posted 04-18-2007 11:48 AM            

1.0 CALL TO ORDER

The special meeting of the Grass Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Kenitzer at 6:33 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California. Attendees were invited into the Mayors Conference Room for recognition of outgoing and incoming members of the Planning Commission. No action was taken.

The regular meeting was convened in the Council Chambers at 7:03 p.m.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Silberstein

2.0 ROLL CALL

Commissioner Emanuel present x
Commissioner Harrison present x
Commissioner Johnson present x
Commissioner Silberstein present x
Vice Chairperson Kenitzer present x

Members present were Vice Chairperson Eleanor Kenitzer, Commissioners David Emanuel, Kateria Harrison, Rey Johnson and Ralph Silberstein. Staff present was Community Development Director Joe Heckel, Planning Director Tom Last, Senior Civil Engineer Trisha Tillotson, Housing and Economic Development Specialist Jeri Amendola, Planning Technician Barb Carman, and Administrative Clerk Sue Colbert.

3.0 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2007: Selection of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson (agenda item moved to Item 11.5)

4.0 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by: A motion was made by Commissioner Silberstein to amend the agenda, moving Item 3.0 Election of Officers for 2007 to Item 11.5.
Second by: Commissioner Harrison
Vote 5 - 0 for approval

5.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by: Vice Chairperson Kenitzer motioned to approve the minutes as submitted.
Second by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 4 - 0 for approval with Commissioner Johnson abstaining.

6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT - There is a time limitation of five minutes per person. Vice Chairperson Kenitzer noted that an opportunity is provided for persons in the audience to make a brief statement on issues not covered by the agenda which are relevant to the Commission’s responsibilities.

Grant Cattaneo
823 Morgan Ranch Drive, Grass Valley
Mr. Cattaneo requested that the recommendations of the Development Review Committee not be considered on agenda items. He stated the Committee lacks written evidence documenting votes, actions or review.

Howard Levine
Grass Valley Downtown Association
Mr. Levine urged the public to attend the fundraiser for the Del Oro mural unveiling on March 29th. Ticket purchase will include a PowerPoint presentation by the artist, music and food. The general public will view the proposal the following day.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer closed the public comment at 7:17 p.m.

7.0 CONSENT ITEMS - (roll call vote) All matters listed under consent calendar are to be considered routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless, before Planning Commission votes on the motion to adopt, members of the Commission, staff or the public request specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action.

7.1 Request for a one-year extension for Development Review Application (04DRC-37) and Use Permit (04PLN-23) approved on February 28, 2006, to develop 30 residential units located on 2.29 acres behind 130 Berryhill Drive (APNs 08-170-35 & 09-190-36) in the C-2 (Central Business) Zoning District.

Roll Call Vote
Commissioner Emanuel Yes
Commissioner Harrison Yes
Commissioner Johnson Yes
Commissioner Silberstein Yes
Vice Chairperson Kenitzer Yes

Motion by: Commissioner Harrison motioned to approve the consent item.
Second by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 5 - 0 for approval

Findings, as noted in the Staff Report:

VI. Finding:
1. On March 20, 2007 the Planning Commission conducted a six month evaluation and determined the proposed day care facility is operating within the terms of the original conditions. Use Permit 06PLN-26 can continue to operate as a long-term use subject to the original conditions of approval.

8.0 HEARINGS –

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer called for Item 8.1 at 7:18 p.m.

8.1 Six month review of Use Permit (06PLN-26) for Sherry O'Leary to allow the expansion for a day care facility from 6 children to 12 children located at 360 Alta Street (APN 08-260-06) in the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning District.

Tom Last, Planning Director, reviewed the project concerning parking issues, the proposed expansion from 6 children to 12 children and the plan to stagger drop off and pick up times of the children. As required in Condition 7, Mr. Last stated the applicant has been following a parking schedule and provided onsite parking. No complaints have been received by the City pertaining to this project. Staff recommends the extension of the Use Permit.

Applicant, Sherry O’Leary, had no further comments.

Questions of Staff:

Commissioner Silberstein requested clarification on the conditions required.

There were no further questions or comments.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer opened and closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.

Motion by: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the expansion as presented.
Second by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 5 – 0 for approval

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer called for Item 8.2 at 7:25 p.m.

8.2 General Plan Amendment Application (06PLN-31) to High Density Residential, Zoning Amendment to R-3, Planned Unit Development (PUD) (06PLN-30), Tentative Map Application (06PLN-32) for the creation of eleven (11) lots and Development Review Application (06DRC-10) for a 30 unit senior cohousing facility, a 32 unit intergenerational cohousing community with common facilities and eight (8) single family dwellings for CoHousing Partners, Katie McCamant, located at Freeman Lane and West McKnight Way (APN 29-350-06) in the C-2 (Central Business) Zoning District.

Tom Last, Planning Director, presented the application. He described the property as heavily treed on steep terrain, with a trail easement along Wolf Creek. The project area would encompass condominiums in seven buildings for senior housing and an intergenerational area in addition to eight single family custom homes. The use of varied materials, roof lines and articulation will reflect mining history. He exhibited photos and perspective renderings of the proposed site along Freeman Lane, west into the project site and a revised landscape plan. He stated that the applicants addressed 21 different items after the Development Review Committee meeting and submitted revised plans, which the Committee endorsed with those changes. The proposed number of parking spaces is 21 spaces less than currently required. The primary concerns of the neighboring community relate to building heights, design and colors, and the number of affordable housing set aside for low, median and moderate residents. Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and to approve the project with findings and amended conditions of approval.

Questions of Staff:

Commissioner Harrison questioned why the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not listed on the agenda.

Applicants: Katie McCamant, Project Manager
Chuck Durrett, Architect
Sheri Bowen Dion, Landscape Architect
Ms. McCamant stated the significance of building this community in Grass Valley and creating a national model of intergenerational and senior housing. Future residents made vital contributions to the design process. She stated the site is suited to a residential project which decreases the impact of parking, traffic, extensive grading and tree harvest. This project adds balance to the neighborhood, serving as a transition zone between existing residential and commercial areas. Ms. McCamant described the design changes which included moving structures back from Freeman Lane, lowering heights, eliminating commercial uses and diagonal parking on Freeman Lane.

Chuck Durrett, Architect
Mr. Durrett described the site plan as a neighborhood, which increased the landscape buffer from 10 feet to 27 feet, with many areas at 30 feet. Houses drop in elevation as the neighborhood descends the slope. He stated that garages tucked beneath will not be seen from the street and porches will filter the neighborhood. Native and regionally appropriate plants will be watered on drip irrigation. By using large baskets of rocks to ecologically retain steep walls, he confirmed there will be no additional water runoff into Wolf Creek. Dry stack rocks, french drains and grassy swales will aid in the control of silt runoff. The single family lots will have guidelines, allowing overall increase in dedicated open space. He stated the Cohousing team is highly motivated to utilize sustainable building techniques, creating an energy efficient design. Mr. Durrett acknowledged the use of recycled paint, low toxic materials, high efficient European boilers, super insulation, high quality windows and sustainable grown lumber, few or no fireplaces, whole house fans and radiant heating.

Questions of Staff:

Commissioner Silberstein questioned the legal functionality of maintaining the project as a senior and intergenerational housing development. He expressed curiosity in regards to the use of ‘passive solar’ terminology. He noted there were few south facing or thermal walls.

Ms. McCamant, clarified that California has restrictions for senior developments with less than 35 units. The Cohousing proposal does not include age restrictions.

Mr. Durrett described the solar efficient structures with little energy loss due to the building envelope provided mostly with materials. Super insulation keeps heat in and cold out in the winter. Thin mass under floors and shared walls also present a continuous building envelope.

Commissioner Johnson expressed excitement about the project and his unfamiliarity with the concept prior to its review.

Commissioner Harrison stated her desire to ask questions regarding grading, lot lines, creek protection, slope development and alternative transportation after the public hearing.

Commissioner Emanuel had no questions at this time.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.

Howard Levine,
328 Church Street, Grass Valley
Mr. Levine expressed his support and agreement with Commissioner Johnson. He is encouraged by the project and views it as a benefit to the City.

Claudia and John Martin
13924 Santaug Hill Road, Grass Valley
Mr. and Mrs. Martin expressed their interested in being active participants of this project.

Bill Stewart
Grass Valley Resident
Mr. Stewart is a neighbor of the proposed project. He expressed concern over the lack of established CC&R’s and meeting parking requirements.

Norman Dalton
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. Dalton stated his apprehension regarding water retention and runoff. He worries that the lack of attention to these details will be detrimental to surrounding properties.

Tony Sorcey
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. Sorcey conveyed his desire to protect the neighborhoods that exist in the Gazebos and Carriage House subdivisions. He stated that he is not against the Cohousing project, though feels the project is lacking details. Traffic and safety at intersections is another concern. He also expressed dislike over the proposed use of corrugated metal on buildings and the extensive removal of trees.

Wallace Smith
Gazebo Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. Smith disagrees with the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhoods and feels the project needs further revision. He does not want to see Freeman Lane become an extended parking lot. He feels the buildings look industrial and guidelines are needed to prohibit clothes lines, chain link fences and storage of personal items outside buildings. He is concerned about the additional traffic use of Freeman Lane and an allowance for road maintenance should be considered.

Shawna Holden
Bay Area Resident
Ms. Holden is in favor of the Wolf Creek Village project that provides walking access to shopping, bicycle riding and the fair grounds. She encouraged the Commission to approve the project.

Sandra Greenwood
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Ms. Greenwood is concerned with the possibility of traffic problems caused by the increase in traffic congestion and poor traffic flow conditions causing delays. She is also wary of a serious problem with pedestrian traffic, especially at night. Ms. Greenwood recommends the application be deemed incomplete until a traffic mitigation report can be performed.

Ann Pagent
Mystic Mine Road Resident
As a member of the Cohousing development, she is hoping her first home will be in Wolf Creek Commons.

Nancy
131 Nicodemus
She stated her concerns about the number of rental properties in the area, the number of residents allowed within each unit, increased traffic and lack of parking. Storage on porches, the industrial look of the proposed siding and the lack of use by designated seniors were also cited. She would like to see the Commission postpone approval until these issues can be addressed.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer asked participants to focus on new issues, and not repeat those stated by previous citizens.

Janelle Dalton
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Ms. Dalton conveyed that the application be deemed incomplete due to the lack of specifications in regards to parking, landscaping, maintenance, CC&R’s, storm detention, age guidelines for senior housing owners. She also objects to the metal siding.

Grant Cattaneo
823 Morgan Ranch Drive, Grass Valley
Mr. Cattaneo requested the applicant meet the parking guidelines and code. He stated that at least 4 parking stall lengths of red curb be allowed on Freeman Lane for visual access to intersection which would improve public safety.

Bill Haire
Nevada County Land Trust Trail Coordinator
Mr. Haire has met with project managers in regards to trail building plans to the shopping center and connecting trails to the other side of Wolf Creek.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer called for a five minute break at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:23 p.m.

Bill Damask
County Property Owner
Mr. Damask stated his concerns with the architecture of the project, pedestrian traffic, parking and vehicle storage issues. He would like to have CC&R’s in place prior to project approval.

Kirk Davis
Grass Valley Resident
Mr. Davis expressed his excitement with the project, tending the open space and working with the Wolf Creek Alliance and Land Trust. He stated the average age of the active adult community is age 69.

Virginia and Butch Thresh
12220 Masters Hills Place, Grass Valley
Mr. and Mrs. Thresh are looking forward to moving into the Lodge at Wolf Creek Village. Citizens involved in the project have high standards and believe the neighborhood is one to be proud.

Don LeMaster
914 Freeman Lane
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. LeMaster stated that the services of Daniel Ketchum were employed to evaluate the property appraisal. Residents wish to have their interests protected. He is impressed with the proposed changes.

Jerry Dion
South Lake Tahoe Resident
Mr. Dion has a desire to live in the intergenerational community within the project. He sees this project as positive land use, compatible with the area and stated the understanding of the need to meet the guidelines of the Planned Unit Development. CC&R’s will be utilized by residents.

Sarah Hinzel
Penn Valley Resident
Ms. Hinzel is excited about the project and believes it provides an opportunity for seniors to stay in their own homes rather than moving into costly care facilities. She trusts the residents will be good neighbors.

Larry Craig
Freeman Lane
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. Craig expressed his disapproval of the planned community in this area and urged the Commission to look at the facts. He stated the area is too small for the amount of people moving into the area.

Suzanne
Nevada County Resident
She explained that there are no charitable contributions to the project and that the affordable housing is created by the prices of other the units on the property. She reiterated that the new residents will be concerned over the value of their property also.

Susan Sanford
Nevada County Resident
Ms. Sanford stated that collaboration and decision making provides opportunities for creative problem solving.

Barbara Cromwell
121 Walsh Street, Grass Valley
Ms. Cromwell believes the landscape renderings depict an accurate rate of tree growth. She expressed her appreciation for the work contributed by all in order to arrive at an agreement. Decisions can be made for the community when everyone has been heard.

Bruce Hante
Carriage House Resident, Grass Valley
Mr. Hante expressed concerns in regards to having enforceable CC&R’s in place prior to approval and whether parked vehicles will be seen along Freeman Lane if trees are cut down.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer closed the public hearing at 9:55 p.m.

Questions of applicant:

Commissioner Silberstein questioned the justification for encroaching on the open space area. He is sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding community regarding adequate parking within the development. He acknowledged reservation with the trail easement and the Freeman Lane elevation rendering depicting an accurate view of the area pertaining to the growth rate of the trees. He stated the importance of public safety and the use of crosswalks, speculating the availability of a traffic incident report. He does not consider the change from commercial zoning detrimentally affecting property values of the adjacent homes.

Mr. Durrett and Ms. McCamant commented on ascertaining a balance between over paving the area and providing the appropriate amount of parking. The project managers are working with Wolf Creek Alliance and Nevada County Land Trust to build a preferred trail into the adjacent property owned by the shopping center. They would like to see trail dedication to access the main road which would provide a solution to safer foot traffic.

Commissioner Harrison questioned the requirements of the low income housing and suggested meeting with staff to provide direction.

Ms. McCamant explained that the layered restrictions required of low income housing residents’ limits the number of applicants that fit the criteria financially capable of carrying a mortgage.

Commissioner Emanuel stated his request to retain the trees along Freeman Lane.

Commissioner Johnson questioned the reasoning of the City’s requirement to use ¾” water meters rather than 5/8” meters.

Trisha Tillotson, Senior Engineer stated the City is requiring all residences to install this size of meter. A drainage evaluation has been performed on the property by the department.

Tom Last, stated that the City zoning standards for irrigation be installed and maintained for a 1 year period.

Commissioner Harrison believes this project is a great proposal. She expressed concern with the ponderosa pine habitat. She asked for clarification on the conceptual landscape plan, residential features within the City’s right-of-way, grading plan slope and the open space easements. She suggested presenting an obvious distinction between back yards and easements with clearly defined open space. She would like to see verbiage that the open space is dedicated to the City, but managed by the homeowners association. She stated that open space does not mean public access. She suggested a condition of approval to replace the invasive plant varieties with native species in the riparian corridor along the creek. She would like to see a grading plan with more details in order for the public to understand the proposal. She questioned the existing pipeline at the northwesterly portion of the property and the location of the center line of the creek, which is difficult to verify without a survey. Additional points in question include a plan for litter clean up, storage areas near garages, landscaping inspection, no parking zone near corners and impacts on the ponderosa pine forest. She noted her agreement with phasing of the project and would like further clarification.

Ms. McCamant defined the level of commitment the development maintains and is amenable to the suggestion of replacing invasive plants. They are motivated to keep grading to a minimal, keeping the area handicap accessible. She further explained the pipeline is a mystery, possibly an artifact from the Northstar mining operation, stating the Land Trust would like to build a bridge over it. She confirmed the movement of the creek and the lack of a survey at this time. CC&R’s will include stipulations prohibiting any change in areas designed for storage. The street will be deeded back to the city.

Tom Last reiterated that creeks meander and change over time, but property lines remain the same and will be verified on the final map. He stated that the ponderosa pine habitat is not an area of defined concern pursuant to the General Plan. He clarified the City process to inspect landscaping and irrigation per approved plans.

Joe Heckel, Community Development Director, noted that drainage activity will be clearly specified in regards to the creek.

Trisha Tillotson, Senior Engineer stated that the additional sewage flow will decrease the odor that currently lingers and that the conditions of approval are adequate.

Commissioner Emanuel is in favor of the project, stating its suitability for the site and satisfying a community need. His concerns regarding parking, the feasibility of a master water meter and the expense of building single family homes on the steep slope were stated. He would like to see more work with the architectural style and color scheme, eliminating the corrugated metal siding on the residential units. He would also like to see additional trees retained and have further discussion regarding the affordable units.

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer noted the compatibility of the project with the site, rather than developed as commercial use. She stated her appreciation of the fact the buildings are to be moved back from Freeman Lane and the loop road removed. She is not concerned about decreasing the number of parking spaces, when studies show that seniors want to walk, rather than drive. She stated the importance of keeping the neighbors and community informed has been a vital part of the process.

Commissioner Silberstein restated that the zoning change will allow for a favorable transition from shopping areas to the existing residential neighborhood, rather than to remain a commercial area, as noted in the General Plan. This project is more supportive of the goals of the City; establishing communities and reducing the impact of additional traffic.

Joe Heckel clarified the issues heard during the public hearing, noting the Commission can allow for a reduction in parking requirements due to the decreased demand per senior household. Soften the exterior colors of the buildings; one per building, eliminate the metal siding, provide for litter clean up and further parking evaluation were additional matters noted. He reminded the Commission that more information could be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting on March 28th, if the item were to be continued.

Motion by: Commissioner Silberstein moved to recommend approval of the project with the following conditions:
• Require an easement for a public trail within the property extending from McKnight Way, crossing Wolf Creek and connecting to Wolf Creek Trail. Dedication accepted by either the City or the Nevada County Land Trust with final alignment to be reviewed and approved by the City.
• Install a restricted or “no parking” zone along a portion of the property frontage on Freeman Lane as reviewed and approved by the Traffic Safety Committee and the City Engineer.
• Clarify future ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the open space easement.
• Establish a Riparian Management Plan for the property’s frontage along Wolf Creek encouraging the replacement of invasive plants with native species; tied to the grading plan or building permit and referenced within the CC&R’s.
• Prior to grading plan, remove all rubbish and trash.
• Require submittal of cross-section of Freeman Lane showing public right-of-way and boundaries of the project site. The submittal could be part of the improvement plans or final map.
• Apply revisions in verbiage as per Engineering Memorandum dated March 20, 2007.
Second by: Commissioner Harrison
Vote 4 – 1 for approval. Commissioner Emanuel opposed the motion.

Findings and Conditions, as noted in the Staff Report:

Conditions of Approval for General Plan Amendment (06PLN-31), Rezone (06PLN-30), Tentative Map (06PLN-32), and Development Review (06DRC-10) as recommended by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2007

1. All plans shall be implemented in accordance with the plans approved by the Grass Valley City Council for Development Review Application 06DRC-10, General Plan Amendment 06PLN-31, Rezone/Planned Unit Development 06PLN-30, and Tentative Map 06PLN-32, unless changes are approved by the Commission prior to commencing such changes. Minor changes may be approved by the Community Development Department as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director. Prior to recording any maps for the project, the applicant shall submit 2 copies of the plans as approved by the City Council on ______________.

2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action or proceeding brought against the City to void or annul this discretionary land use approval.

3. The applicant shall file a Notice of Determination, including payment of associated fees, in the office of the County Clerk within (5) days after the approval date of the project. The applicant shall provide a copy of the notice to the City. This project is de minim is and not subject to the payment of the California Department of Fish and Game Fees.

4. If construction of the project has not commenced within one (1) year from the date of approval, or by ________________, the Development Review application approval shall become null and void. For the purposes of this condition, the term "commencement" means the obtaining of a City Building Permit and the initiation of construction activity on the site.

Prior to Recordation of the Final Map:
5. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide for the City review and approval:

a) A set of deed restrictions which would be applied to, and recorded against, the title of not less than fourteen (14) of the residential units and sets forth affordability restrictions for the purchase and future resale of each property. The deed restrictions shall include measures that; 80% of median income range for four (4) units, 100% of median income range for five (5) units and 120% of median income range for five (5) units, as determined for Nevada County by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and qualify for the City’s HOME Grant down payment assistance program or similar program; 2) ensure the future resale of the “set aside” unit will based upon its sales price or value of the residence on the original sales price plus an annual increase that is tied to the CPI, and 3) ensure that preference for future resale of the “set aside” units are given to local residents within the 80% and 120% of the median income range (per a marketing plan administered by the City);
b) An agreement executed between the developer and City that requires the developer to; 1) cooperate with the City in the preparation and implementation of a marketing plan for the “set aside” units to ensure that preference is given to local residents and /or families; 2) the “set aside” units would be evenly distributed throughout and sequenced with the development of the project; and, 3) the exterior and interior of the “set aside” units would be designed and furnished in a similar style and quality as all of the housing units.
c) A set of deed restrictions that would apply to, and be recorded against all properties within the project and that provides effective notice of this single “set aside” units and its future resale restrictions.

6. A Grading Permit, as described below, shall be issued by the City Engineer and all improvements described on the plans shall be completed or the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City Engineer to complete the grading and public improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all grading and improvements shown on the plans. Any necessary right-of-way required to complete the improvements will be acquired by the applicant at his/her expense.

7. The applicant shall amend the Open Space Easement to reflect the boundary changes associated with the proposed project. Amending the Open Space Easement will require final approval by the City Council via the Summary Vacation process which must be completed prior to recordation of the final map..

8. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Final Map prepared by a Licensed Surveyor, or Registered Civil Engineer licensed to survey in the State of California, in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance No. 180 N.S. and the California Subdivision Map Act; and shall pay all appropriate fees for map check and recording.

9. Prior to recordation of the final map, the sub-divider shall provide to the Engineering Department an acceptable method, such as a homeowners association, tenant agreement, and/or CC&R’s (hereafter referred to as CC&R’s) to maintain the common areas for the residential areas, roadways and utilities, the slope within the City easement adjacent to Freeman Lane in a manner acceptable to the City of Grass Valley, detention facilities and the open space. Site Development Standards, a draft was submitted as part of a letter to the Planning Director dated 2/1/07, must be submitted for the single family home lots and must include language such that each lot must be developed in accordance with the Standards for Single Family Lots plan submitted as part of the Wolf Creek Village package. Maintenance and ownership of privately owned utilities, such as the water and sewer, must be addressed in the CC&R’s and must provide for adequate maintenance. If a master water meter is allowed, the CC&R’s must disclose that the City will have the right to turn the master water meter off if any member of the development fails to pay the associated water utility user fee and the development will incur costs associated with turning the service on and off. The sub-divider shall provide the appropriate documentation for review by the Community Development Director, City Engineer and City Attorney.

10. Sub-divider shall dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication, for park and recreation purposes in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

11. If the applicant desires to record the Final Map prior to completion of the grading and improvements as shown on the approved grading and improvement plans, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to complete the grading and public improvements; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing the construction of all of the improvements, in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance No. 180 N.S. and the California Subdivision Map Act. The applicant must supply the City with a cost estimate, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, for all improvements shown on the grading/improvement plans. The cost estimate must be approved by the Engineering Department. The City will then prepare an agreement which will require City Council approval and will be required to be recorded prior to Final Map approval.

12. The applicant has noted that a Parcel Map will be filed in advance to allow the development to be developed in phases. Additional conditions of approval may be applied to phased grading and improvement plans and individual parcel and/or final maps. Individual Grading Permits will be required for each phase. Trees will not be allowed to be cut on parcels without approved grading and improvement plans. Grading will not be allowed on parcels without approved grading and improvement plans. Stockpiling may be allowed on parcels with City Engineer approval, if the stockpiling is shown on the approved grading and improvement plans with approved water pollution control measures (temporary and permanent).

13. The Final Map shall show building setback requirements from property lines.

14. The Final Map and/or Parcel Map must have a note stating that the City of Grass Valley and utility companies have superior rights to the easement adjacent to Freeman Lane.

15. The applicant shall record the “Wolf Creek Village Site Development Standards for Single-Family Lots” as approved by the City Council.

16. A public trail easement shall be dedicated and shown on the final map that extends from Freeman Lane through the site and connecting to the Wolf Creek Trail.

PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND EXONERATION OF BONDS, OR OTHER FORM OF SECURITY, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED:

17. Sufficient surety (Maintenance Bond) guaranteeing the public improvements for a period of one year shall be provided.

18. The applicant shall offer to dedicate to the City for public use, all the public streets right-of-way or easements necessary to install, maintain, and re-install all public improvements described on the improvements and grading plans. All offers of dedication must be recorded and a copy provided to the Engineering Department.

19. "As-built" plans, signed by the Engineer of Record, must be submitted to the Engineering Department on Mylar and a CD with an AutoCAD (or equivalent) drawing of the public improvements.

20. A report prepared by the soils engineer, in accordance with the California Building Code, must be submitted to the Engineering Department.

21. A report prepared by the geologist, in accordance with the California Building Code, must be submitted to the Engineering Department.

22. The grading contractor shall submit a statement of conformance to the as-built plans and specifications.

Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the following conditions shall be satisfied:

23. The applicant shall submit final landscape and irrigation plans, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The landscape plan shall include evidence that the project provides 20% coverage of the site with landscaping and 50% shade coverage of the parking areas. Landscaping design shall comply with all provisions of the City=s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

24. Prior to issuance of grading permits or tree removal permits, the applicant shall submit a final tree removal plan which shows trees that would be removed within the open space area to accommodate the storm drain facilities. (MM)

25. The project developer shall adhere to the following tree protection measure as noted on the project site plans during any construction activities for this project:

All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by a construction barrier placed around the drip line zone of the tree. The construction barrier shall consist of our- foot tall mesh safety fencing in a bright color. The fencing shall be tied to six-foot tall metal poles spaced a maximum of twenty feet apart. Each pole shall be placed with two feet below the surface of the ground.

This measure and accompanying drawing shall be included on all final grading and construction plans.

26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District and City Engineer. Dust mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Dust Mitigation Plan. The dust mitigation plan shall include the following:

a. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project development and construction.
b. All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded shall be sufficiently watered, treated, or covered to prevent dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. Watering should occur at least twice daily, with complete site coverage.
c. All land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities on the project shall be suspended as necessary to prevent excessive windblown dust when winds are expected to exceed 20 mph.
d. All inactive portions of the development site shall be covered, seeded, or watered until a suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the applicant shall be responsible for applying City approved non-toxic soil stabilizers (according to manufactures specifications) to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours) in accordance with the local grading ordinance.
e. All areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered or have dust palliative applied as necessary for regular stabilization of dust emissions.
f. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent public nuisance.
g. Paved streets adjacent to the project shall be swept or washed at the end of each day, or as required to remove excessive accumulations of silt and/or mud which may have resulted from activities at the project site.
h. No burning of waste material or vegetation shall take plan on-site. (MM)

27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed engineering plan shall be prepared that incorporates recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated 9/19/2006. Geotechnical measures shall be incorporated into project grading and construction. A Geotechnical Engineer shall review the grading for implementation of those recommendations and design criteria. (MM)

28. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a work plan and obtain a permit from the Nevada County Environmental Health Department for the excavation, transportation, and disposal of the lead-affected soil. The City shall be provided with a copy of the approved permit prior to issuance of grading permits. (MM)

29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a detailed engineered drainage plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the City Engineer. The drainage plan shall be designed so that off-site concentrated storm water flows will resemble pre-development conditions for a model storm event as determined by the City Engineer. Drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved engineered drainage plan. The site drainage system shall incorporate water/oil separators, or other approved methods to prevent site contaminants impacting the Wolf Creek watershed. (MM)

30. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading/improvements plan shall incorporate “Best Management Practices” to address short-term impacts of on-site sediments, including silt, sand and mud flowing into the Wolf Creek drainage during construction. The plans shall provide approved methods to keep sediment disturbed during construction, and be approved by the City Engineer. (MM)

31. The applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan in compliance with the most current state and local fire protection standards to be approved by the Fire Marshall.

32. The applicant shall provide information that Waste Management of Grass Valley (WMGV) has approved the plan for the trash/recycling container. The trash/recycling container shall be of adequate size to accommodate the trash and recycling needs of proposed use. The plan shall also be designed for adequate access and servicing by WMGV. The applicant shall provide verification to the Community Services Department that the trash/recycling container has been approved by WMGV. The trash/recycling container shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupancy of the building.

33. The applicant shall submit a Riparian Management Plan for the property’s frontage along Wolf Creek which establishes vegetation management approaches for removing invasive, non-native vegetation and the replanting with native vegetation. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and be approved by the Community Development Department. The plan shall also be incorporated into the CC&R’s.

34. The applicant shall remove all rubbish and trash from the property.

35. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, an improvements and grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a Grading Permit; and shall pay all appropriate fees for plan check and inspection. The grading and improvement plans shall include roadway slopes and elevations, curb, gutters, sidewalks, striping and signing, paving, water and sewer pipelines, storm drains, street lights, any necessary alteration of existing utilities (i.e. sewer manholes), and all easements, in accordance with City Standards.

36. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a detailed Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Report certified by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. In addition to the California Building Code requirements, the report shall specify the pavement structural sections for the proposed roadways in relation to the proposed traffic indexes. The improvements and grading plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the approved Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Report. The project developer shall retain a civil engineer, soils engineer, and engineering geologist to provide professional inspection of the grading operations. If work is observed as not being in compliance with the California Building Code and the approved improvements and grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the permittee, the building official, and the Engineering Department.

37. The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for acceptance, file a Notice of Intent with the California Water Quality Control Board and comply with all provisions of the Clean Water Act. The applicant shall submit the WDID number, issued by the state, to the Engineering Department.

38. The developer shall post a deposit (checks will be cashed) in the amount of $10,000 with the City for erosion and/or sedimentation control of the project site as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. A detailed grading, permanent erosion control and landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to commencing grading. Erosion control measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Any expenses made by the City to enforce the required erosion control measures will be paid by the deposit.

39. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, drainage plans, hydrologic, and hydraulic calculations prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development:

Quantities of water, water flow rates, major watercourses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps and drainage courses. Hydrology shall be in accordance with the City of Grass Valley Improvement Standards and Specifications and Master Plan Drainage Standards.

In order to preclude significant impact to downstream properties, the applicant shall limit the storm water run-off after development to the pre-development conditions for the 10, 25, and 100 year storm events. The proposed outflow to Wolf Creek must be stabilized to ensure that continued erosion does not occur. The site drainage system shall incorporate water/oil separators, or other approved methods to prevent site contaminants from impacting downstream watersheds. Drainage from paved areas must be routed through a water/oil separator.

40. The applicant shall obtain a Timber Harvest Permit (or appropriate exemption) from the California Department of Forestry, and shall obtain a tree removal permit from the Grass Valley Public Works Department. Prior to the removal of trees measuring 8-inches (DBH) or larger, the applicant shall provide the City with a Reforestation Bond, or suitable security, in the amount of $10,000, to guarantee diligent prosecution of the project after clearing the site. The Reforestation Bond shall be surrendered by the applicant upon abandonment of the project, or failure to obtain and prosecute the grading and building permits, within six months of removing any tree (8-inch DBH, or larger).

41. The applicant has submitted sewer calculations for the proposed development which states that there is sufficient storage available for over four hours of response time in the event of a failure. The Sewer Department requires 12 hours of response time for lift stations. Therefore, the applicant will be required to upgrade the Carriage House lift station to allow for 12 hours of response time when flows lower the emergency response time below 12 hours.

42. The improvements and grading plans shall be signed by all other jurisdictional agencies involved, prior to receiving City Engineer approval.

43. On-site water lines, as shown on the proposed plans, shall be privately owned. If a master water meter is allowed, the meter must be located behind the back of sidewalk. Each unit may be required to have an individual water meter. If individual water meters are required, water meters will be required to be located at the back of walk or back of curb and water lines will need to be in the proposed developments streets.

44. The proposed development shows landscape walls, walkways, backyards, and decks proposed within the City’s right-of-way adjacent to Freeman Lane. Residential use within the easement will be allowed with the following conditions:

a. Landscape walls with a maximum height of four feet from the base of the footing to the top of the wall will be allowed within the easement area. Walls cannot conflict with existing or proposed utilities and/or City facilities. Walls must be offset a minimum of ten (10) feet from any building. Drainage behind any wall must be approved by the City Engineer.
b. The City will maintain superior rights over the use of the City owned easement and/or right-of-way.
c. Any item placed between the property line and ten (10) feet towards Freeman Lane must be removable such that the City or utility companies could access the easement area.
d. No modifications to the slope within the easement will be allowed that could affect slope stability and/or maintenance of the slope.
e. All landscaping shall be approved by the City Engineer to ensure slope stability is not compromised.

45. If any of the improvements which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filing of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66457:
a. Notify the City of Grass Valley in writing that the applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land which is sufficient for such purposes as provided in Government Code Section 66462.5;
b. Supply the City with (i) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the current fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report;
c. Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City's cost (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land.

PRIOR TO INITIATING GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INITIATE THE FOLLOWING:

46. A minimum of forty-eight (48) hours prior to commencement of grading activities, the developer’s contractor shall notify both the Community Development and Engineering Departments of the intent to begin grading operations. Prior to notification, all grade stakes shall be in place identifying limits of all cut and fill activities. After notification, Community Development and Engineering staff shall be provided the opportunity to field review the grading limits to ensure conformity with the approved improvement and grading plans. If differences are noted in the field, grading activities shall be delayed until the issues are resolved.

47. Placement of construction fencing around all trees designated to be preserved in the project.

48. Submit for review and approval by the Fire Department, a Fire Safety Plan.

49. Submittal of two copies to the Engineering Department of the signed improvement/grading plans.

DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY:
50. That prior to any work being conducted within the State, County or City right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the appropriate Agency.

51. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Nevada County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.

52. Prior to final preparation of the sub-grade and placement of pavement base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the hardscape improvement. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines, shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.

53. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period.

54. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and/or geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted by the applicant, for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.

55. Prior to placing the initial lift of asphalt and after all aggregate base is placed, all public sewer pipelines and storm drain pipelines shall be video inspected at the expense of the contractor/developer. All videotapes shall be submitted to the City. If any inadequacies are found, they shall be repaired prior to the placement of the final lift of asphalt.

56. No trucks may transport excavated material off-site unless the loads are adequately wetted and either covered with tarps or loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than six inches to the top of the cargo compartment. Also, all excavated material must be properly disposed of in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications.

57. The contractor shall comply with all Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

58. If grading or other construction operations unearth archeological or historical artifacts or resources, construction activities shall cease. The Planning Department shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts

shall comply with state and federal laws. A note of this requirement shall be clearly delineated on the grading and building plans of the project. (MM)

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT(S):
59. No wood burning fireplace shall be installed in any residence. Gas stoves and fire places, or EPA Phase II certified wood burning appliances may be installed. (MM)

60. The Grading Permit shall be issued by the Engineering Department.

61. Each individual unit will be charged an individual Water Impact Fee based on a ¾” water meter and Wastewater Utility Connection Rights Impact Fee based on a ¾” water meter.

62. The following items shall be submitted as part of the Building Permit Application package and be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department:
a. Building and appurtenant structure exterior colors and materials. Paint chips of the proposed color scheme shall be included.
b. Final landscape and Irrigation Plans.
c. Utility meter, transformer, irrigation control unit location and screening.
d. When plans are submitted for the single family homes, the design of the driveway structures for the eight single-family homes.

All of the aforementioned plans shall incorporate all of the design specifications and criteria as shown on the site plan approved and modified by the City Council on ___________, 2007, unless otherwise modified as specified by condition # 1.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy and after the occupancy occurs, the following shall apply:

63. Prior to issuance of a certificate of final occupancy, pursuant to sections 16C-06 through 16C-09 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant shall provide the following:
a. A letter signed by a licensed landscape architect that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans.
b. Provide a copy of the landscape maintenance contract, or the bond or cash security guaranteeing the maintenance of the landscaping and irrigation for one year.

64. The applicant or landowner shall maintain the landscaping, signage, buildings, and grounds of the property in good condition. Once a deterioration of the quality of such items is noted and documented by the City, the Development Review approval (06DRC-10) on this project may be brought before the Planning Commission for enforcement action.

65. Prior to occupancy of any housing unit, the applicant shall provide a no parking zone, red curb, along the Freeman Lane frontage approximately 4 spaces in length from the West McKnight intersection. The actual limits of the no parking zone shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Safety Committee and City Engineer.

The following list of unfinished items (9.0 – 13.0) to be included on the special meeting agenda for March 28, 2007.

9.0 NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS – NONE

10.0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION OR SEPARATE ACTION

11.0 OTHER BUSINESS

11.1 Correspondence
11.2 Review of City Council Items
11.3 Future Meetings, Hearings and Study Sessions
11.4 Status of Special Development Areas (SDA’s)
11.5 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2007: Selection of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson (moved from Item 3.0)

Appointment of Planning Commissioners to serve as primary and alternate members to the following ad hoc committees (motion):

A. Development Review Committee (DRC)
B. Colfax Avenue Infill Study Committee
C. Development Code Update Committee

Note: Also need to confirm existing members to Downtown Parking Study, Del Oro Mural and Historic Preservation Committees

12.0 BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS / REPORTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS

13.0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT

14.0 ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a special meeting on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 5 p.m.

Motion by: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting.
Second by: Commissioner Silberstein
Vote 5 – 0 for approval

Vice Chairperson Kenitzer adjourned the meeting at 11:26 p.m. to the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Grass Valley, California.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sue Colbert
Administrative Clerk to the Planning Commission

Approved this ____________ Day of ________________, 2007

_____________________________
David Emanuel, Vice Chairman