. Conditions of Approval based on those directides
still outstanding:'She, noted forttie record°several pieces of
correspon'de;nce, including a letter dated February 27th from Basin Street
Properties that included a subsequenf.noise-study, dated February`-20rn
and revised.. development. standards,. a letter from the Adobe Dei Oro
Action' Group dated February 26!h, arid. a memo from Dean 'Eckerson,
..Engineering ,Manager, addressed to;M'e Moore; Community
Develo;pmentbirector, dated February 24th, which includes specific
recorrirnendations regarding recycled water. Staff would incorporate ;by
reference the proposed Conditions in 'Mt. Eckerson's memo. These was
also a ,letfer from Basin Street Properties dated March l st, whic_h addresses
language for a street abandonment.
.She added that there was one. item to discuss a't a later time:. Attached to
fte February 27th Basin Street Properties letter was an annotated list of
Conditons.ot Approval -those that the applicant has accepted and
those-that they wish to either have deleted or modified.'She pointed out
that, some of the Conditions were mitigation, ,measures, .and. the City must
get some confirmation thaf the applicant is willing to implement the.
rnitiga'tion measures as they have been adopted. Council should discuss
this before adopting the'Mitigated Negafive Declaration.
Vice Mayor Moynihan referred to Conditions 52 and 53, which he:didn't
thinkreflected the initial input from Parks and Recreation,. or'the follow=up
e-mail, Condition 53 dealt with. looping the. bike and pedestrian path
back. info the frontage road. The. e=mail was fdirly clear that it needed to
March l , 2004
Vol. 39,, Page 41 l
1 tie into the'frontage road. He suggesfed the words, "The applicant shall
2 explore ways tb~connect this path to the frontage road. that parallels
3 Lakeville Highway" should be changed to, "The applicant~shall connect
4 this path...'" to ensure tflat`"the path, does loop back to the frontage road.
5 Gohdition 52 stated that'fne applicant shall provide an annual annuity for
b maintenance of.,the park.-estimated at $1;Q,000 per year. He asked Parks
7 and Recreation Director Jim Carr why the developer`s .suggestion that the
g Homeowner's Association should provide this maintenance is not
9 acceptable to the Parks ,and Recreation Department and .why it is the
10 City's policy to control the maintenance of the parks.
11
12
Mr Carr replied that w,heneverthere is a Landscape Assessment District
13 that maintains a .park, fhere is fhe-feeling by the homeowners that only
14 they:~should ipve access: to the park. The intent was to ensure that this
15 alway5~remairi a public park and be accessible to general public. He
16 suggested an LAD ~.NOUId not be a good solution. He would like to be sure
17 there is funding for maintenance.
`
18
19 -
Vice AAayor Moynihan noted.. there are. four new parks-coming on line, two
20 of which will be public parks-for which the City has no,t identified funding
21 sources for maintenance. He understood :from the Recreation, Music, and
22 Parks Commission meeting that establishment of an annuity will become a
23 .standard request for this kind of neighborhood park. The condition did not
24 mention the estimated $250,000 lump~sum to seed the annuity. He
25 th'r~ught that should be written in as a condition.
26
27
Mr. Carr had discussed the mdtter with Finance Director Bill Thomas. The
28 bottom line is that the City wants to be sure there is money to maintain the
29 park. Council has d number of options. They could have it financed for
30 five or-sixyears until redevelopment "kicks in" and some revenue base
31 starts coniirig in.
32
33
Council MemberTorliatt pointed out that Council had recently approved
34 the Gatti Subdivision, which will have a park maintained by. the
35 Homeowners Association, and there is a public easement over that land.
3b That ensured that everyone-would be able to~use the park: She thought
37 this would work for this development, as well.
38
39
Richard Rudnansky; City Attorney said that fhere was concern from some.
40 of`those paying the assessment that: they're paying "for others to use the.
41 park.,,-
42
43
Mc. Carr reminded Council. that the Gafti Subdivision park was less than an
44 acre of turf. The Southgate development, by contrasf, would include a
45 very active. playground, and would be much more of a draw for the
46 public. He mentioned the Victoria Subdivision,, where the park is
47 maintained by an LAD. Teens from outside the: neighborhood wanting to
48 use the basketball courts were told to leave. The City would like to prevent
49 that from happening at Southgate:
50
51
Council Member Torliatt countered that in Victoria, there was no public
52 easement imthat park, so the public didn't have the right to use it. That
Vol. 39, Page 412 March 1, 2004
wasn't part. of the Conditions of: Approval. Southgate includes 2,1.6 homes
plus senior housing. She though"t there would be~families with children in at
least half of~those homes. The park is only an acre. She didn°t see a
problem with hdving the. Homeowners+Association.. maintain the park. She
said she was frying to reduce the amount of~expense liability for the-City.
Council"Member Healy thought that: what the proposals boiled down Ito
was either the' Homeowners Association would fund the~mainfenance on
an dnnual, ohgoing basis; or,tfie.d`eveloper'provides the money at the.
beginning to pay~for it, He,;Mr. Carr if'the LAD would fund, the
maintehance of landscaping in the urban separator, and 'the p:erim'eter of
the property.
Mr. Carr confirmed that it would.. He .added` that he thought it
conceivable: to include in the Conditions of Approval thaf the park .was to
be open to fhe public. ,
Vice Mayor Moynihan didn't think the City could require the developer to
require the Homeowners Association fo adequately fund the park
maihtenance.
Mr. Carr thought itwould"be up to. Council.
Cify Atforney Rudnansky replied..that•the Conditions, of :Approval. could:
ihclude thdt requirement, qnd' give the City the opportunity, not the
obligation, to enforce that. If the HOA did not comply, it would be up to
the City to try to enforce: it. ,
Matt White; Bdsin Street Properties sfated that as part of the Conditions of
Approval,, the LAp qr CFD ,(Community Facilities District) fee would be. o;n:
each. homeowner's property tdx bill .and would have nothing to do with,
the Homeowners, Association.
Mayor'.Glass, CounciLMernbers Harris, Healy and Torliatt, and Vice Mayor
Moynihan each mentioned that they had cnet with the. developer and the
neighbors recently to discuss t,he.project.
Mr..White put the current proposal ih context byexplaining that over the
past seven years Basiri Street Properties has submitted five different
proposals forthis site. Me described them,, how they were developed and
changed, resulting in the .proposal currently before Council,. which is an:.
all-residential ;project. He pointed out the chahges :thaf were made in
responss to requests made bythe Planning Commission at their January
27,.2004.P-ublic Hearing.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS _.
Council Member Torliatt asked.if all the homes were two stories.
Mr. White confirmed that they were.
March l , 2004
Vol. 39, Page 4l3
1 Council Member~To„rliatt asked how many homes would have to be taken
2 -out in order to accommodate a 300-foot :urban separator.
3
4 Mr. White replied that Basin S'freet did not explore. that option, because in
5 1.9;99 the ,City Council asked that they distribute the urban separator and
b bring it into different parts of the site instead of having a 300-foot
7 separator around the perimeter of the site.
8 ~ -
9 Council Member Torliatt thought that had to do with. superior design in the
10 project, riot a complete eliminafii~n of the urban separator. She asked the
1 1 compliance ratio per the General Plan standard. of parkland to the
12 number of unts~in the subdivision.
13
14 Mr. lUloore explained thattlie General Pian standard is a community-wide
15 standard, not a subdivision standard, and thus was not calculated for this
16 project.;
17
18 Council Member Harris asked. if staff could further explain the land trust
19 housing issue and the three lots that would be donated for permanent for-
20 sale housing. He wondered if it was. being done anywhere else in
21 Petaluma or Sonoma County.
22
23 Mr. White: repled'that this project is a joint venture with Delco Builders.
24 Basin Street Properties is contributing the three lots to the Housing Land
25 Trust and Delco Builders has agreed to sell the finished houses to the Land.
26 Trust at their cost, He did not think itwas done anywhere else. There is a
27 formula that ensures that these houses remain low-income for-sale
28 housing forever.
29
30 Council Member Torliatt asked the price. range of the at-market-rate
31 homes in the development.
32
33 Mr. White estimated $500,000 to $600,000.
34
35 PUBLIC COMMENT
36
37 Dev Goetschins, Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County Executive Director,
38 explained that -the .Land Trust is a private, non-profit .corporation that
39 provides home ownership opportuniti;es fo low and moderate-.income
40 families in Sonoma County who would otherwise be priced out of the
41 housing market, while ensuring permanent housing affordabilitythrough
42 the use of a land gust model.-The Land Trust helps people purchase
43 homes on affordable terms. The .land beneath homes is owned by the
44 Land Trust and leased to the homeowner through a 99-year; renewable
45 lease. The land lease provides the Land Trust the right to buy the house
46 back when the homeowners decide. to sell. The resell formula is designed
47 to give Homeowners a fair return on their investment, while ensuring
48 permanent housing affordability to .the next homeowner with a low or
49 moderate income level. Southgate will be the first opportunity in Petaluma
50 for the Land Trust to implement its model. There is currently one project in
51 Santa Rosa. In-addition to donating three lots, the developers will
Vol. 39, Page 414 March 1, 2004
construct the homes, which they will sell to Land Trustat cost. The three
home sites will be scattered within the'site.
Council Member Torliatt asked how much buyers would pay for those
.homes.
Ms. Goetschins replied that families would buy the home based on the.
maximum they can qualify for on their first mortgage. When they sell',. they
have 'to sel(to someone irn the same.income,level. Since the land is
leased>~the price of the lane) is faker-out of the equation: That makes the
home affordable.
Arthur'Kerbel, Petaluma, Atl'obe del Oro. Action Group; referred to a
remark madeat a Planning Commission meeting that, "the Commission.
does not'ha~e to be concerned' with the wishes of fhe~ neighborhood -
only with the wisnes of the cocnmunify." He found this confusing.as he
thought "neighborhoods made up.'the community." He then mentioned a
°remark made by a Council Member~fhat he ``,had difficulty supporting a
plan developed by the neighborhood and not the de.veloper." Basin,
Street Propertie"s b"sought the project. to the. ne. i,ghbors anal asked for their
input. Through their discussions, the community .and the developer
.learned they could communicate... I,t was a ,positive process..The-plan
before. Council has been overwhelmingly~supported by the ..
neighborhoods, and he urged..Council's supporf of the project as
presented.
Stephanie McAllister;. Petaluma, Planning Commissioner, saw some issues
still unresolved..She .clarified that'the whole community should be.
concerned with the project.. She was not against the neighborhood
working with the deyelo.per. She thought many people hoped this
development would provide a "semse::of gateway." A soundwall with
~esidentiai development behind it does not provide that. She would like to
have -the entire Lakeville frontage landscaped; including -the area within
the CalTrans eight-of-way. This would afford a lot more room to "make a
gateway stafement." Every commercial property that she had. seen on
Lakeville Highway is landscaped up to the traveled way. She asked thaf
SPARC be, alerted that when reviewing this landscape and soundwall
design, They should look-for that "sense of -gateway" She~asked Council.
to consider an increase: in the urban .separator. She fell it .was' a General.
Plan issue, and'was observed on.every other°site on the east side ofi
Petaluma.
?eresa Barrett, Pet"alums. Planning Commissioner; :.also ha,d problems with
what was before Council, about°issues that should have been taken .care
of at fhe Planning: Commission leueb. She referred. to the initial acoustical
study.; which showed noise level ,above the C'ity''s acceptable levels: The
second study withdrew all data and simplystated that. it had been
modified and'was now within a_ cceptable levels. She thought this .new
study should be peer- reviewed.,to ensure ~a quiet neighborhood. As far as
stop signs or traffic lights'were concerned, she thought the City'Engineer'
should determine what would be safest. Students,~seniors and d.isa.bled
citizens need as much time: as possible to°get across the street:. If the City
March 1, 2004 Vol, 39,'Page 4:15
1 decided against a traffic. light at Frates Road and Ely Road,. then a lighfed
2 .crosswalk should be installed. Her third issue was the urban separator - 120
.3 feet is "no gift to the City."'It is not buildable space. The parknow being
4 suggested 'is even smaller than what came to Planning Commission, and
5 she thought it was below the Parks and Recreation. standard for a small
6 pack: She said the applicant had agreed when asked by the Planning
7 Commission to move. the housing that faces onto Ely Road back in order
8 to double the open space on that side, and she didn't think that had
9 happened.. Doing that would have increased the open space on that
10 side of the property to a little more than 30 or 40 feet, which is just a little
1 1 more than 1 / 10 of`the urban separator. The urban separator for the
12 property is down Ely-Road and then across the southern part. Mr. White's
13 comment about that was that. the urban separator here was kind of a
14 "belt and suspenders" approach because if's right up against the Urban
15 Growth Boundary and that's all open space.~Except it isn't "all open
16 space" forever. She stressed the importance of respecting the General
17 Plan qnd increasing the Urban Growth Boundary on both of those sides.
18 She had questioned "rushing to move thisproject along" when it was
19 clear there was so much to be done .and so many compromises were
20 being :made regarding open space and the urban separator. Then she
21 read' in the Argos Courier that the "wail wagging this dog" was the City's
22 need foranoth, er fire station on the west side of town. While she
23 understood the need,'she didn't see the nexus between this project and a
24 fire station on the west>side of town. She pointed out that the developer
25 was also developing land around the current fire station, and. had the
26 desire to-see that fire station moved. She thought it a much befter idea for
27 the City to receive. a donation from the developer;: rather than a specific
28 piece of land. She did not think the City should sacrifice land for
29 something that could be five omen years down the road. Currently, there
30 is no money for a new fire station.
31 .
32 Steve. donRaesfeld, Petaluma, Planning Commissioner, praised the staff
33 reportas "very accurate and we11 done." He referred Council to sheet SP-
34 3 of their packets. Regarding the urban separdtor on Ely Road, he noted
35 that asdrawn, it averaged about 18 feet. He described a plan the
36 involved reducing the size of some of the corner lots by about 5 feet That
37 would result in the average being raised to about 30 feet. He
38 commended the developer for moving, the location of the park. He made
39 another.suggestion about adjusting the size of some lots. adjacent to the
40 park to increase the "feathering." affect. He suggested than the gateway
41 item and the urban separator be Treated as separate SPARC items. He
42 referred to sheet C= 1,3 and noted that Lakeville Highway is higher than
43 the site. He suggested thaf an underground storm drain be required
44 instead of a v-ditch, as has been done in other areas along Lakeville. This
45 would improve the view.
46
47 Nlark,Albertson, Petaluma, Chair of the Adobe Del Oro Action Group, lives
48 in the neighborhood adjacent to the ...project. He spoke about why the
49 group opposed previous proposals for this site, and supports the project
50 ,presented to Council tonight. Basin Street Properties has worked with the
51' Adobe Del Oro Action Group to meet the needs of the neighborhood. He
52 emphasized that careful attention must be given to the treatment of the .
Vol. 39, Page 416 March 1, 2004
frontage on Prates Road. The group's godls regarding Prates Rodd have
been reducing speed, discouraging truck traffic,, providing safe
neighborhood' access onfo Prates Road, and; safe passage on and across
Prates .Road for children; pedestrians, and .bicyclists. There. should. be a
traffic light at Calle Ranchero, and.. afour-way, stop at Ely _Road.. The:
median should be fully landscaped. Prates Road should be reclassified as
a minorartecial or minor collector: The: speed. limit should be'30-35' miles'
perhour. Pedestrian crossings should be pos't.ed. The use of exhaust brdkes
by trucks should be: prohibited. There, should be a'two-story Height limit on'
the: senior housing element of the project: He thanked the City'for doing a
thorough job of noticing'the neighborhood regarding the project .and
tonight's meeting. He thanked ,Basin Street Properties for working, with his
group.
'Patricia Tuttle. Brown, Petaluma; urged the Council to honorithe General
Plan and Bicycle ('Idn that cdl(for a 300-foot urban separator. A's the
developer'is proposing this project she did not think it would be a
"destination.:" She- urged. Council to ask Bashi Streef ,Properties forwhat
the: citizens need.
Scott Vouri, Petaluma, former Planning Commissign member, said 1'8 feet
is Jess than the length of a driveway',; and not an urban-separator„ in his
opinion: The development has improved dramatically from what he saw
ds a Planning C°ommissioner. He was''froubled by, the idea of giving away
part of the urban separator to the development..Every other
development on, the east side of`Pefdluma has honored the 300-foot
buffer`befween development and the Urban Growth Boundary: He felt
Petaluma "needed: another 200',half-a-million dollar McMansions like we
need-holes in our'heads." What Petaluma does need is enough
affordable,.workforce housing. He.thought.if fhe City was giving dwdy
urban separator rights,: it should in return stipulate that any housing .built in
the separator be affordable workforce housing. He added. that several
Planning Commission. issues with the project have not been resolved, He
urged Council to return. the project to the I'Ianning Commission before
approval:
len_Svinth, Petaluma, resident of'Petaluma :for 45 years and:Presidentof.
Petaluma Ecumenical .Properties: Board of Directors;. purged Council fo
approve project'. He thanked'Basin.Sfreet Properties-for providing
affordable housing in this project;.
Dusty Resneck, Petaluma,'P-edestrian an. d Bicycle.Advisory Committee,
explained that the committee' goal. is~to encourage people to get out of
theircars. PBAC feels fhis°project increasesauto-dependency, and does
not see connectivity between it and th'e rest of Petaluma. They wrote up
Conditions of Approval, and recommendations, based. on .the draft
Conditions of`Approval of February 23~d. He noted that Mifigationl0-4.
states. that PBAC will be ,given. the opportunity to review the project as
each phase comes up'for~development. He howed Council the PBAC's
proposed circulation plan that included five additional cut-throughs to
provide public access throughout the project: Regarding the storm ..ponds,
and the understanding tha"t they will be privately mainfained but'have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
March 1, 2004
Voi. 39; Page 417
public access, he noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is
understaffed and the City is under a tight budget, he expressed concern
that parks, etc..,, that are made a Condition of Approval be maintained,
as "there are never really any funds for maintenance.." He urged Council
to include. a mechanism for funding. He was concerned about
connectivity to other parks and neighborhoods. The project did not have
safe pedestrian access to the other neighborhoods. He felt a 300-foot
urban separator along the PGS~E easement and Ely Road was important.
Council Member Healy asked, regarding the additional dccess points, if
any involved going through proposed soundwalls.
Mr. Resneck confirmed that one did (indicating on drawing).
Paula Cook, Petaluma Ecumenical Properties, spoke on behalf of
Executive Director Vera Ciammetti, who was out on medical leave. She
conveyed PEP's support for this project. A condition was placed on the
PEP portion of the project at the January 27 Planning Commission
meeting, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the PEP site. She stated
that the Conditional Use Permit appeared to be redundant, because the
development standards clearly identify the use as "Senior/Disabled
Affordable Housing" and clearly identify the density ("between 25 and 80
units").This encompasses both the proposed use by PEP as affordable
housing for seniors and persons with disdbilities and the proposed density,
at approximately 65 units of two-story rental housing. PEP also wanted
Council to know that while they will certainly present their project for
formal SPARC review, once they obtain title to the property, the
requirement for a Conditional Use Permit will be an unexpected and
diffioult'financial burden for PEP. They requested that Council approve the
project before them tonight, but waive the requirement of a Conditional
Use .Permit for the PEP site.
Mayor Glass .asked if the Conditional Use Permit requirement was put
there as a mechanism to bring the project back to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Allsep agreed, and explained that the Planning Commission
expressed some concern about the lack of detail for the PEP site, and
were struggling with .how to move the project forward, so the requirement
for a Conditional Use Permit would bring the project back to them for
another look.
Mayor Glass asked if the project went back to Planning Commission,
could the permit requirement then be waived, as the goal would have
been achieved.
Ms. Allsep said that the Development Standards had been modified to
show the requirement for. a Conditional Use Permit. She recommended
that Council change the Conditions to not require the permit.
Vol. 39, Page 418 Nlarch 1, 2004
Mr. White ;noted that as part of the Development Standards for the site,
they had inelu,ded height limitation setbacks. V~/hat could and could not
be done on fhe site vices spelled out in some detail.
Council Member Torliatt asked if PEP was purchasing the site; and if so,
were they paying market rate.
Ms. Cook replied that it was being purchased for significantly below
market rate. PEP does not have the financial means or subsidies to
purchase of or above market rate,. generally speaking.
Vice Mayor.Moynihan thought if sounded like PEP was planning a two-
story project.
Ms. Cook agreed.
Vice Mayor Moynihan explained that he.had talked.to Ms. Cook-earlier
today about providing senior housing on the edge of town. and wondered
if this would cause hardship, in terms, of transportation, for seniors.. He
asked Ms. Cook to paraphrase her response.
Ms. Cook explained that-when :PEP looks at p.o,tential sites they consider
proximity to amenities. They also look at the financial subsidies. available to
-them; and'. those effectively dictate what they can do and- where they
can do it. They must be competitive in their applicafion process..The basic
scats an the: Southgate location show that it is 1.5 miles to .the nearest
grocery./pharmacy/banking Iocation.There'is,nne bus stop on the corner
~of Frates Road and Lakeville: Highway, and additional. transportation will
be available through Paratransit and volunteer drivers who work through.
PEP. PEP does not:feel that the location. of the project will be a detrmenf~ .
to the quality of"life of seniors living there.
David Alleigh,. Petaluma, moved to Petaluma in 1994. because he could
not safely ride his bike in San Francisco: He opposed this: project
adamantlyfrom the beginning. Tonighf'he was here in support of the
project. He' thanked Basin Properties. for listening to the community. He
was amazed to hear people suggesting this project has been "rushed,"
since. he thought every possible facet had been discussed and examined.
at length,
Connie.Madden, Petaluma, supported the 300-f.oot urban separator
allowed for in the General Plan, which she sees as "common sense." This is
the border between "us and the, rural countryside; and should be a
gateway:" The. City should follow°the General Plan and ask developers to,_
go "a little further along the road that they've already ,taken. in their efforf
fo listen to the community."
Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, thought back to when (here:was talk of
putting a Wal-Mart or similar big :box store on the site. He thought Basin
Street's proposal. was preferable. He noted that the agenda referred to a
parcel'to be retained for "fiuture affordable housing." Affordable housing
to him means "affordable housing for all" -not just seniors and disabled.
March l , 2004 Vol. 39, Page. 41.9
1 He asked if thee. developer wds paying. in-lieu housing fees, or did this fulfill
2 their obligatioh. He h-ad heard. it was nnecessary to repldce the sewer plant
3 "immediately" and that was ten years dgo. He asked if studies. had shown
4 there would •be enough sewer capacify and wafer to support the
5 additional population.
6
7 PUBLIC COM 'EN~T'CLOSED~
8
9 Mr. White said Basin Street Properties. didn't intentionally leave out
10 anything the Planning Commission recommended. He thought Planning
1 1 Commissioner yonRaesfeld has some good ideas, particularly on how to
12 handle this corner here (indicating on map) and that was acceptable to
13 Basin Street. They were asked by the; Planning Commission to add 16'/2 -
14 19'72 feet• along EI'y Road, and they° had done that. What they had
15 proposed before was in the 1S feet,of right-of-way. They then added 16'/2
16 -19'/2 feet`to increase the area to 35 - 37 feet. Basin Street was also
17 supportive of bringing this to SPARC separately: He thought it was a "great
18 idea"'that provided "the op"portunity to do something really special."
19 Regarding the 300-foot urban separator, Basin Street was told by Council
20 in 1:999 fo "rnalee the neighborhood happy" and they spent a lot of time
21 with neighbors and came up with something that made them happy.
22 Origihally they had ~a much. bigger park, planned for the development, but
23 Parks and Recreation said; "We don't need a park that big." He proposed
24 that the. City own all of the.green areas,.and a Community Facilities
25 District be put together thaf would ensure through the tax bill that all of
26 the parkland in the project is maintained.
27
2$ Vice Mayor Moynihan noted that there was also discussion of the
29 donation of the Casa Grande Hotel site or a contribution.
30
31 Mr. White clarified that they originally had a park planned for that whole
32 area (indicating on map).. They were asked to reduce the park size. This
33 raised the number of lots. Meanwhile,'because of Basin Street's
34 ihvolvement downtown, he got to know Fire Chief Chris Albertson, and
35 learned that the hook and ladder-truck doesn't fit in the firehouse, and
36 the water truck can't be parked inside because the floor will sink. He
37 proposed to the City Manager thdt Basin Street use the revenue from the
38 ddditiorial lots resulting from the park being made smaller and use it to
39 buy-a site for a~fii=e stdti.on; e:g., the Casa Grande hotel. He added. that
40 Basin Street had no desire to own the current firehouse. If the City didn't
41 want the Casa Grande Hotel site, that was o.k.
42
43 Vice, M'agor Moynihan asked if Basin Street would be amenable to making
44 adollar-amount contribution instead of donating a piece of property, if
45 that were Counci{`s wish.
46
47 Mr. White agreed, but added he knew the City "had no money," and
48 thought it would be a good thing to donate land.
49
50 Council IVlemberTorliatt asked lv1r. White his thoughts on the signal and
51 stop signs. `"
52
Vol. 39, Page 420 March 1, 2004
Mr. White. ,thought that if'~there were three signals, people would speed up
to try to make all three lights on green.
Council Member Torliatt would Like to see the plastic dots called "Boa's
Dots" on th'e streetapproaching .the crosswalks to slow traffic down and
would like the: crosswalks to be especidlly-well signed. She asked Mr.
White how Basin. Street was proposing to upgrade the `pump.,station
landscaping.
Mr: White said, there vvas a fairly arge~ block of;landscdp'ing behind the
pump t.atioh. It would'be landscaped on_ the Frates Roadside, over to
the driveway. ,
Council Mem.bec`Torliattriked if they woulci'be upgrading from the
current landscaping.
Mr. White assured. her they would.
Mayor-Glass interjected that PJ'anning Commissioner McAllister had .asked
about the entire Lakeville Highway frohtage~being landscaped.
Mr. White explained that the Planning, Commission had .increased the
landscaping to about 8'/s feet dlong' Lakeville'Highway.. Then there is, a 15-
toot right-of-way easerneht for' CalTrahs. Basin Street Properties `is willing, to
lahdscape the .area completely;, however, they do not yet know if
CalTrans will go along .with this. plari.
Mayor Glass asked. if,. on. fhe corner of grates and'. Ely Roads,. if Basin Sfireet
would be able'to participdte in some kind of'public art installation:
Mr. White agreed. '
Council MemberTorliatt would like information on the City's water and
sewer capacities and the projecf's heed fo-r same; and, clarification
.regarding housing ih-lieu fees to be charged to this project.
Community Deyelopmert ~Director.Mke-Moore explained that on the
waterahd sewer capacity, as part of their normal :review process, they
provide plans and..related information to all other City. departments,
`including Water Resources and Conservation: They;received a. memo
from `Water Resources containing Conditions they would like applied to
this project relative to prospective water use: There is adequate water
and sewer capacity forthis project:
Council .Member Torliatt clarified -that she was asking how -much water
was budgeted for this subdivisioh.
Mr:. Moore replied that unless that information, was contained in the memo
from Water Resources and Conservation, he did not have that information
specifically.: Regarding the in=lieu housing fees, the standard requirement
is that for every market rate unit, an.ih-lieu-housing fee is applied.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 421
1 Council M'ember7orliatt dsked if there-were any credits on this project
2 regarding in-lieu housing fees:
3 ~ ~~ '
4 Mr. Moore said he w_as not aware of any:discussion about credits being
5 given.
6
7 Mr. White explained that his uriderstanding was that either low-income
8 housing must be prgvided,~or in=lieu fees must be paid. Basin Street was
9 proposing, in its partnership with PEP, to provide the units instead of paying
10 in-lieu housing fees. There would be significantly more than 10% low-
1 1 income units.
12 "
13 Council took aten=minute break from 9.30 - 9:40 p. m.
14
15 Mr. VNlite agreed to put in a storm drdin Winstead of a v-ditch.
16
17 Council Member Healy asked staff to talk about the urban separator issue
18 and explain the reason for the ;recommendation that has come forward.
19 "
20 Ms. Allsep had heard from many members of the public advocating a
21 300-foof urban separator; which is what has been done in many parts of
22 the City... Her reading and interpretation of the General Plan policy allows
23 for discretion regarding the width requirement. It is within the purview of
24 Council to approve somethi'ng'less than 300 feet.
25
26 Council Member Healy thought there were some unique things about the
27 Southgate site. The side where the 120-foot separator is proposed borders
28 directly on one of the four UGB expansion areas. There's another on
29 Corona Road and he thought there was a development application
30 either in process or anticipated. He didn't think there.were any other
31 places on the East Side with the urban separator up against an existing
32 street, except for Corona .Road.
33
34 Mr. Moore agreed. Most of the urban separators on the East Side are
35 adjacent to areas that are outside the City limits and the Urban Growth
36 Boundary.
37
38 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Moore if it was his interpretation of the
39 General Plan. that what was being proposed was consistent with the
40 Urban. Separator language.
41
42 Mr. Moore replied that it was up to Cbuncil's,discretion.Thc General Plan
43 suggests a minimum standard: It has' been reduced in'some cases, most
44 but not all of them on the West Side, most often because the parcelization
45 patterns meant that taking the whole 300 feet would make the properties
46 unusable. It was up to the Planning Commission and the Council to
47 decide whether this satisfies the General Plan requirements.
48
49 Council Member Torliatt asked specifically which sites had been
50 approved with aless-than-300,-foot separator. She noted recently
51 approved projects, including Rockridge Pointe, which has a 40-acre open
Vol. 39, Page 422 March 1, 20Q4
space easement that connects with- Helen;~Putna.rn. Park; and Westridge
Knolls with a large open space~componenf.
Mr. Moore agreed that there were instances on the West Side: where there
was a much larger urban separdtor'area.'He referred to the color map of
the-rear of the chambers, which showed the current location~of the urban
separator.:On the West Side, particularly ih the southwesternsegment,''he
noted'where the line moved in and out, qs wel_I, as areas along the Urban.
Growth Boundary whereith_ere was no urban`sepdratorat°aIL
Council.Member Torliatt, countered that there"was no other°instance on
the East Side, except for the RESA .project, which, was~q''quasi playing
field,." and Adobe'Creek, whichhad'the golf course., where there was less
than.. a 300-:foot urban separator.
Vice.Mayor Moynihan.read from the;General flan ... "prevents urban
development from continuing unchecked:into surrounding open space
since private. development cannot take place within the sepdra'for"...
"Maximum of 300 feet" - He tli'ought that Council had some discretion to
require less than.300 feet as long as they explained why they were not
requiring as much.,He said.he vw,as, "greatly swayed.by the $1.5 million
- ._.
donation,.'` and thought Council should consider how wide the, urban
separator needed tabe to "provide that buffer" and, of the same time,
"whatwas in the overall comm;unity's besf'interests."
Council Member Torliatt'recalled that individuals have spoken. to Council
,regarding, the irnporfance• of the, urban separator many tunes. She noted
that the: site plan showed about 33 homes, in the 300-foot space. - or if the
homes' had. a elling price of $5Q0;000, abouf $19:8 millionworth of project:
A.lo.t of money was being,generated,'for this development at the expense
of one of the most important policies in the General Plan. There have not
been any exception on the East.Side of town, .and she didn't know why
there shquld`be in this case: She didn't ee this as:.d "superior design," but
"typical auto-oriented urban: sprawl" She:. feels 'the public deserves what is
promised in PetalUma's "award winning" General Plan and what
precedent had set. on the East Side.
-S
Council Member Healy painfed. out that this proposal has what'none:of
the: previous proposals for the site have had: buy-in from the
neighborhood. if Council wants fo .put; additional Conditions, on ithis
project "to make,it go away" then it is likely that: the higher-density kind~ofi
project that was°originally:proposcd.- and which the neighborhood
rejecfed -will corrie back. He urged Council to come to, closure on this
project., The. County zoning. on ;fhe other side of Ely Road is agricultural with
20-60. acre: miriimum parcels.,The City wou,ld~essenrially get the benefit of
the- Urban Growth Boundary without Having fo purchase' the land.
Council Member Harris agreed with Council~Member Healy. There have
been exceptions made in the past on the West Side. The neighborhood. is
happy with the project, an"d they'will be living, near it.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 423 •
1 Council~MemberTorliatt questioned.Council Ivl'ernber'Harris's statement
2 that exceptions had been made:
3
4 'Council Member Warris reiterated thaf exceptions have been made "in
5 general."
6
7 Council Member Torliatt had not heard any specific instances of
8 exceptions being made.
9
10 Mayor Glass said this was the most challenged parcel of land in the history
1 T of this City. He agreed with Council Member Healy that there was a
12 consensus on the part of the .neighbors that the current proposal should
13 be approved. The history of this was rather embarrassing because past
14 Councils have given so many different directions. The last one was, "make
15 the neighborhood happy." He was not "in lave with the project,." but
16 when he ran for Mayor, he told the neighbors that if they found a project
17 they were happy with, he would support it. He agreed that if the land
18 remained vacant, there was a danger that one of the earlier types of
19 proposals, that the neighborhood found objectionable, would end up
20 being built there. The Cityshould'have; in the past, laid out the "core
21 values" of this parcel and then worked to achieve them. Past proposals
22 have. included mixed use, more mixed use, less, mixed use, Wal-Mart,
23 driving, range, junior college, junior high, etc. If the current proposal was
24 nova good one, the neighbors would. not be here supporting it. He would
25 like Counci to come to closure on this project, and in the future, make
26 sure they give good and accurate direction, and then stands behind that
27 direction as development proposals move through the process. He didn't
28 think anybody could say that had happened with this parcel
29
30 Vice Mayor Moynihan `agreed with Mayor Glass. Ne was very pleased at
31 how the projectiooked'now and commended Basin Sfreet Properties and
32 Delco for working with the neighborhood and making it alf come
33 together, He thought the' City deserved some criticism on how this project
34 was hdndled.from the beginning. The General Plan spoke to "feathering"
35 of .density,. andsaid that for projects• "adjoining "the urbari limit line.. shall
36 be designed .to preserve the visualand physical openness, and preserve
37 the aesthetic and. natural features of that portion of the property in
38 proximity to .the rural areas outside of the designated urban limit line. The
39 effect of this policy is to cause a gradual and deliberate lessening of
40 development intensity at the urban edge and within the urban limit line."
4.1 In looking at the site plan, he thought fhe parcels looked "quite uniform"
42 in size. In light of the developer's contribution to the .City, he thought
43 ~ Council should consider keeping the smallerseparator, but ask for more
44 feathering of densities, with more intense density'in the interior of project,
45 and less density on the outskirts. He did not fhink this project an
46 appropriate location for senior housing because it was too far removed
47 from amenities. He would prefer to see single-family residential on the
48 proposed PEP site and an in-lieu fee sought instead for a senior housing
49 site closer to downtown. Ne liked the idea of a Community Facilities
50 District to maintain the park. He remarked on the small lot size.
51
Vol. 39, Page 424 March 1, 2004
Mr: White explained that, in regard to'`feathering of.densi ies," Basin
Street considered density of the project "in relation to the project across
fife street:" He indicated various lots on the exterior of the site fhat were 5
to l.5 ,feetwider than those on the interior: He proposed eliminating two
lots: on the bottom. and. right outside dregs, making 'the remaining lots.
larger; and making up the-four lost lots by making some interiorl'ots.
smaller.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked the average. size of the .lots in the areas Nlr:.
White had indicated.
Mr. White replied. that they rariged from 3,600 to 5,000 square feet
Mayor Glass asked ;if'that would :make. it easier to accommodafe Mr!.
vonRaesfeld'~s request.
Mr. White. agreed than it would: He explained how one• area .could be
made less denseby'eliminating four homes and making the remaining Pots
bigger. In return,, they would like fo add °four, homes to the interior of :the.
project by making some of the interior tots, smaller.
Council. Member Healy asked if'the 20=foot backyards could. be
maintained in that: case.
Mr. White confirmed that they could.
Vice Mayor Moynihan remarked on the small.size of the lots, especially
compared to his own neighborhood.
Mr. W,hi#e pointed out that; "As to s ge# bigger houses getmore
expensive:'" Part of their goal with thsproject wqs to build compara,fively
affordable;housing.
Council Member Healy stressed the im,"portance of. Council knowih,g
specifically what they were voting on.
Mr. White reiterated -his proposal. He was corifident that Basin Street could
work with City staff.
Mayor Glass:said.. h,e would support a C,ommunity,Facilities District'for
funding maintenance:
Gouncf Member Torliatt asked, the~dfference in acreage in the originally
proposed' park and what~is on the current plan:.
Mr. White answered that the'park was .originally three acres; then 1.3
acres,.and is now about. l.acre. The total number of houses did not
. ,._. _..
increase. Sorge of the lot sizes were adjusted.
Counc.if Member Healy`thought an Assessment District was fine for
streetscape improvements dlong the exterior of the development: The
developershould provide an endowment for mainteridnce of`the park.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 425
1
2
Mayor Glass acid Council Member-Todiatt-`were concerned about what
3 would happen if the endowment turned out not to be insufficient.
4
5 Council Member Harris noted that he thought PEP answered concerns
6 about how residents will get arourid.
7
8 Council Member Healy supported the PEP housing on the site. He liked
9 the idea of'fhaving senior housing sites scattered around the City. He
10 hoped PEP would give preference for sites like this to residents who do
1 1 have vehicles.
12
13 Mr. Svinth answered that PEP could work that out. He noted that the
14 nearest grocery store is about 1.5 miles away. There are other PEP projects
15 where amenities are at least that far away.
16
17 Council Member Healy said that PEP had indicated there was
18 neighborhood support for limiting their part of the project to two-story
19 buildings. He thought that with appropriate design, PEP could have a 3-
20 story building on the interior of the site. He wanted to make sure SPARC
21 has the discretion to listen to neighborhood concerns and encourage
22 some design excellence. He was happy to note that the plan called for
23 ingress and egress to and from Frates Road from the PEP site, which meant
24 the-two narrower streets inside the subdivision would not the full brunt of
25 the traffic from the site.
26 -
27 Mayor Glass thought, regarding the Conditional Use Permit, that the
28 Planning Commission should review the project. He did not see this as an
29 undue burden on PEP.
30
31 Council Member Healy asked if Couricil were approving PUD standards
32 for the PEP site tonight, how did that dovetail with the CUP.
33
34 Mr: Moore thought the real question was what was Council`s goal in
35 establishing°this regulatiori. The PUD standards already provide for the use
36 of°the site, they identify a specific use for the site, a specific density, and
37 specific development standards ih terms of setbacks and height
38 limitations.. lay adopting them for this development, Council will have
39 approved the basic components of what the affordable/senior/disabled
40 housing would look like. That raised the question of the necessity of a
41 Conditiona{ Use Permit. If it was a question of ultimate design, SPARC is
42 already empowered to address that. The CUP adds a layer that is
43 probably not necessary and. could actudlly create some issues relative to
44 additional Conditions that the Planning Commission might put on that
45 would make the project infeasible.
46
47 Council Member Healy suggested ddopting PUD standards proposed for
48 PEP, and limit it to two-story structures, and asked if SPARC would still have
49 the discretion to go to three-stories.
50
Vol. 39, Page 426 March 1, 2004
Mr. Moore replied thatlanguage could be added to the standards-that
SPA12C would have, to make pdrticular findings in order to approve three
stories.
Council Member Healy suggested doing that, and eliminating the
requirement for a Conditional Use: Permit.
Vice Mayor Moynhan'interjected that the neighbors were told it would be
limited to two stories:
Mr. White pointed out that PEP .has voiced fhdt they didn't want more
than two stories. If they decided they wanted .more, they would have to
go back to the Planning Commission ford. Conditional Use Permit:..
Council Member Healy agreed.
Mr. Svinth stated that PEP is not interested in more than two stories
Vice. Mayor Moynihan Stated that until financing is actually committed, is
is not certain that PEP can do the project in this aocation: He thought the
City should have an dlte.rnative for the cite without bringing it back. for a.
complete review. Society is getting older. When,,you set up a senior
housing project on the~edge of town, and that population ages; driving.
:becomes a .bigger and .bigger'issue. Although the :City receives subsidies
for paratransi,t services, no one .knows: how much longer those will be
available. He :thought it far better to .have. the project- in closer proximity to
basic dmenities. He:thoughtthe City did a betterjob:of collecting in-lieu
fees and leveraging those funds'in partnership with non-profits, and
wondered if that would be the case here., He would drop the point if fhe
rest of Council wanted to push, forward with `it, but he thought'there
should. be do alternative should .PEP not be successful in .going forward
with the project.
Mayor Glass thought there. was a lot to be said for having senior/low
income housing sprinkled around the community; and a Jot to be said for
having it near grocery stores. A comprehensive approach. is needed. This
will not by any means meet the demand. He didn't have a problem with
putting it there,, or with putting it somewhere. Perhaps the City should be
protected by establishing. d reasonable, time frame: for the project's
completion. He asked if that could be incorporated into the language.
Mi•: Moore. slid that would have to be: up to PEP'. If they were willing to
include a time frame as parf of the PUD standards; that .would be
acceptable to staff.
IVIs. Cook explained that the reality of affordable housing projects, meant
that it will probably--take at least five: or six years.
Council. Member orliatt felt that in terms of'the proposed, land. donation, it
should be'mdde clear that this was something the City was doing for fhe
community, as the City was "paying for it" with in-lieu housing fees.. She
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
March 1, :2004
Vol. 39, Page 427
thought the City Ivlanagershouldnegotiate the bestdeal for the
community.
Council Member Healy thought the point was to actually get housing
constructed.. He agreed with Council MemberTorliatt that the City
Manager should work on this. issue over time and monitor it and ensure
thdf the City is g"ettirig.a fair and equitable result.
._
.~
City Manager Bierman pointed~out that this project does not have a
development agreement, so the'fees:'thaf they have to pay will be the
higher fees. He would be glad to work with them. The issue he was hearing
is not so much "•Should the City do in-lieu. ornot in-lieu," it's "Is this site
appropriate for PEP."
Council Member,Healy thought there'was Council consensus that it is
appropriate for PEP.
Mr. W.hife said that=was fine with him.
Council Member Torliatt was concerned that all the homes were two
stories. This rneanf there would be no "market rate" homes accessible to
someone with a disability thaf prevented their climbing stairs. She thought
the subdivision needed an appropriate mix of one- and two-story houses.
Council Member Healy said the issue was the same as earlier:
neighborhood buy-in. This is a~project thaf is going to meet the needs of
the existing neighborhood.'He'sees aclear demand. for more efficient use
of space. Building hbrnes with efficient use of space is part of protecting
the Urban Growth Boundary. He supported the mix of product as shown.
Council .Member Torliatt knew that the City Manager, who has knee
problems, looked all over the City for asingle-story home. They are very
difficult to find.
Council Member Harris thought two-story homes were acceptable.
Mayor Glass wondered if it would be possible to mix in some one-story
homes.
Doyle Heaton,. Delco Builders, expldined that trying to build. single:level
homes on these smaller lots would be very,difficult. He'suggested instead
that~sorne'homes be " master down" models; which are effectively 1'/2
stories (master bedrooms downsfaii-s), in that the upper story is less bulky.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked Mr. Heaton if it would be possible to have
some one-story models on the larger lots on the perimeter of the project.
Mr,.Heaton pointed out that in this case, larger lots were still not "large."
Vice Mayor Moynihan thought a variety of models on the fringes of the
developmentwould contribute to the sense of feathering of density.
Vol. 39, Page. 428 March 1, 2004
.Mayor Glass would, like to see some of that; ;just for variety., He thought it
would ..give the developer something more to sell.
Mr., Heaton agreed as long cis~they could build "lriasfer downs."
Mayor Glass agreed:
Council.Member:Healysupporte.d"staff's recomrnendatio.n of using
recycled water, when:available; in common areas: He thought the Ely
Boulevard side of'fhe project should be fully landscaped..
Mr. White agreed.
Council.Member Healy contin6ed that there was Council agreement:on
the Planning Commissioners' recommendations to try to•get CalTrans to
allow landscaping in their right-of-way on:the Lakeville side.. Regarding the
FratesJEly'stop sign/stop. light, question,. the developer and the
neighborhood were advocatng;a.sign; but sfaff was requesting a light.,
He said he was prepared to support~a sign,; but added it would be .nice:: to
have: a flashing ,lighted crosswalk as that area, was sort of an acceleration
area.. for people driving: in and opt of the comrnunity~. He referred to the
crosswalk in Redwood Business: Park for comparison.
IVIr. White agreed..
Gouncil.Member Torliatt didn'•t want°the Cityto Ibse the opporfuriity to
have the developer pay foc~a stop'li•ght at that location if~it turned out one
was:warranted. She asked Mr "White if Basin Street'would.be willing to
bond for it for two or three years.
11Ar. Whte;'agreed:,
Mayor Glass would also like fo see ''speed dots" installed in that location.
.Council Member Nealywould; prefer to the Traffic Engineer on that., .
Mayor Glass concurred and. added that the Fire .Department should be
consulted; as they-sometimes 'don't like bumps in the road:
Uice Mayor Moynihan said he w.ould';think .neighbors would prefer a light,
as a stop~sgn would mean that eyeryone,.including trucks with dir.brakes;
shad to stop.lf engineering and traffic. studies helve been done,. and a light
recommended as a result,. CounciC shouldaupporf thdt:
Council Member Harris thoughtit was a "good middle ground" to bond
for a light in future, in case the stop sign doesn't work out.
Counc-il M'ember Healy agreed.
,Mayor Glass agreed:. The bonding, would give Council the. chance. fo
revisit the issue down the road;. if necessary:,
March'1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 429
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Council Member Healy )ike Commissioner vonRdesfeld's idea that the two
gateway aspect's be treated:. separafiely by SPARC so. that they be given
the atterition they deserve, He; appreciated the dev`eloper's offer to
contrbute.to a public drt~installdtion on that corner.
Vice Mayor~Moynihan wah#ed to ma- ke sure that$1.5 .million donation was
wriften in as a Condition of Approval. He didn't know how that would be
established, but~ih° light of tiie fact that the City was compromising on the
urban separator issue, lie would IiKe~to, be sure this offer was not
coritingent oh' acquisition of a particular parcel, which mayor may not be
the best locatioh for a future fire station.
Council. Member Torlliatf thought-that if purchase of the Casa Grande
Motel were part of the Cohdiforis of Approval; if should not be
desigridted specifically as tfe:site of a future fire station but as a
dedication and the property would be used by the City, pursuant to City
Council direction, at some point in time, as a general fund asset.
City Manager, Bierman didn'-t thinK Council should condition this on any
fee coming;'in. ~He suggesfed .instead a side a letter of agreement with. the
City that the developer would donate $1:75 million to City.. He clarified
that this does not' deal with the urban separator issue - it deals with the
park issue.
Council Member Healy.asked~if Council was going to work that out at this
point', or was it something separate that the City Manager would deal
with.
Vice,Mayor Moynihan thought the donation was "tied intimately fo the
projecf," and he was not willing to allow a side letter to occur on
something like this.
Council Member Healy didn't think it could be a Condition of Approval,
as there was "no nexus to it."
Vice Mayor Moynihan countered that the developer had offered the
property, and there was no reason. not to go forward and'tie it in. In his
mind, he added, the City was compromising the urban separator. He
justified that to himself as being'in the community's best interest based on
such a corifribufion. If the contribution were not being tied to the project,
he was going to have a hard time justifying the compromise.
Council Member Healy thought it important that 'the City get the piece of
property. Whether the City accepted the piece of property or asked for a
monetary contribution instead was not something Council had to decide
tonight. He would prefer that the Cify accept the property.
Mr. White said he didn"f really care what the City did with the property.
Basin Street's problem is they have the property in contract, and "the
window is closing." He thought it was a good opportunity for the City to
have a site`for a firehouse. He added that with the Downtown Specific
Rlan in full swing, Land is "not getting cheaper."
Vol. 39, Page 430 March 1, 200..4
Council Member Harris thought this was "fhe "epitome of apublic-private
partnership" and Council should, be embracing it.
Mayor Glass summarized. that tte Cdsa Grande Hotel. and the property'
on which. it is situated will be donated °to the City and the. Cify will work out
later what'it does with it.
r.y
`Vice M:dyor'Moynihan was not in favor of making land acquisition,
decisions from. the dais; without the .benefit of an appraisal on'the
property. He did not agree with Mr, White's: assessment of the property's
value, Other parcels are being'sold for-a lof less. It would better to let the
Casa Grande Hotel property go out.of contract, and the-City could buy it
later at an appraised value that he could support. He thought it made
more sense to received .$;1..75 million cash donation than a property that
"may 6e worth just a fraction of'that."'
City Manager Bierman referred to a memo in which the Fire Chief
approved. of'the Casa Grande. Hotel,site as appropriafe for a future fire
station.
Vice Mayor.Moynihan thought it was premature to choose a,pa,rticular' _ .
site-as:a fire station, and added that the Fire~Chief had told Council'that
he preferred a different site.lf the City received.a dollar amount
donation; it would have the leverage to purchase the property later, if
desired, quite' possibly at a lowec'cost.-.If the City paid more now instead
of Iesslater, they were effectively giving;away that money. If the Council
w,as more. focused on. getting a new fire station than on the urban.
separator,. than. he suggested they "go ahead and casf the' dice" instead
of"'doing it through fhe public process."
Council Mernb:er Healy disagreed with Vice Mayor Moynihan.. He thought
it was Time tostartentertaining,motions:: He,asked if staff or the applicant
had any. loose `ends or wasn't clear on direction in some .areas.
Mr. White interjected that a Community Facilities District did not carry any
of the endowment risk, and would be a.great-way to fund all of the
common areas~in fhe project..-The City would have,;fhe abilityto increase
-that fee in the future if they so chose: He asked Council to reconsider
requiring an annuity from the developer:
Council Member TorliatF suggested that if `the developer contributed an
amount to se°ed fhe: fund, that the Community Facilities District rriighf be
the way to go. It would provide a continual funding source.
Mr. Heaton reminded Council of Mello Roos Di"strict. sea. up for the .last
twelve parcels in the Adobe Creek,Subdiyision. This would be the same.
'idea, but would be spread out' over 2~1~6 parcels. Wifh proper disclosure, it
becomes. part of the homeowner's tax fjill.
Council Member Healy said he was. willing to be persuaded on this. one.
He noted that it would amount to less than $50,per°year per house.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 431
1
2 ~
Mayor: Glass sum_rnacized that there was Council consensus on a GFD.
3 Council Member Torliafthad asked that the developer put in some seed
4 money to get it started.
5
6 Council Member Healy asked staff'and the. City Attorney if there were any
7 issues on which they needed clarification before Council began
8 entertaining motions.
9
10 Council Member Torlidtt asked staff if the. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
1 1 Committee's recommendations were all included in the Conditions of
12 .Approval.
13
14 ~ IVIs. Allsep .explained that'the Conditions of .Approval,. as currently drafted,
15 might not include all the recommendations from the PBAC that are noted
16 in the memo (included in Council's packet).
17
18 Council Member Torliatt asked which recommendations were not
19 included in the Conditions of Approval.
20
21 Ms. Allsep. referred to Attachment 10. While ~fhe recommendations from
22 PBAC are not specifically .reflected, in all cases, in the Conditions of
23 Approval, there is a condition that requires that the plans for each phase
24 of°the development be reviewed by the PBAC prior to the project going
25 to SPARC. This provides additional opportunities to comment and
26 implement the specific recommendations, many of which are design-type
27 issues, such as,glare, parking. There"is a condition that the provisions of the
28 bicycle plan will be impfernented, although each provision may not be
29 spelled out.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt asked if all the Class 1, 2, and 3 bikeways were
32 included in .thee Conditions of Approval.
33
34 Ms. Allsep believed that in the Engineering Conditions, regarding the
35 improvements to €ly and to Lakeville and Frates, there are Conditions that
36 talk;about bike lanes. She referred to Page 4, Conditions 15 and 16, which
37 included a requirement fora Class 2 bike-lane along Lakeville Highway,
38 and for bike lanes on Frates aril Ely Roads.
39
40 Vice Mayor Moynihan reminded Ms: Allsep that Council had agreed, on
41 Condition 53; line 7, to change the words "explore ways to._." to "shall
42 connect this path to the frontage road that parallels Lakeville Highway."
43
44 Ms. Allsep agreed.
45
46 Vice Mayor Moynihan added that Condition 52, instead of specifying an
47 annuity, would instead specify an annuity to establish the CFD.
48
4.9 Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties, said he would like to run through his list of
50 what Council and the developer had. agreed to, to ensure everyone was
51 "on the same page." He directed Council's .attention to Basin Street's
52 February 27, 2Q04 letter, attached to which were what he called their
Vol. 39, Page 432 March 1, 2004
"Annotated Conditions. of Approval," which listed: the' Conditions they •
agreed to and those they would like modified or deleted.
Yiee Mayor Moynihan asked Mr.;Smifh if he was, referring to fhe February
26th Anho:tated Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Smith, agreed.
Council Member To~liatt: thought Council should go with;std'ff's
recommendations, and if there~was soi~nething that d'euiated from that.....
Mr. Smith, explained that the Annotated Conditions of Approval listed
those Conditions for which fhey would. like to suggest modifications: Those
that are listed as "Accepted".are acceptable to Basin Street Properties
without changes. •
Council Member Torliatt stated that if each item were gone over one at a
time, the. meeting~•would Idst'until •1:00 in the- morning.. -
Mr. Smith suggested, instead li"sting off the things Mr. White had agreed to
in order to make sure eve"ryone was "on the same page.."
Council Member Torligtt assured Mr. Smith -that Council -knew°what'they
had agreed to on the dais..
Council, Member Healy dsked:if°there were things Mr. Smith wanted to
highlight because. gf lack of eaarity.
~Mr~ Smith asked for clarification on the bond suggested for a traffic signal.
Council,Member iorliatt suggesfed'the bond;. be'released five~years after
the•Iast Certificate of Occuparcy was.~issu.ed.
Vice May,orMoynihan suggested, "just building the signal."
Mr. White rioted That the•current traffic study;'taking,into account full
build-out' of the project,. including the PEP site, and ;.projected .growth of
the City to 2015, did not warrant the traffic signal:
Mayor Glas§ thought two or three years after last`house is sold'would be.
reasonable.
Council Member Torliatt asked fog clarification: sold or issued Certificate of
Occupancy?
Council Member Healy thought Certificates of Occupancy would be
easier to track.
Council agr-eed.
Mr. Whitereferred to staff`s suggestion'to close off this entrance here with
a cul-de-sac (indicdting on map),, He thought that entrance into the
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 433
project was very important, and hoped Council would support leaving
the.entrdnce iri place.
Craig Spaulding, City Engineer; stated that the original. project called for
two entrances off'of Frates Road. We suggest opening up an entrance on
Ely and closing this entrance on Frates Road. It-was a safety issue to
prevent people from trying to cross there.
Council Member Healy was inclined to agree with the applicant. He
thought right-in/right-out access from Frates was what had been
proposed. He thought having more direct access would improve the
circulation of the project, especially with those two narrower streets
serving the PEP site.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if there were driveways into the PEP site
(indicating area on map).
Ms. Allsep, referring to the right in/right out access from Frates, noted that
in~an addendum to the trdffic~study, one. of the many alternatives that
were contemplated was a right in/right out access from one of the two
intersections proposed on either side of the PEP site, not directly into the
PEP site. She wondered if that was what Council Member Healy was
remembering.
Council Member Healy asked why staff was against-the idea of a right-
in/right-out directly to the PEP site.
Ms. Allsep clarified that staff did not say that. She. wasn't sure where that
idea came from. She had never seen a plan that showed direct access
from Frates fo the PEP site.
Council. Member Torliatt thought there was discussion at Planning
Commission to have "two inland outs" but she thought it reflected the
interior situation. She thought Commissioner vonRaesfeld had brought it
up.
Ms. Allsep said the Planning Commission had requested that there be a
secondary access to the PEP site, but she didn't recall any reference to
direcf access to Frates.
Council Member Healy didn't think it necessary-for Council to address that
tonight.
Mr. White. asked Council to consider three things before voting tonight.
These: were not discussed at the Planning Commission: One was "bulb
outs" or knuckles in the road. He would like to avoid including those in the
project. The second issue (indicating two entry streets) is these two streets,
which are 32 feet wide. Staff has proposed that they be 36 feet wide. Part
of the idea was that a narcowerstreet would keep the cars going slower.
Lastly, the Planning Commission wanted the project to have 20-foot
backyards. Basin Street agreed, but asked if they could have the porches
in the front yard encroach into the 10 feet of landscaping, where needed.
Vol. 39, Page 434
March 1, 2004
They were. amenable to that. What they didn,,'t think of at the time was the
ten-foot utility easement in the front yard of rpany of the homes. They
would like to move that info the right-of=way of the curb,. gutter; street, as
you would do in more of an .urban setting. He indicafed .another street
that the Planning.Commission had asked~fhem to widen. They-had
extensive discussion about it. They would like to,keep the width consistent
with what the Planning Commission asked them to do, which was a little
_.
different from what the Engineering Division had' asked.
,Mayor Glass asked, if..the 36-foot-wide streets were a request of the Fire
Department or was it a standard width. He thought some other
development had narrower streets.
Mr,Moore stated. that the current, City-adopted residential street
atandard width is 32 feet.
Mr. Spaulding clarified that 32 feet is the minimum standard for.parking on
both,sides. There's-a real problem when there are .houses on boah sides of
fhe st~eef but. parking is not allowed. on both.. sides. The 36-foot-wide
entrance. roads provide a little bif more width as you enter the subdivision.
Council Member Healywould support 32 feet and thought it was a traffic
calming measure as well.
Council Member Harris agreed.
Counci~MemberMoynihan asked. how much on street parking there
would be.
Mr. White explained that there would bo parking on .both sides of-the
street through much. of the project. He indicated an area where there
houses on one side of the street, and the soundwall on the other. Those
would have parking only on one aide.
Council Member Moynihan didn't mind having. narrower streets as long ds
parking needs were: accommod'ated.. He was still concerned about the
feathering. He was hoping the'lots on the-perimeter could be larger.
Council Member Healy and Mayor Glass .both thought Council had
already had that discussion.
Mayor Glass supported moving porches up. He thought.front yards, to a
large degree, were wasted.
Council Member Really asked the applicant~tor confirmation that it was
"just a handful°' of lots where that situation occurred, and that the 20-foot
.backyards. would be maintained.
Mr. White agreed; and said, that all but four'lots; would .have 20-foot
backyards; four would have 16-fool backyards:
Mayor Glassaupporfed 32-foot wide sheets.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 435
1
2
Mr. Spaulding asked for corifirmation is Council`was approving 32-foot-
3 wide sf"reefs for the entire subdivision. He added th:at`if any of the streets
4 were narrower, parking was goirig to be a real issue.
5
6 Council Member Liealy asked how-this problem could be solved.
7 ,
8 Council Member Torliatt suggested "bulb-outs."
9
10 Mr. Smith indicated on the map the two narrower streets to which he
1 1 thought Mr: Spaulding was referring. He explained that the only way to
12 make .those streets wider would. be to reduce the tackyards of certain
13 lots.. Th_ey;are currently at 20 feet. They could be reduced to 15 feet, which
14 is what Council had approved'foc the last three or four subdivisions.
15 Regarding the street,.with the: soundwall„the Planning Commission had
16 specifically requested that they.eliminate parking on the soundwall side of
17 the street, so that'an 8-foot-widestrip of landscaping could be added on
18 the other side of the wall
19
20 Mayor°Glass asked if°each of the~driVeways was long enough for two cars.
21
22 Mr. Smith agreed: He'pointed out that there are only houses on one side
23 of the street so having pdrking only that side of the street would not, he
24 did not think, cause-a problem:
25
26 Mr. Spaulding agreed.. that a 28=foot single-loaded street width was
27 acceptable where there-were. houses on one side only, and parking on
28 one side only. Streets'with parking on .both sides need to be at least 36
29 -feet wide, and streets with houses on both sides need to have parking on
30 both sides.
31
32 Council Member .Healy asked how the double-loaded streets could all be
33 made 32 feet wide without~compromising the size of the backyards.
34
35 Mr. Spaulding did not have an answer for that, given the limited time staff
36 has had to prepare for tonight's discussion.
37
38 Council. Member Healy asked. if it would be appropriate to modify the
39 front yard setbacks' on those stre:e.ts.
40
41 Mr. Smith stated that to get the houses closer to the sidewalk would be
42 complicated from a gradingand drdinageatdndpoint. He thought the
43 most appropriate solution would be fo take the five feet from the
44 backyards.
45
46 Council Member Healy asked if the developer would consider a smaller
47 footprint house that would allow the 32-foot-wide street and preserve the
48 20-foot backyard setbacks.
49
50 Mr. Heaton asked Council to lef them work with staff on this issue. They
51 would end up with 32-foot streets dnd minimum 18-foot backyards.
52
Vol. 39, Page 436
March 1,'2004
Council agreed.
t:
Ms: Allsep :reminded Council that they should'.require.writt~n
acknowledgement that the applicant is willing to implement the
mitigation measures. She also asked if it was the intent'that the
Community Facilities District cover all ftie open space parcels. If thaf was
the case, there was a Condition ihcluded, which would require a
Landscape Assessment District be~established #or all. of the open space
otherthan the park side:, if Counci(desire'd` to•.haye the CFD implemented,
it would fake the place of that Condition as. well.
Council Member: Healy agreed.- ~ ~ ~ . .
Ms..-Allsep noted thatin fhe,letter°of February27th'Withthe Annotated
Conditions of Approva;f;.,fhe developers; agree to sonic.; fhey don't .agree
to others,~rnany of which she. did not think were, discussed this evening. It
would be up to Council to decide which they want to implement as
.identified in the initial., study and reflecfed inthe Conditions, and which ofi
those which ;the applicant takes exception'to should be modified before
adopting 'the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Council Member Healy noted that Condition ofi Approval nurnber 2 stated
that, "All. mitigation rne.asures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration are herein. incorpora#ed by're.ference as°Conditions
of Project Approval." He asked if'it wouldn't be ea"siest fo just incorporafe
the. changes made. at the dais, and obtain the signed document later.
Ms..Allsep agreed, as.long as there was an understanding,as.to~which of
the changes to the mitigation measures that the applicant has requested
a"re being agreed to. She assumed that`meant only those that had been
discussed tonight.
Council Member,He'dly agreed. Council declined the invitation to walk
point-by-pdint through the five-page letter.
Ms. Allsep agreed.
MOTION to adopt Resolution2004-029 N.C:S. Mifigdted'Negative
Declaration forthe Soutfigate..Development. M/S'Healy/Harris..
Council Member Torliatt announced that she would not be voting in favor
of the resolution because she did not: believe there was sufficienf
evidence. on record. that there would be adequate. water supply for the
development, and because, of'ffe urban separator issue:
MOTION carried.4-1-2 as follows:
AYES: Mayor Glass,. Harris, .Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan
NOES: Torliaff
ABSENT:: O'Brien, Thompson
March 1, .2004
Vol. 39, Page 437
1 MOTION to adopt,Resolution 2004-0030 N:C.S..Amending the General
2 .Plan land.use desgnafion #rom `'•Specific.Plan Area" and "Transif Terminal"
3 to ".Urban Divers.ified'' for the Southgate Development. M/S
4 Healy/Moyynihan.
5
6 MOTION carried 5=0-2 as follows:
7
8 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt
9 NOES: None
10
11 ABSENT: O''Brien, Thompson
12 MOTION to intr.,oduce (First Reading) _Ordinance 2178 N.C:S. Rezoning from
13 the: Existing "Sfudy" Zoning. Classification ~ to Planned Unit Development
14 (Pl1D) =Southgate Development. M/$' Healy/Moynihan.
15
16 IVIOTI;ON carried- 5-0-2 as follows:
17
18 AYES: ~ Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt
19 NOES: None
20 ABSENT:. O"Brien, Thompson
21
22 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004-.0031 N.C.S. Approving the Southgate
23 Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Standards. M/S
24 Healy/Harris.
25 .
26 Vice.IVlayor Moynihan asked if the changes that would be made to the
27 resolution could be spelled out.
28
29 Council Member Healy explained that the changes would include all of
30 the things agreed to by the Council at the dais this evening.
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan wasn't sure where Council ended up on some of
33 the many suggestions that had been made. There are a number of
34 Conditions and modifications to Conditions that need to be spelled out.
35 He expressed confusion about the about the.in-lieu contribution by the
36 developer in place of the requirement fora 300-foot wide urban
37 separator.
38
39 Council Member Healy thought staff`would have to compare their notes
40 but he thought Council had covered all the issues in the discussion over
41 the last 4'/~ hours.
42
43 Mr. Moore pointed out that Council had the option of bringing the
44 resolution back when the rezoning ordinance returns for its second
45 reading. Alternatively, th'e resolution could be adopted tonight and
46 changes could be made according to staff's notes and the Clerk's
47 minutes.
48
49 Mayor Glass agreed and believed Council had reached consensus on
50 each issue as they went through it.
51
Vol. 39, Page 438 March 1,'2004
Vice Mayor Moynihan thought thdt'put an unfair burden on staff`to
interpret". He would feel more comfortable bring back the Conditions of
Approval, in order to spell out the~understan'dirg very.clearly. If the
developer is not going to sign off on all of"the modifications; Council
should ..know that. He thought Councilshould all be very:clear-oh what
they were adopting, arid. at this ate hour, he did'. not think;they were
"necessarilyall on the same page."
Mr..Moore suggested an aption..to b~i.ng the. resolution on the PUD
Development`Standards back at the time that the rezoning"ardinance
comes back ;for its second. reading. Otherwise, `Council could adopt the
resol,Ution tonight, and' staff will" make'. the changes according to their
notes.
Mayor Glass felt comfortable. with staff incorporating the chan°ges.
Council Member Torliatt'mentioned that another reason she had not
voted'to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was that Council had
not considered the overall ratio of park to population, which" is an overall
General Pldn Land Use issue, and without fhdt information, she did hot feel
she could vote in fdvor of it.
Vice.MayorMoynhan..asked again:fo'brin'g"the language of the PUD
guidelines: come .back to Council with.. the second' reading of the rezoning
ordinance. He asked th,e masker of the'motiori and the maker of the
second t.o withdraw. their motions, and delay the vote: until the ordinance
comes back for its second ~readi.ng. Ne would also support not reopening
Public Comment. That would give Council and staff a chance to review
the< modifications and make sure:. there are no. questions. or errors: He
would',be willing to go~forward'with the Vesting Tentative:Map tonight.
Council. Member Healy disagreed, and declined to withdraw his motion.
Council Member TorliatF announced that she would be voting against'the
motion. She'. appreciated the discussion at the dais tonight w'ifh -the
community and the developer. Thisyproperty does not have a General
Land Use designation that gives it any particular value; nor does it have
any zoning entitlements. If Council; by approving this, will increase the
yalUe of the property from "basically pasture to about $ T06 million, based .
on.$500;000 per:home; and not including the 'PEP project." She recalled:.
that 79% of the voters in Petaluma approved the Urban Growth Boundary,
acid said she was eery concerned atjout the potential expansion area -to
the"south of the, parcel.. There. has been: a lot oftestirnony tonight, and
overthe years, about. sUppo"rung a 300-foot urban separator or_reducing
that urban separator in cases of superiordesign. She did not see a
''superior design" here, nor did she se.e a lot of open space incorporated
into the interior of the development: She th"ought the project deserved to
maintain a :300-foot Urban separa"tor;: which the entire €ast Side of the City
enjoys. That issue was the deal-breaker for her. She wanted the.
communityunderstand her vote, She thought the neighborhood would
benefit. from. the reduction of homes. if, the: urban separator was .honored,
and they would benefit from the reduction in traffic trips in and out of this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37'
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 439
site. That has been a .major issue for'the adjacent neighborhood.
Additionally, she would have preferred toaee more of a variety in
architecture and model's. in. the subdivision: The feathering of density issue
had riot beeh addressed, either.. She did' supportt the PEP project. She
could support the entire project if the 300-foot urban separator was
honored.
MOTION carried 3-2-2 as follows:
AYES: Mayor Glass,. Harris; Healy
NOES: Vice Mayor Moynihan, Torliatt
ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson
.MOTION to adopt Resolution 2004_-0.032 N.C.S. Approving Vesting
Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval, with amendments made at the
dais: M/S Healy/Harris.
Council Member Torliatt did not believe the project had a public benefit,
apart. from providing senior housing,, because there is no Condition of
Approval that ihcorporates providing ariofher piece of property for
whatever use or whatever value that may be. She thought the Council
needed to get those things in writing when they were making those kinds
of decisions.
Vice;Mayor Moynihan asked if Council was in a position to approve the
Vesting Tentative Map since fhere was discussion about reducing lots on
'the perimeter and moving some houses to the interior of the site. He
wondered if Council needed to have updated map in front of them in
order to make the decision.
Mr. Moore explained that-the Conditions of Approval would be adopted
by resolution. Those will be tied. fo the final map. The .map that actually
got recorded would have to reflect all the Conditions and be in
substantial conformance with the approval here tonight. That's the law.
Mayor Glass stated, "What happened to this parcel should happen to no
parcel." It~was supposed to be a Study Area for six months - it has been
twerit`yyears. That was one reason he was voting in favor.
MOTION .carried 4-1-2 as follows:
AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Vice. Mayor Moynihan
NOES: Torliatt
ABSENT: O'Brien, Thompson
Vol. 39, Page 440
March 1, 2004
The following are the amended findings and .conditions of approval, as amended at fhe
meeting:
FINDINGS:
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map> as conditioned, ~is consistent with the
provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions',. of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordindnce)
and the State Subdivision Iv1ap Act.
2 That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions, for its design and.
improverents, is consistent with the General Plan, and will-.not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare in •tfat adequate public facilities- exist or`will
be installed, .including roads, sidewalks,. water; sewer, storm drains, and ofher
infrastructure.
3. That the site is physically .suitable for the density and the type of develo_ prnent
proposed.
4: That the design of the.subdivis.ionond ,the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial enviro.n_mentgl damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury
will occur to fish or wildlife or .thEr 'habitat.. An Initial Study was prepared
indicating that there would'be no significant, environmental impacts that could
not be mitigated..
CONDITIO'NS' O.F APPROVAL:,
From. the Planning Division:
l . The plans submitted for building permit review shall .be in substantial compliance
with the vesting Tentative Nlap, Unit Development Plan and Preliminary Grading -
Plan> dated February 1:3, 200,4, except as: modified by these conditions.
_.
2. Alf mitigation. measures adopted in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Southgate Residential Development, revised February 20,
2004, are :herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approva(. -
3. Upon approval by the City .Council,. the applicant shall pay the -$35.00 Notice of
Determination fee to the Planning .Division. The check shall be made' payable. to
the County Clerk. Planning staff, will' file the Nofice of Determination with the
County Clerks office'within five (5) days after receiving. Council approval.
4. Prior to the approval of Final Map/irnprouement ,plans and/or submiftal for final
Site Plan and Architecture Review ap,provaf for the Southgate Residential
Development, the applicant shall submit a Master Landscape Plan which
includes. but-is not limited fo the following: - -
a. Details of the landscape strips and entry. features along Frafes Road and Ely
Road.
b. S#reet trees and' other landscaping planted. along the internal streets.
March 1, 2004
Vol. 39, Page 441
c. Color and material of sound walls (noise barrier)' along Lakeville Highway and
2 Frafes Road.
3
4 d. Enhanced. landscaping adjacent to 'the pump station at the corner of South
5 Ely and Frates Rodds.
6
7 e. Details of the development of the open space and park parcels, including
8 landscaping, exterior lighting, outdoor furniture, paths and playgrounds.
9
10 5. Prior to the approval of Final Map/improvement plans and/or submittal for final
11 Site Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential
12 Development, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from
13 Caltrans for landscaping within the Lakeville Highway (SR 1 16) right-of-way along
14 the project frontage.
15
16 6. Prior to the approval of Final Map/improvement plans and/or submittal for final
17 Site .Plan and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential
18 Development, the applicant shall contribute toward the cost of a public arf
19 element on the Parcel Dgateway/park parcel located at the corner of Lakeville
2Q Highway and Frates Road. If the City does not yet have a public arf program in
21 place, the applicant shall negotiate a suitable design with the Petaluma Arts
22 Council.
23
24 7. Prior fo the approval of Final Map/improvement plans and/or submittal for final
25 Site Plan. and Architecture Review approval for the Southgate Residential
26 Development, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the landscaping and
27 noise wall along Lakeville Highway, including. landscaping proposed within the
28 Lakeville Highway (Caltrans) right-of-way, arid the two "Gateway" elements
29 = along Lakeville Highway (within Parcels C and D). These plans shall be subject to
30 review and approval by SPARC.
31
32 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, PUD Development Guidelines and final
33 architectural site plans shall be reviewed and approved by SPARC.
34
35 9. During construction, the applicant shall be required to utilize Best Management
36 Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully commit to Integrated Pest
37 Management .techniques for ,the protection of pedesfrian/bicyclists. The
38 applicant shall be required to post signs when pesticide/herbicide use occurs to
39 warn pedestrians and bicyclists.
40
41 10. The design, development and dedication of the proposed public park (Parcel C),
42 shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any individual housing unit.
43
44 11. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall designate on the Final Map
45 a parcel to be dedicated to the City of Petaluma, which contains the sound wall
6 and landscaped area along both sides of'the wall adjacent to Lakeville Highway.
47 This parcel shall be included in the area maintained by the Community Facilities
48 District required by Condition 6Q, below.
49
50 12. ~ Construction and demolition debris shall be recycled to the maximum extent
51 feasible in order to minimize impacts on the landfill.
52
Vol. 39, Page 442 March 1, 2004
13. At the time of Final Map submittal, the developer shall submit ..names. for the
internal streets and cul-de-sacs to the Community Development Department for
review ahd approval.
14. The developer shall require a signed disclgsure to property owners of the single-
family lot within. the Southgdte developmehf, .indicating that they are aware of
the maximum density,, building height and, setbacks for the future. senior housing
site, identified on the. Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel "A;" as established in the
PUD Development Standards.
1.5. Plant materials to be installed as part of the .Landscape Plan: shall corisist of a
minimum of 15.gallon can size. for trees and S gallon can size forshrutjs.
lb. Prior to the approval of Improvement'Plans for the proposed developmerifi; the
dpplicanf shdll submit ..revised PU.D Development Standards for the Southga"te
Residential Development; which dddress the following:
a. Clearly specify alf permitted and. conditionally permitted. uses, allowed with
the Southgate PUD.
b. Clearly specify the permitted and conditionally permitted accessory
structures dllowed with the Southgate PUD.
c: Revise Deuelopment;Standards to' be•consistent with app""roved Vesting
Tentative Map and Lot/Parcel Numbers, as amended by conditions of
approval.
d, Future modifications to Unit Development Plan. A Conditional Ilse Permit
(CUP) approved by the Planning Commission shall be required~.foc
Senior/Disabled housing on PEP site ohly'if three-story buildings are proposed:
e. Lots 84-101 and 1.29-138 shall have minimum 17-foot rearyard wetbacks.
f. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet, except on the street side
of a corner lot, where the minimum side yard shall not be less than l0 feet.
17. Priorto the approval of Improvement Plans for the proposed development, the
applicant shall submit a plan that shall reflect the approved Unit .Development
Plan forthe Southgate,Plarined Unit Development.
From the Engineering Division:
Prior to or concurrent with the. Final Map/Improvement Plans submittal and/or submittal:.
'for final':Site .Plan and Archi,#'ecfural Review and approval; the.. applicant shall provide or
,.
address the following:
Frontage Improvements.
18. Lakeville Highway ,(State Rouae ll6) -Provide frontage improvements per
Caltrans requirements.-The Bicycle Plan:calls..for aclass II bike lane dlong•Ldkeville
Highway.
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, 'Page 443
19. Frates. Road. Construct '/z street improvements along the entire frontage including
2 but not ..limited to 'pavement' ~construc;tion and reconstruction, curb, gutter,
3 sidewalk, striping, streetlights, bike lanes, fire hy`dranfs, and landscaping.
4
5 a. The street section shalt be at least 6 inches of asphalt concrete over 21 inches
6 of class 2 aggregate base. The developer ,may have the existing pavement
7 evaluated, and .tested with a recommendation to bring the road section to
8 arterial standards.
9
10 b. The street width shall include two 6=foot bike lanes, two 12-foot travel lanes
1 1 and 12-foot turn' lane. Left, turn lanes shall be located at intersections.
12
13 c. No double left :turn lanes shalt be allowed.
14
15 d. Parking shall no.t be; allowed along Frates Road..
16
17 e. Prior to the submittal of improvement plans/Final Map, the proposed entry
18 street of Lakeville Circle shall be evaluated by a Traffic Engineer for
19 pedestrian; bicycle -and vehicle safety. The evaluation shall include options
20 for right=in and ..right-out only, ~a median in Frates Road to prevent left turn
21 movements and.. an uncontrolled intersection. Recommendations shall be
22 specific to safety issues. The applicant..shall be responsible for the cost of the
23 evaluation and peer review, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
24
25 20. Ely Road. Construct '/~ street improvements dlong the entire frontage including
20 but not limited to: pavement construction and reconstruction; curb, gutter,
27 sidewalk, striping, streetlights, bike lanes, fire'hydrants and landscaping.
28
29 a. The street section shall be at least 5 inches of asphalt concrete and 15 inches
30 of class 2 aggregate base. The '/2 street width shalt include a 12-foot travel
31 lane and a b-foot bike lane plus d 12-foot travel lane in the opposite direction
32 if the existing. road conditions warrant.
33
34 b. At the intersection of Frates Road additional improvements shall be necessary
35 including turn lanes and through lanes.
36
37 Intersections
38
39 21. A traffic signal shall be ~ constructed at the intersection of Calle Ranchero and
40 Frates Road.
41
42 22. A four-way stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Ely Road and Frates
43 Road. The intersection shall be equipped with enhanced pedestrian safety
~44 features including. but not limited to a lighted in-ground pedestrian warning
5 system and/or other pedestrian safety features as deemed appropriate by the
6 City Engineer.
7
48 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall deposit a bond with
49 the City Clerk for- 1..50% of the ~ design; construction and installation of a traffic
50 signal at the Frates Road/Ely Road intersection: The bond shall be released at the
51 discretion of the City Council two (2) years after the last certificate of occupancy
52 for a single family home is issued for the Southgate Development.
Vol. 39, Page 444 N(dreh 1', 2004
Grading
24. Grading shall conform to the soils investigation report. The soils report shrill address;
the. need for moisture barriers along the back of curb and additions("fiill over :the
existing city utilities in Fates Road.
25. :Cut'and fill information shall be provided on.`the improvements plans.
26. Provide fhe necessary grading and drainage: improvements on the Cify Pump
Station site.
27: Prepdre and submit an erosion control plan; storm water pollution prevention
plan (SWP;PP) and a notice;.of"intent (NOl).
28.. Any existing structures. above or below ground shall be removed if not a; part of
the new subdivision..Strucfures shall :include, but are not limited fo `fences',
"retaining walls, pipes, septic systems, wells, debris, etc.
Streets within Sovfhga#e Subdivision ,
29. Access to Prates Road at Calle. Ranchero' shall include. an .ingress lane,. a
combination straight and left turn lane and Bright-turn lane. 'Face. of curb radius
at proposed intersection"s'oi~~rates Road and Ely Road shall be q"t feast 40 feet..
30. All subdivision streets shall be at east 32 feet wide.. Single-loaded streets may be
28 feet wide and packing shall be limited to.one. side~of :the street.:Sidewa'Iksshsll
be required o,n both sides of; all streets:: Stop: signs and crosswalks shall be'required'.
at applicable intersections within the ..subdivision. Pedestrian ramps, are required
at .all corners. Face of .curb radius at interior street corners; shall beat least 25-.feet.:
.Street sections at the sound walls shall ,include landscaping adjacent to fhe
sound wall. Modifications to these scan, lords are at the discretion of the City"
Engineer.
31. A temporary all-weather turnaround shall be provided on Parcel A (Senior
Housing site) for the two streets ending at Parcel A.
32. All interior' streets shall. have a minimum street section of 4 inches of asphalt
.concrete and 12 inches of class 2.aggregate:base.
33. Additional outside urn radius (knuckles) shall be provided;. at 90` degree
intersections within the subdivision. Modifications 'to this standard .are at' the
discretion. of the City'Engineer.
34: All treets shall. be~ crowned: qt the center, directing surface drainage to both
sides of the street. ~ "
March 1, 2004. Vol. 39, Page 445
1 Site Drainage and Storm Drain System .
2
3 35. The detention: pond system shall be designed ,ta prevent•any increase in the peak
4 discharge: from the project site due to a 100=year storm. Provide a spillway in the
5 detention pond system and an over°flow path to safely direct runoff from a storm
6 exceeding 100 years.
7
8 36. Lot to lot drainage is not allowed' without a~ conduit system and corresponding
9 easement.
0
1 1 37. Provide a storm drain system in Frates Road and Ely Road per City standards as
12 necessary.
13
14 38. All hydrologic, hydraulic and storm drain system design shall be reviewed and
15 approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency.
16
17 39. Access roads acid :easements shall ~be provided for public storm drains on private
T8 property. Easements for public storm drains shall be at least 10 feet wide.
19
20 40. In .order to reduce the apparent height of the sound wall along Lakeville
21 Highway, the v-ditch shall be~'filled and an underground storm drainpipe shall be
22 installed along the Lakeville. Highway frontage if necessary. This shall be reflected
. 23 on the improvement plans submitted to the City.
24
25 Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems
26
27 41. Storm Drains shall be at least 15 inches in diameter.
28
29 42. The water main system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as
30 designated by the .Fire Marshal.
31
32 43. Fire flow calculations shall be provided.
33
34 44. The water main connection. in Lakeville Highway shall be eliminated if final fire
35 flow calculations iridicate the connection is not needed.
36
37 45. Access roads and easements shall be provided for public sanitary sewer and
38 water mains on private property. Easements shall be of least 10 feet wide.
39
40 46. Water services shall. be 1.5" diameter with l"water meters.
41
42 47. The developer shall be required to construct all oh-site and off-site recycled water
43 facilities to provide recycled water to the park and open space parcels for
44 landscape irrigation: Design, operation, and maintenance of'the recycled water
5 facilities shall comply with the City's Recycled Water Rules. The off-site facilities
6 shall include all pipelines, reservoirs, valves, connections, and other
7 appurtenances riecessary to deliver recycled water from the City's existing
8 recycled water main in Ely Road~'to the irrigation points of connection for the park
49 and open space parcels. The on-site facilities shall include all components of
50 landscape irrigation systems for the park and open space parcels, beginning at
51 the recycled water service .meters.
52
Vol. 39, Page 446
March 1, 2004
48. The landscape plan, irrigation plan. and grading p)an shall comply-with fhe City's
Landscape Water:Efficiency`Standards. Prior to the issuance of a buiading permit
for the project:, each of these pldns~ and all' supporting documents shrill be
subrnitfed to ah`e City'for review and approval.. The Landscape Water Efficiency
Standards ,shrill apply fo all cornrnon Brea, open space, park, and subdivision
.perimeter landscaping, as wel(as single-family fronf yard landscaping.
49. Planting materials shall be, selected and assessed using the California. Department
of Water Resources' "'Guide to Estimating' Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in
California,"' or similar guide. Turf grass shall not be d'llowed in front yards.
50. The design water budget and landscape water requirements shall be established
for all .proposed landscape dregs and. itemize_ d on ,the Landscape Design. 1Nafer
Budget Statement.
Final Map
51. Clearly and accurately show he bounddry and dedications on'fhe final,rnap.
52. Provide a 10-foot wide public utility easement on both sides of all. interior streets.
'The width of the easement ma.y be reduced, subject to agreement by all
dffected public utility companies:
53. A final map technical review fee is° due at'final map application.
Miscellaneous
54: Parcels B-K shall be dedicated to the City of Petaluma.
55. Gas- mains or underground.. electrical -mains shall not be allowed on private
property beyond the standard 90-foot public utility easement along the street
frontage.
56: lmpro~ement ,plans and final map,(s) shall .be prepared according to the latest
City policies, codes, ordinances, resolutions and standards:
57. If the project is phased,; each. individual phase shrill be designed to provide the
required utility services and street system independenf of any other phase.
58. Detention pond cnaintenan, ce shall include tasks and time intervals for inspection
and maintenance.
59. Formal application shall be filed for the abandonment of the Old LakeVilfe Road
between, .Prates .Road and Lakeville Highway. The abandonment shall include
removing the existing public utility easement (PUE) on APN 017-150-019 (37 acre
site): The formal application shall include; a title. report, appraisals and 1eg61
descriptions: for the areas 'proposed to be abandoned.. The a6andonrnent
process shall be complete prior to-final. map application.
60. Prior to, :approval of the final map,. the applicant shall establish a. Community
.Facilities District for rnaintendn'ce of all land anal improvements within Parcels B
through K, Frdtes Road medians, .and. the new parcel.. to be created along
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 447
Lakeville Highway per C'onditi'on ll, including but not limited to all sound walls,
2 detention ponds, draihage facilities, bicycle/pedestrian passageways and paths,
3 gateway features and landscaping. The, instrument for creating the Community
4 facilities District shall be subject to review by City Staff and the City Attorney, and.
5 approved by the City Council'. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost
6 ..
of establishing the Community Facilities District.-
?
8 From the Parks and Recreation Department
9
10 bl. The proposed public park, identified on the: Vesting Tentative Map as Parcel C,
1 1 shall be designed and developed with a playground along the same scale as the
12 playground recently approved for the Gatti Subdivision. Plans for the playground
13 shalt meet the approval of 'the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, and the
14 Parks and Recreation staff prior to review and' approval by SPARC.
15
16 62 The final Map and .Improvement Plans for Southgate shall provide for a
17 connection of the bike /pedestrian path. located in the urban separator to the
18 #rontage road that parallels Lakeville Highway. This connection or passageway
19 shall be aligned with. the: street that is the extension of Calle Ranchero.
20
21 Other
22
23 63. Prior to subrnittaf of the .Final Map, the applicant- shall adjust the property line
24 between the .public park (.Parcel C) and the parcel currently identified as Lot 128,
25 in order'to widen. the park parcel.
26
27 64. The: applicant shall .defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
28 boards, commissions, agents, officers, and. employees from any claim, action, or
29 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or
30 employees to attack, set. aside, void., or annul any of the approvals of the project,
31 ~ including the ce.rfification of associated environmental documents, when such
32 claim or action `is brought within the time period. provided for in applicable State
33 and/orlocal statutes. The City shall promptly'no:tify the applicants/developers of
34 any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
35 Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
36 defense of any clairp, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so
37 appellant shall reimburse City for attorneys fees by the City.
38
39 Mitigation Measures to be Applied_ as Conditions of Approval
40
41 3.1 All earthwork, grading;. trenching, baekfilling, and compaction operations shall be
42 conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance
43 (# 1046, Title 20, Chapter 20:04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and
44 Erosion Control Ordinance # 1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal
5 Code).
6
47 32 The project sponsor shall .submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by
48 a registered' professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The
49 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. shall be subject to review and approval of the
50 Planning Division and Engineering Section, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
51 The 'Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during
52 construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading
Vol. 39, Page 448
March 1, 2004
operations 'at the site to :prevent :discharge of sediment and contaminants into the
drainage system. The Erasion. and, Sediment Control P.Idn shall include the following
measures as applicable:
a. Throughout the construction proces"s, disturbance of groundcover shall be
minimized and. the existing vegetation shall'be retained to the exfen't possible
to reduce sail erosion. All' construction arid. grading activities, including short:-
term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations)
shall minimize the-amount of land area. disturbed. Whenever possible, existing
disturbed' areas shall be used for"such. purposes.
b. All drainage-ways; wetland areas and ,creek channels shall be;proteeted from
silt and sediment in storm. runofif through the use. of silt fences, diversion berms;
,and check dams. ,All ;exposed, surface areas shall. ,be 'mulched and reseeded
and all cut and fill slopes shalt be protected with hay mulch and/or e%osion
control blankets as appropriate.
c: Material and equipment ,for implementation of erasion control measures shall
be on-site by October l 5t. All. grading .activity shalt be completed by October
15th, prior to the on-set of the rainy season, with all disturbed; areas° stabilized
and re-vegetated by October 3'15r.
d,. Upon approval by the- Petaluma: City Engineer;. extensions for short=term
grcid'ing may be allowed. The Engineering Section yin conjunction with any
pecially permitted rainy season grading may require ~specidl'rerosion control.
measures.
3..3 All construction activities shall meet the Uniform, Building Code: regulations for
seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/or load' bearing, ~wglls, bracin"g.
parapets,, etc.).
3.4 All public an,d private improvements shall be subject to inspection by City.staff for
. compliance with the approved ,Improvement Plans,:. prior to City acceptance.
3.5 Foundation and structural design for buildings shalt conform' 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. Alf work shalt be ,subject to
.inspection by the .Building Division and must conform fo alt :applicable cod`e_
requirements, aril approved improvement plans .prior to .;issuance of q Certificate
of Occupancy..
3.6 Prior to issuance of a goading or building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a
detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to .ensure that all
applicable c -odes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly
implemented. through construction of the project.
37 The Site Plan qpd Architectural Review Committee .(SPARC) -shall .review and
approve the landscaping plans,.. which show how disturbed areas are. to be
replanted. Any changes to the landscaping .plan as required by SPARE shrill be
:incorporated into plans that are submitted for building. permit issuance:
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 449
1 3.8 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an
2 improvement plan or Final Map, the project sponsor shall provide a Soils
3 investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil
4 engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official
5 in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Grading and Erosion Control
6 ~ Ordinances. The soils report shall address site specific soil conditions (i.e. highly
7 expansive soils) and include recommendations for site preparation and grading;
8 foundation and soil engineering design; pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges
9 and structures.
0
Il 3.9 The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities,
12 foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and
13 criteria contained in the .geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer.
14 The geotechnical engineer shall sign the. improvemerit~plans and certify the design
15 as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect
16 the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the
17 improvements or ..issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that the improvements
18 have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications.
19 Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the
20 geotechnical specifications by the Engineering Section of the Community
21 Development Department and the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of
22 grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement
23 projects. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building
24 Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and
25 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
26
27 4.1 The Project sponsor shall incorporate Best Management Practices. into grading,
28 building and/or improvement plans, and clearly indicate these provisions in the
29 plan specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate the following
30 measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust
31 and exhaust emissions during construction:
32
33 a. Grading and construction equiprnenf operated during construction activities
34 shall be properly-mufflered and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment
35 shall be turned off when not in use.
36
37 b. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically ducng construction, a minimum of
38 twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds
39 exceed 15 :mph. Oniy purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used
40 for this purpose.-,Responsibility for watering to include weekends and. holidays
41 when work is not in progress.
42
43 c. Construction sites involving. earthwork shall provide for a gravel pad area
4 consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction
5 entrance o~clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering
6 the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity of the project shall be
7 routinely swept and cleaned of mud and dust carried onto the street by
.8 construction. vehicles.
49
50~ d. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps
51 or other similar covering devices, or maintain at least two feet of freeboard to
52 reduce dust emissions.
Vol. 39, Page 450
March 1, 2004
e. Pave; apply water three times daily, or dppfv (..non-toxic): soil stabilizers on dll
unpaved access roads, parking areas,. and staging areas at construction sites.
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) .all .paved access .roads, parking. 'deeds,
and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if"visible soil
material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.
g. Hydroseed or .apply. (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive.. construction areas
(.previously graded dreaS that are inactive for 10 days oc morel.
h. Enclose, cover; wote~ twice .daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sapdbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt .runoff to
public roadways. .-
k. Replant vegetation in .disturbed areas as quickly as possible,. Post-construction
re=vegetation,, repaving, or .soil ~stabilizdtion of exposed soils shall be
completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and
Sedimenf Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of
improvements orissuance of Certificate of Qccupancy.
If necessary, .install windbreaks, or use. trees/vegetative windbreaks at ,the
windward side(s) of construction areas 'to prevent visible dust .clouds from
affecting nearby sensitive. uses (e:g., residences).
m. ,Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds ~I(instantaneous gusts)
exceed 25 mph and visible dust emission cannot be prevented from, leaving
the construction site(s).
n. Limit areas. subject to disturbance during excavation, grading, and other
construction activity at any one time.
o. Project sponsor shall, .designate a person with aufhority to require increased
watering o monitor the dust and erosion control program dnd ,provide name
. and' phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of, grading
permits.
p. If applicable, the project sponsor shall obtain operating permits from the Bay
Area Air Quality Mdnagement District;. and shall .provide evidence of
compliance. prlor to requesting a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning
Department and/or Building Division. shall. verify that the project sponsor has
obtained an operating permit and that the. facilities, conform to the permit
requirements prior fo authorizing the Certificate of Occupancy.
5.1 All .construction .activities shall be performed in a manner that minimizes the
sediment and%or pollutants entering directly or indirectly into the storm drain
system or .ground, water. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following
provisions into the construction plans dnd specifications, to be -uerified~ by the
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 451
1 Community Development Department; prior,to issuance of grading or building
2 permits.
3
4 a. The project sponsor shall 'designate on the improvement plans, construction
5 staging. areas and areas for the storage of any hazardous materials (i.e.,
6 motor -oil, fuels,,~paints,;:etc.) to be used during construction. All construction
7 staging, areas shay be located away from any drainage. areas to prevent
8 runoff from construction areas from entering- into the drainage system. Areds
9 designated for .storage of hazardous materials .shall include proper
10 containment features' ~to `prevent contamination from entering drainage
1 1 areas in. the event>of a spill or leak.
12
13 b. No debris, soil; silt, sand, cement, concrete, or washing thereof, or other
14 construction related materials or wastes, soil or petroleum products or other
15 organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter any drainage system. All
16 discarded material ineludin.g washings and. any ~aecidental spills shall be
17 removed and disposed, of at an approved!.disposal site. The project sponsor
18 shall designate appropriate: disposal methods and/or facilities on the
19 construction plans or in the specifications.
20
21 5.2 The project sponsor shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan for review
22 and approval by the. Engineering Section and the Planning Division prior to
23 approval of any improvement plans. or the: issuance'of agrading permit. Project
24 grading and all site drainage improvements. shall.be designed and constructed in
25 conformance with the City of Petaluma Engineering Department's. "Standards
26 Specifications," and with the Sonoma .County Water Agency's "Flood Control
27 Design Criteria," if applicable. Drainage plans shall include supporting
28 calculations of storm drain and culvert size using acceptable engineering
29 methods. All hydrologic, hydraulic, and .storm drain system design, if applicable,
30 shall be subject to the review and approval of the Sonoma County Water
31 Agency (SCWA), and the'City Engineer.
32
33 5.3 The project sponsor shall .pay all applicable Storrn Drainage Impact Fees prior to
34 final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
35
36 5.4 The project. sporisor shall submit Sonoma .County Water Agency letter of
37 approval.
38
39 5.5 The project sponsor shall develop' and implement a comprehensive Urban Runoff.
40 Control Plan submitted #or review and approval of the Planning Division prior to
41 approval of improvement pions, or issuance of grading or building permits. At a
42 minimum, the plan: shall: (1) .identify specific types and sources of storm water
43 pollutahts; (2) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and (3)
4 ..specify and incorporate appropriate control measures into the project design
E5 and improvement plans. Construction pldhs shall be rexiewed by the Planning
6 Division for conformance with the Urban Runoff Control Plan prior to approval of
17 improvement plans or issuance of grading orbuilding permits. City inspectors shall
;:8 inspect the improvements and verify compliance prior to acceptance of
49 improvements or' issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Urban Runoff Control
50 Programs shall include the following as appropriate:
51
Vol. 39, Page 452 March 1, 20Q4
a. Pesticides and fertilizers shall not.be applied to public Landscape areas or any
maintenance access way during the rainy°season.
b: .All, drainage improvement plans shall include installation of'permanent signs
(concrete. stamps; or equivalent[ ateach storm drain inlet: The; sign at each
_ inlet shall read "'No;Durrmping, Flows To The Petaluma Riwer'! or equivalent, and
shrill be:installed at the time~.of construction rind verified prior to accepfance
of public improvements or issuance of a Certificate of'Occupancy.
5:6 The devefope~+shall be required fo construct~all on-site and' off-site. recycled water
facilities to •provide recycled. water to the park and open space parcels for
landscape irrigation,. Design, operation'; acid mdintenance of. the recycled water
facilities shall comply withahe City's;Recycle:d Water Rules.
7 i thlrou hsFridal~ andti9t00 ;ahm.llfo 5.,00 iced to• 7:00 a. ~ to 6:00 p.m. Monday
g ~ ,y ( p.m. on Saturda s: Construction shall. be
prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the Cify 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 mdchires .nor equipment prior to 8:00
a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery ofmaterials n.or equipment prior to 7:30
a;rn. nor pasf 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of :equipment pasf
6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plan s,ubmitfed for City permit shag'include the.
language above.
7:2 All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines ,shrill. be..
properly muffled and maintained :to minimize noise:'Equipment shall be turned off
when not'in use:.
73 Construction mainten. once, storage; and. staging .areas 'for construction
equipment shrill avoid proximity toa residential' areas to the: maximum ..extent
practicable. Stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, mixers,
etc., shall be placed away fromresideritidl areas and/or provided with acoustical
shielding. Quiet construction equiprnen.f shall be-used when possible.
7.4 Thee protect sponsor shrill designate d Project Manager with authority to implement'
the mitigation measures who will be responsible for responding. to dny complaints
from the neighborhood; prior to issuance of a building/grading. permit.. The Project
Manager shall .determine the cause of noise complaints (eg. s.tarting too early,
faulty muffler, etc) aid shall take prompf action to correct the problem.
7:5 Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans, for the Southgate Subdivision; 'the
project sponsor shall submit an acoustical ,report prepared by' a qualified
acoustical professional, which demonstrates that' the specified Jocation,
construction and height of the proposed noise: walls will provide the mitigation
..necessary to cornply with the~Ldn 45~ (interior) and Ldn 60 (exterior use areas) noise
standards for residential and open space uses,. as established in the City of
Petaluma; Gener,.al Plan: The acoustical report shall be subject to ~p,eer review .and
shall be a- pproved by the Director of Community Development prior to approval of
the Final Map:
7.b The project sponsor shall submit an acoustical report(s) prepared by a qualified.
acoustical professional, which demonstrates that the proposed applicable interior
March 1, 2004 Vol. 39, Page 453
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
5
tb
t7
8
49
50
51
52
and exterior noise standards as established by general' pldn noise policies shall be
met. 'Said report shall be submitted in conjunction with applications for Site Plan
and Architectural Review for each. phase of development, ..including park and
future affordable housing uses. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planriing Divisiorn prior to '`issuance of a building permit` for that phase of
development. The reporf shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Recommendations regarding placement of; buildings and/or installation of
sound walls #hat would shield roadway noise from exterior use areas in order to
meet City noise standards.
b. Sound trdnsmission.class ratings (STC) for wiridows and floor/ceiling assemblies
on multi-family residential units. necessary to achieve Ldn of 45 dBA interior
noise level, a"s well as,STC levels betweeri units.
c. The "need for modified exterior wall constructions at second floor rooms along
the roadways necessary to achieve Ldn of 45=dBA interior noise level. These
modifications may include extra layers of gypsum board or additional stud
framing.
d. Plans submitted fora .building permit shall conform to the specifications
identified in this study.
7.7 All land uses shall conform to the Performance Standards listed in Section 22-300 of
the Petaluma Zoning Code. ~ ,
8.1 All exterior lighting shall be directed onto the project site and access ways and
shielded to prevent glare and intrusion onto adjacent residential properties. Plans
submitted for project review and approval shall .incorporate lighting plans, which
include photometric plans of active open space areas, and identify the location
and design of all proposed exterior lighting, including streetlights.
8.2 Detailed site plans, architectural plans, landscape plans, including details for
exterior lighting and sound walls shall conform to the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Design Guidelines and shall be subject to review by the City's Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
8.3 All new and existing overhead utilities (except for high voltage transmission lines)
shall be placed underground.
8.4 Development plans shall be designed to avoid vehicular lighting impacts to
bedroom areas and other light-sensitive living areas of any nearby residential lot,
home or facility. Development plans for lots proposed at street intersections or in
other potentially light-sensitive locations shall incorporate architectural or
landscape design features to screen interior living space from the headlight glare.
10.1 A four way stop control or traffic signal shall be installed at the Frates Road
intersection with Calle Ranchero.
10.2 A four way stop control or a traffic signal shall be .installed at Frates Road
intersection with South Ely Road.
Vol. 39, Page 454
March 1;'2004.
10.3. Stop controls halh be provided for exiting the' project at the proposed access point
at Lakeville Circle.
10.4 The project shall. comply with the requirement's. of the City of Petaluma Bicycle
Plan. Plans for each phase of situ development shall be referred to the Pedestrian
a.nd Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) for review and comment to ensure
compliance with the City .Bicycle Plan.
10:5 'The project sponsor,shall-provide a..Traffie Control Plan for review and. approval of
the City's Traffic. Engineer,, prior to issuance of ,a building„ or grading permit: At
least one lane of traffic:iii each direction shall be maintained at all times through
the construction .period,.. unless a- temporary detour plan. is submitted and
approved the City Traffic, Engineer... Heavy, construction traffic: and haul trucks
shall avoid school zones `between, school arrival and departures times.. During
non-working hours, open trenches and construction .hazards shall, be provided
with sigriage, flashers, and barricades approved by the S~tceet Superintendent to
warn oncoming motorists, bicyclist's, and .pedestrians of potential safety hazards.
10.6 All rodd surfaces ,shdll be restored ao pre-project conditions after completion of
any project-related utility 'installati'on. activities. All trench pavement 'restoration.
within existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal. If fhe trench cut 'is within
fhe parking strip, then Orly the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the
street shalt receive a slurry seal.
T0.7 Any pedestrian access through., and/or :adjacent to the project site shall remdin
unobstrucfed during project construction or an alternate route established as
ap,proved'by, the Police Chief and City Engineer.
10:8 Frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with' the: City's :Street
S andards, to provide for sdfe .access to and from the site: Turning, lanes,
acceleration. and deceleration. lanes, .curb cuts, median islands, signing and
striping shall be incorporated .into the design. plans as required by -the City's Traffic
Engineer: .Pedestrian and .bicycle access. connecting the Cify's bikeways anal
pedestrian circulation through the site; shall be incorporated into. fihe
development plan. Improvement or construction. plans shall be subject to review
and, approval of the Traffic Engineer prior fo issuance of a grading- or building
permit. ~AI( treet frontage improvements shrill be constructed to City standards
and inspected by City Inspectors prior to final inspec,tioris or acceptance of
. improvements.
10.9 The. project sponsor shrill be responsible for the .payment of. the City's Traffic
Mitigation .Fees. Traffic Mitigation. Fees shall be calculated, at the time of issuance
of a bu,i.ldng permit and shdli be due and payable before final inspection or
issuance of d certificate of occupancy.
10.10 The ,project sponsor shall upgrade the existing transit stop on Frates Road as
necessary to include a bench, shelter and pedestrian access, subject to review
and approval bythe City of Petaluma Transit Coordinator.
10.11 The project sponsor shall 'be responsible for a. fair-share contribution to fund to the
construction of signal and/or other improvements at the Frates /Adobe Road.
March 1, 2004, ~ Vol. 39, Page 455
1
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
5
6
7
8
49
intersection. The fair-share eont'ribution shall be based upon the, project's
contribution to the cumulative traffic projected' forthis intersection.
15.1 If, .during the course of construction, cultural, drehaeologicah or paleontological
resources are uncovered at the .site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall
be halted immediately- within 50 meters (15Q feet) of the find until it can be
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of Petaluma.
Planning Division and a .qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered
with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted
by 'the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, Community
Development Department staff and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the
site. to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation
measures required for the discovery.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1 1:42 p.m.
David Gla ayor
ATTEST:
ayle P fersen, City Clerk
Claire Cooper, Deputy City Cl rk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard R. Rudnansky, City Attorney