The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5.A - Attachment 4 04/15/2013 Attachment 4 Davidon Late Documents ' Date.Received Name .Document Type . 4 3/6/2013 Bob Butler Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 2 3/6/2013 Rosalie Gillmore Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 3 3/6/2013 Bob Billings Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 4 3/6/2013 Harriet.Coyne Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 5 3/6/2013 Joe!Gouillon Save the Red Barn'&Trees Postcard 6 3/6/2013 Zhigi Gouillon Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard -- — - 7 3/6/2013-- -- Katherine Rinehart Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 8 3/6/2013 Cmille Phillips Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 9 3/6/2013 Peter Bordiga Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 10 3/6/2013 Bob Bertram Save the.Red Barn &Trees Postcard 11 3/6/2013 Karen Sikora Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 12 3/6/2013 Peter Sikora Sav&the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 13 3/6/2013 Than Nugent Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard • 14 3/6/2013 Vioialucero`Nugent Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard - 15 3/6/2013 Mary King Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 16 3/6/2013 Bob',Barby Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 17 3/6/2013' Susan Murphy Save the Red•Barn&Trees Postcard 18 3/6/2013 Aaron Edmondson Save the Red'Barn&Trees Postcard 49 3/6/2013 Paul Webandth ± Save,the.Red Barn,&Trees Postcard 20,3/6/2013 Mary&Jerr:Beene Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 21 3/6/2013 Kathleen,Meagher I Save,theRed Barn&Trees Postcard 22 3/6/2013 John,Meagher :Savethe.Red Barn &Trees Postcard 23 3/6/2013 Gene Ellsworth I Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 24 3/6/2013 Elaine Ellsworth ,Sav_e the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 25 3/6/2013 Tom'Jo_yarit Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 26 3/6/2013 Laura Gouillon Save the Red.Barn&Trees Postcard 27 3/6/2013 Susan.Jaderstrom Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 28 3/6/2013 Kaye Ohanch' I Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 29 3/6/2013 Jason,Davies I Save,the:Red Barn &Trees Postcard 30)3/7/2013 Joseph Grubaugh &Sigrun Seifert, Letter 313/7/2013 Richard E.K..Brawn Email 32.3/6/2013 Rosalie Gillmore Email l 33 3/6/2013 Rosalie Gillmore Email I. 34 3/7/2013 Zhili,Joel, Laura &Julie'Gouillon. Email 35 3/7/2013 Sherri.Eabre-Marcia Email 36 3/7/2013 Pierce Butler Email 37 3/7/2013 Charles Merrill Email 38 3/7/2013 Marcia &Tom Joynt Email • 39 3/7/2013' Charles Merrill Email 40'3/7/2013 Susan Jaderstrom Email 41,3/7/2013 Toms&Linda Corbett, Email • ' 42:3/6/2013 Aaron Edmondson Email 413/6/2013 Chey Moore i Email 44 3/6/2013 Chey:Moore Email II 4_t , 45x3/6/2013 Alia,Curchack-Beeton Email 46G/6/2013 Email Chey 473/6/2013 CheyMoore. Email 48r3/6/2013 Charles,Merrill Email 49.3/6/2013 Sterling,Hoffmann Email 50 3/6/2013 Pat Spitzig Email 51 3/6/2013 Benjamin Leroi Email 52 3/6/2013 Janice Thomas Email 53 3/6/2013 Pat Spitzig Email 54 3/5/2013 Neil Smith. Email 55;3/7/2013 Gregory Colvin Email 56 3/7/2013 Beverly Schor Email 57 3%7/2013 Lucille:Battison Email 58 3/7/2013 Susan Jaderstrom Email 59 3/7/2013 Diane Gentile I Email 60 3/7/2013 Pete Sikora Email' 613/7/2013 Kristin.Nelson Email 62 3/7/2013 Barbara Arikat Email 63 3/7/2013 Paul Schmidt. Email 64 3/7/2013 Camille:Phillips Letter 65 3/7/2013 Callie,Kindrish Save the Red Barn &Trees Postcard 66 3/7/2013 Mark Jaserstrom Email 67 3/7/2013 Vicotria Homeowners Association Letter 68 3/11/2013 Gregory Colvin Email 69 3/11/2013 Matthew Ingram Email 70'3/10/2013 Kathleen and Bob Piro Email 71 3/9/2013 Gregory Colvin Email 72 3/9/2013 Susan-Jaderstrom Email 73 3/9/2013 Chey Moore I Email 74 3/8/2013 Brian Gaffney I Email 75 3/8/2013 Kelly Franger Email 76 3/8/2013 Lippe GraffneyWagnel LLP Email 77 3/7/2013 James Page Email 78 3/10/2013 Jenny.Pierre. Email 79 3/10/2013 Trevor Pitts Email 80 3/7/2013 David.Powers Email 81 3/6/2013 Gregory Colvin Email 82.3/7/2013 Gene.Ellsworth Email 83 3/7/2013 Eliane Ellsworth Email 84 3/7/2013 Grubaugh &Siefert , Email 85 3/10/2013 Lucille Battison Save the Red Barn&Trees Postcard 86 3/12/2013 Alaua Murphy Save the Red Barn,&Trees Postcard 87 3/12/2013 Joel &,Banita Humpres Save the Red Barn'&Trees Postcard 88 3/12/2013 AmirAbolfathi Letter Kaplan Email Rachael Ka 89 3/11/2013 P 90 3/12/2013 Email Katherine Rinehart 1 91 3/12/2013 Katherine Rinehart Letter 4-z SAVE THE RED BARN/TREES POST CARD • � ° 0- (�.•I r L?y7 .tit .:6. .-y .. 9 t - ; c m 4.0-.),:ti,- Fa �' 3. 1 x,.re a,4�a.�- `s dim..y } s7.) �ry ,t y �.p 33 l �1 qJ" `C.! I '�,^ x 'Wr !'a t+a" �'''"4s .F'' � V q '�fl a..y�i' .s� y r �ia�"Fp t M1 1� 3l ''� A,- sum z--'z x 1 ru .. yr y i " 2'Fi ,. r r L L ty 1' q 5.>.•. I -'F t -4 `rl---F4-71,f,„—=f----.4-t::,I' t'''�y s-. , t n,.! 'AIr -gy Fes. 1 rt r s t }t4 fc T 1 ma.' 13r te ';{,_ ttckl!:1�V�r r� y'27;,-7.1...-4:..:.:1-'7..--. ..i 1 v i°x ✓ ' r � ,� ::::y 44 .t -a t�I 4 5.,.ely i q dl 7E ti al � iTF 1 k'4.7'� y { t z -x.2 ma r z _ r ;C:14 Lt a*ir :t 7 ,� 1- rx ;.I...4" 14;-'2'.4--'5"' .% a tt S' 4 'H $� I e .t sues ++yyam� 9 w {1t F^^±l 1 1 I� 4 T�vp ' g �j;, Y PEA r;:::::1 t-5 n�i- .!• � li�t Rte' origo Brrs..-NIIA+O�/trk r- 1� < „!t. It rt� {: T SIW � � +.:1 41 • R T' YY 1tF le I rls1 1 ! lied Barn and Trees”watercdlar FryPatspitzi9 I:vww.artbyspli.wm at I least Artists meet at the bam on Thurs.to paint/draw/take pictures ^' 33 1' . Dear Planning Division: ! I .Pleasesave the red barri'and.trees at D St. and Windsor in its present historic location And if you must consider development at this location,use the current'2'02255General'Plan Alicia.Giudice �1 Name .-� U� yQV{'� Senior Planner Address )$ZCo S'f''. City,of Petaluma City State Zip . .,pa �' s C '� v{�_S^Zll English St. 1 1 Petaluma,CA 94952 Draft EIH of proposed development is at ttiePetaluma Library, Community Center;Cny CIeFKs Office&on the Petaluma City website'-http://tiryofpetalumalnet/cdd/davidorchtml Stay connected at www.PetRP.org • • 1 1 I I 4 -3 • Giudice, Alicia From: Chey Moore <cmoe6 @conic ast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:06'PM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis.elias @cbnorcal:com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.corn, akhecries@ comcast.net;'rayvs@pacbell.net; wolpert@sonic:net, kathleenmilleroffice @gmail,corn, Giudice,Alicia; petrp @comcast.net Subject: Davidon DEIR Dear Planning Department, Section 3. Related projects This section considers the significant environmental effects of the project on a.short term and long term basis as well as cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts may analyzed by considering a-list'of'past, present, and future projects. The EIR analysis did not include the Victoria subdivision. This is a glaring omission. The Victoria subdivision;has many of the same characteristic of the proposed development because we are located on the same land, side by side. The Victoria subdivision has a history ohlandslides—I can count(5) since I have lived in Victoria for the past 20 years. We now know, because of the Victoria subdivision=development, downstream Kelly Creek has become polluted. I understand our storm drains empty:into the creek. Kelly Creek runs through many people's backyards before it reaches the Petaluma'sRiver. The creek actually has an easement on private property which makes the homeowners liable for erosion repair;which determines if the creek even runs through. The Victoria subdivision has to be,included"in the study of related projects. We'have experienced many of the,significant impacts the developer says he can mitigate. I'm sure the developer of the.Victoria subdivision also said he could mitigate the impacts,otherwise the citywould not have allowed him to build. We have history of facts to counter the mitigations. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct Petaluma CA 94952 6 4-4 Giudice, Alicia From Alia Curchack-Beeton <aliabeeton @googlemail.corn> 'Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:24'P.M To: Hines, Heather Cc: petrp @comcastnet;jenpie repetaluma @yahoo:com; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma@yahoo.corn, akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert@sonic.net; Giudice, Alicia Subject: Proposed Development at,b St andiWindsor Dear Heather Hines, As a life-long Petaluma resident I have been witness to pinny developments in the last 30 years, What concerns me greatly besides the environmental'and trafficimplications of this proposed development is this aesthetic impact from Helen.Putnam regional,park,which is a source of beauty and refuge for Petalumans. Already the view has been impacted by the cookie-cutter quality of the Victoria development, and'I fear for the continued encroaching on our precious regional park and.the'dimirushing aesthetic of its views. One issue highlighted at the meeting was that the"Aesthetics" area of the EIR shows whatthe change in aesthetics would be with mitigation Unfortunately it only does this from each corner of the plot doesn't take into account the impact on aesthetics from further away,such as higher up in;Helen Putnam Park. This is an obvious shortcoming of the report, and I would encourage the city to reject the report on the basis that the aestetics„section is incomplete. Sincerely, Alia Beeton 10 Hill Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 707-364-9980 • • • 5 4- 5 Giudice,.Alicia , From: Chey Moore <cmoe6 @corn"'ast.net> Sent Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:42 PM To Giudice,Alicia; akherries @comcast.net'wolpert@sonic.net; dennis:elias @cbnorcal:com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.corn; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.com; rayvs@pacbell.net Subject Davidon DER Dear Planning Department, Section 4. Traffic There are no studies which show the traffic coming•in from HWY 1011via DStreet extension. Recent Highway 101 construction at the Novato narrows has dramatically changed the flow of northbound traffic at the Novato narrows. Four lanes quickly merging into two lanes have significantly changed traffic,patterns. Traffic entering Petaluma from D Street extension has sighificantly'increased'since the Novato narrows has changed. Traffic studies reflecting the change of tragic pattern of incoming cars from D.Street extension needs to be included in the`EIR. D Street extension is a main corridorvinto Petaluma. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct. , Petaluma CA 94952 4 Yr( k Giudice, Alicia , From: Chet' Moore.<cmoe6 @comlast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:03;PM To Giudice,Alicia; akherries @comcast.neti wolpert@sonic:net, dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.corn, oldeastpetalum a @yahoo.corn; petrp @comcast.net rayvs @pacbell.net Subject Davidon DEIR Dear Planning Department, Section 2. Summary The project lists mitigation Measure TransJ',to:install an asphalt concrete path_along'the east side of D Street for pedestrian travel. Pedestrians will need to'cross over D Street via a roundabout crosswalk to access a safe sidewalk for travel. D Street is a main artery.of travel, a very'busy:street;with cars andtrucksspeeding into Petaluma. A pedestrian roundabout crosswalkracross D Street onto the,only pedestrian sidewalk is,just a fatal accident waiting to happen. People who don't walk so fast, people pushing strollers, older pets crossing with owners, etc will be at risk crossing over D Street. We are requesting another asphalt concrete path be installed along the west side.of.D Street to provide a five foot wide pedestrian travelpath where it will,connect to the existing ncrete•sidewalk. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct Petaluma CA 94952 2 4-1 Git dice,-Alicia -__-- -_ From: aaron edmondson <adepa S @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday„March 06, 2013 6:00 PM To: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoc“om; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.cm; akherries @comcestnet.rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert @sonic.net kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc: daveglass @comcast.net councilman.albertson @gmail:com; teresa4petaluma @comcastj.net mike4pet @aol:com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; - City Clerk Subject: DavidonHornes Draft EIR Thank you for letting me comment on the subject draft EIR Ham concerned that the draft EIR'for the Davidon'Homes project is defective:and should be rejected.; My understanding of the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to describe the proposed project,the environment as is stands at the time of:the EIR and then',dorindicate.the impact the projectwill have on the existing environment. Lastly the EIR will describe any mitigations proposed to off'setthe j nvironniental impacts. The problem is that the proposed EIR calls for 93 homes and is based on°a,out of,date city Davidon has held several meetings and is not proposing that the'project they planed isla 66 home project.'Therefore the draft EIR is defective and should be rejected as any analyses is based on afalse premise. In addition any EIR should be based on the current 2025 city plan. It is obvious the Davidon'is now proposing;a larger plan so they can negotiate down,:tothe 66 home plan they are currently proposing. This violates the spiritand intent of the retirement for a EIR, I also feel that the environmental impact home project t will bedevastating on our beautiful city. Thank you Aaron Edmondson 33 Oxford Ct , Petaluma, CA 1 4-1, Giudice; Alicia tt From: Pete <petebutler @earthlincnet> Sent: Thursday; March 07, 2013 9:07 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidson Deveopment"D" Street and Windsor Drive Dear Alicia With some concern over the above circumstance, I write to express my opinion, as to completely encourage all within the'planning commission to review this development.under''icurrent" Petaluma General Plan 2025. Further...with appreciation Davidson seeks profits and progress means such development is inevitable, I feel the revised 66 home level, is far more appropriate,than amore recent suggestion of returning to the original 93 count Pierce W Butler 131 Windsor Drive Petaluma CA 94952 707 762 2130 Sent from my iPhone • 1 4--c City of Petaluma REmACR 73.17\12'0Enn Attn: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner (e ' t x tt� v 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 Comments on'Davidon Homes Draft EIR' Dear members of the Petaluma Planning Commission.and Petaluma City Council, We live at 307 Sunnyslope Avenue which is ldown stream from the proposed Davidon Development and have for almost'33'years.;`When we bought our house, we were then privileged to have.Kelly Creek run throughour back yard. In the.early 1990's this area was annexed into the City of Petaluma andin preparation, all of the.future street runoff from the Victoria housing development,(and more) was,added to.Kelly Creek under Sunnyslope Avenue. The difference in the behavior of the creek was markedly changed from a dry creek in summer to a year round creek polluted with street runoff, lawn chemicals, car washing suds,and occasional Visible pollution like gasoline slicks.With this came the crash of the Chorus Frog„population,that had thrived there until the addition of this street runoff was almost immediate. The,Chorus Frogs still populate the creek just acrossthe.road from us where the creek is still mostly pure though this is also changing with the incrementalYadditions of smaller housing-tracts like that of Pinnacle where the street run off dunips;directly into the creek. The creek now runs at far greater speed and turbulence until it is slowed by the four foot by four foot by thirty foot length of culvert that runs under our down stream neighbors driveway. We get hammered! Every City and County Water official including many elected officials that have seen our situation has''agreed that the incompetence and lack of foresight of the system as it is was a grossly ill conceived plan to begin with and are usually ashamed. Never the less it has become•a disaster for us. We could go on and on but it brings us to our mat point. The DEIR states on page4 7-3:,” Low flows enter a'six-foot diameter culvert under Sunnyslope Avenue that discharges;into the open channel continuation of lower Kelly Creek, which roughly follows its historic alignment along rear lot lines between D Street and F Street" This is certainly not true in our ease or three other lots that surround us. Indeed it bisects our property: It:IS our back yard. Kelly Creek at this point is listed as a private creek on the"Channel at Creek Maintenance Responsibility Map (Printed 6/27/2008) and this map=makes dear that we are responsible for creek maintenance but now we sometimes feel like we are maintaining the"Love Canal" The storm drainage infrastructure is,simply not equipped to handle what already exists and even more housing with out some very major changestotthe system would be a further,assault on our property. In 1980 at the time we bought our house, no due diligence on our behalf could have predicted the assault on our property by bad planning with the increased,risk of-flooding, lowered'property value, erosion and safety.We invite aniand all of you to come see for your selves.. 4- to it I Traffic: �I Unlike the newer parts of Petaluma with two lane in either direction causeways tying small housing enclaves together, this part of Own down "D" Street and Sunnyslope Avenue and "F","G" and "I "Streets, was never made for the high;volume traffic it already bears. Sunnyslope is a race way when 'D" Street backs up More houses equals far more traffic. As you make your decision about:the Davidon project we hope it is weighed by what is good for the existing community and not the taxes it will bnngem or temporary (non local)jobs it may offer: Ask yourselves if you would want something like this in your own neighborhoods. Would the:future residents of Davidon wantsdumping onto their property from some upstreamsfuture:development? We hope'also that your decision is not prompted by advice that litigation will follow any refusals. As leaders of the community, we hope you will remember that when it is_finished, the preexisting local. residents will pay the price. March 7, 2013 fc, v 7 ,(-7/��/ Joseph Grubaugh&Sigrun Seifert 307 Sunnyslope Avenue Petaluma, CA 94952 707-762-4413 • 4-11 I Giudice; Alicia From: Charles Merrill <tex8boyl@ arthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:47 AN1 • To: GiudiceAlicia Subject: DavidsorvDevelopment Proposal Dear Petaluma Planning Commission, I am.writing to express my concern about the Davidon development as'a Petaluma and Sonoma County Citizen who lives in Victo is Development. As I understand, Davidon wants to return to the original 2005 EIR which was written for 93 homes. In my opinion,that is"way too many homes for this land area It will'negatively impact the water runoff eventually impacting D Street which already has a problem with minor flooding due to a lack of sewer capacity. This proposed development needs to be under the more recent OR which allowed for 63 homes. That number,seems to be too high as well and I hope; that the Planning Committee and the City Council will debate this issue,and approve a more reasonable proposal,for a smaller number of horiies. Having lived m Victoria since 1994, I have watched the'traffic impact Windsor Drive as this development has been completedalong with the Westhaven development on the hills at the west end of Windsor Dr. Sincerely, Charles Merrill,Ed.D. 151 Dublin Court Petaluma. 94952 707-765-1035 4-12 Giudice Alicia From: Tom And Marcia <twojoynts@comcastnet> Sent: Thursday„March 07, 2013 9:50 AM To: Giudice, Alicia;Tom Joynt Subject: Water and traffic'D St We are concerned that the EIR written,for the.Davidon,develgpment at D and Windsor does not totally address our observations about current traffic patterns on D Street,between Windsor and 8th'St.The traffic study was last done during the recession and luckily,:more people,areJbackto work! We:assume the people who buy thesehomes.will be driving cars to work adding to the back up that makes it difficult for us to sometimes turn left off of our street and onto D;the only arterial choicewe have to exit our cul de sac. Pedestrians already have difficulty crossing,the:street, many who are school age. Water run off down D is diverted to our street and runs to adrain in front of our house and then under our driveway and back to Kelly creek, a "private” creek.The:city water departr}ent upgraded the drain line this past year but we have not had enough rain for us to see how It will help the flooded street experienced in past years. Hopefully, this is a year of little rain but we will have more again in.the future. If more run off comes.down the street from the development( how could it not?)we will see more flooding.ion.addition, it dumps the water into the creek that there is already a great deal of concern for. Thank you ' Marcia and Tom Joynt SGrossland Way Petaluma 763-7453 • Sent from Irene, Marcia's iPhone • 1 4_:13 Giudice, Alicia Front Charles-Merrill ctex8boyl @earthlinkinet> Sent Thursday,March 07, 2013 9:53 AM To: Giudice;Alicia Subject: Davidon Proprosal Dear Ms Giudice, I would appreciate;having the email that]just sentto you included in the agenda packet for the March 12 Planning Commission meeting. . Thank you, Charles Merrill, Ed.D 1 4- t4 I :Davidon:DEIR Beverly Schor [beverlyschor @gmall coo] Sent Thursday,:Match 07,2013 3:52TM To: Giudice;Alicia I! 1 Planning Commission Davidon DEIR 1 . The City of Petaluma is at a critical juncture. Funds' are short, pressures are, high and. our infrastructure is extremely compromised. and in :many.cases, broken: Projects that tantalize with promises of tax revenues and increased jobs get fast-tracked for approval: before! many of the 'city1s future costs and maintenance assessnëits are ever completed.1! Davidon-is just such a project. The original project was approved, in 2005 and was voluntarily suspended `because of the bad economy., Now the builder wants to resurrect' the project under the same set of criteria even though a new 2025 .General .Plan is in place.ce. Please insist that Davidon comply.withI new General Plan. New proposal, new 2025 General Plan. Much has changed in Petaluma since:2004, Traffic has increased. dramatically, jroadand sidewalk surfaces have dangerously deteriorated, and _ the sewer lines are stressed. These changes need to be updated and addressed in the Davidon DEIR. 1 I live one house off of D Street., The' D Street corridor has become a major commute route'withmorning. traffic from5:00 8:30 am and in the afternoon from 3:30 5:30. In addition, much of 'the. new;,, 101 construction congestion is re-routed through D Street. The addition of 890 moretcars from the proposed development level of 93 homes, will make this street impassible as well as very dangerous for pedestrians and bikers for whom this- is- an .important corridor, as well. Petalumals air is very dirty. There is significant partic-ulant matter from agriculture as well as traffic.: Increasing cars on city streets will make the air quality, noise pollution and green gas emissions even worse. Fewer homes on the Davidon site will help. Better traffic control (not just a round about) will also help. ,I y 'access, and. parking, please And lastl when considering the- Helen Putnam , consult with 'the Sonoma County Park Rangers ;Does the Park Service have adequate .funds to maintain. Kelly Creek as stated in the DEIR? Is parking for 7 cars adequate? The City of Petaluma cannot afford to be a turnstyle for. developers_.. It needs to be a vigilant gatekeeper for ALL the residents .of the city. Concerned Resident 4- IS I I i SAVE'll E BARN AND cREEK.doc Lucille Battison [Iucyb4u @gmail.com] Sent'Thurrsday,-March 07, 2013 2:58;PM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.corn,dennis elias @cbnorcal.corn, oldeastpetaluma@yahoo:coin, akhernes @comcast•net, rayvs @pacbell.net;wolpert@sonic:net; katfiieencmilieroffice @gmail.mm;Giudice,,Alicia To the planning commision re: The Red!_Bam and Davido:>j subdivision, 3/7/13 To The Petaluma Planning Commission SAVE THE BARN AND CREEK II We must save the old red barn at Nhndsor Rd. and D Street because it'is.a reminder.that Petaluma's heritage is as a rural agricultural town. I feel it must remain in its present/original setting. I also think it should become an agricultural museum/nature center where young people can learn about our early agricultural heritage:; I was born here and have lived all but 10 years of my life here. I returned from!my.many wanderings to find it is'still the best place to live that have ever found. ; The meadows and open space around':and above bar and the Creek are lush,with:tall grass and the.wind,blowing over the grass makes it look alive,moving;in a rhythmic,;u ndulating swaying. There are so many beautiful trees one group in particular the barn that is a.small forest lush and green in the summer that is in back of up the;hill a little from t and strikingly beautiful in the winter as bare grey silhouettes a ainst the hillside..These are million dollar views and we need to save them instead of the;proposed`million dollar'homes.It would be a;shame to fill that area with homes and sacrifice the beautiful views of the valley and hills beyond and cover this'area with roads, traffic, and noise and'lose the creek plus the drain on our water and infrastructure. Also the grading of the hillsides would create landslide hazards to the whole area and the homes bordering the planned housing. Builders of subdivisions build for profit,of course, and they build wherever they find land for their benefit Then they are,gone having destroyed our beautiful open spaces for the sake of"the bottom line"(money).What a treasure it would be,if this land could be:added to the Helen Putnam Park. If you haven't seen it, drive up into Victoria subdivisiondo the park'entrance and walk'just a short way,look to your left where you will see it for yourself.You will also see a lovely small farm across the creek with vintage out and and trees that are beautiful in day ll se sons. If this subdivision n is allowed museum to be n the red barn a lovely lost sight t It would folks era wonderful addition to the Helen Putnam Park 9 entering the city'atthis gateway. Please,as planners for ourcity,think first of the beauty that is,in Petaluma; not the tax moneys that building brings, and preserve these pockets of pristine beauty for us all You,will be more honored for what you-save than for the million dollar homes you allow on such beautiful land: We need as much open space as we can preserve now for our present residents and for those generations who are to come. Lucille Battison, Native Petaluma resident for 75 years. 762-4002 cell 338-6114 Cc:Argus Courier 4- \U Davidon DE%R.- Section 33.4 Susan Jaderstrom jjaderstrom @COmcast:net] Sent:Thursday, March 07,2013 2:47 PM To jenpienrepetalunia @yahoo corn;dens elias @ctinorcal.corn,oldeastpetaluma @yah'oo.corn,akhemes@comcast.net, rayvs @pacbell.net, Bill Wolpert[wolpert @sonic.net]; lethleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;Gudice, Alicia Cc Petalumans for Responsible Planning [PetRP @oimcast.net] In Section 3.4 Related Projects of the Davidon DEIR;�lthe following statement is made: Cumulative impacts may be analyzed by consideringia list. of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impactsKEIQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)]. Many projects are listed in Table 3-1. Considering that the statement above includes "past projects, the omission of the following past projects directly next'to the proposed David on development are obviously missing: Victoria, Pinnacle Heights: The city must insist that the cumulative impacts of these "past housing project betaken into consideration when analyzing the proposed'Davidon project.. Susan Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA 94952 II II 4- t1 ; Comments on Davidon 1 Omes,Draft EIR Diane Gentile [dianegentile @gmail com] Sent:Thursday, March 07,2013 1:57 PM • Dear All, ham writing to express my strong•opposition to the:Davidomdevelopment on D &'Windsor. Please understand that I am not anti-development but it is becoming increasingly evident that Petaluma should look to innovative and more responsible development if we are to sustain our identity of place and culture. The majority of people like myself have chosen to live in Petaluma because of the rural quality our'small town feel, a high quality of community life imbuing;,strong social values and all the natural beauty of the hills, farms and=agriculture surrounding us. This=place is unique,historic and feels much more remote than the 45-minute drive to the city. And while we have all the conveniences we can imagine just 10:=minutes in either direction, the culture of Petaluma is friendly, welcoming and rich. We are indeed a perfect little town struggling with growing pains that threaten the identity of our future. It'is stated that citizens of Petaluma are being.asked to provide their opinions on issues such as future development because"Under CEQA,the public has a"privileged position" because "citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection" and based on"notions of democratic decision making:" If indeed these 'notions' have any effect, please consider acting for the highest and best future of Petaluma. Do we really want to have another subdivision instead of this idyllic'valley?Do we want Petaluma to become another sprawling bedroom community? Are we willing to allow more traffic up and down D Street? Do,we not',care about the trees,the river, the water shortage, the animals and our own health? I do not think that even a compromised agreement benefits,the longterm vision of Petaluma. Rather,I think it is time that Petaluma,adhere to a higher standard of urban planning. Regards, Diane Elise Gentile' 1309"1/2 D Street Petaluma, Ccr94952 • I. •commentis ore Davidon Homes'`Draft EIR Pete Sikora [peteslkora@Comcast net] Sentmursday, March 07, 2013 1:37 PM To:, Giudice,'Alicia l Cc ',enpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com;dennis.elias @cbnorcal:com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:com; aidleales @comcastnet; rayys @pacbellset, wolpert @sonic:net; rathleencmilieroffce @grt%fl.com; PetRP @comcaflet st 1 Dear Ms. Giudice and Planning Conmris`sibhers, rl As residents of Victoria, our family is deeply concerned about the proposed Davidon Homes development at D Street and Windsor Drive, Among many'concerns,. some of the most pressing include: I 1. Davidon is trying to get this project evaluated under the old General Plan. It was 1 Davidon's decision to delay seeking approval ofl!this project until now Common sense would seem to dictate that this project should now be,;required to abide by all of the environmental policies in the City's 2025 General Plana We hope that you support this position. 2. The EIR excludes, any long range' simulation of what ;the project:would- look like; only medium and short term- views. have been considered. It Iseems reasonable to ,have long range views included in the .EIR, particularly given the vistas from Putnam Park. - 3. It is our understanding that the City Councill in the 1980's intended for only a certain number of homes to be built: in this corridor. Due to the development of 'Victoria and West Haven, less than 50 homes sites remain in order to be consistent with the former Council's l intent. Davidon has. an application out. for 93. homes and has also, discussedan. option- for 66 homes. Both of these !proposals are too many homes based "on the originally intended 1 density for this area. 4. The project should only be considered as the area is currently zoned. There is no need to change the zoning of the uniqueacorridor. S. Davidon's presentation to the Otmonths Davi an used the "assumptive close" technique by _ updated 66 home proposal, :implying that the' 66 community, meal �we u old he the implemented plan. a plan. While we applaud Davidon 'for 'engaging 66 home development being inevitable is misleading. In fact, we look -to our leaders to support a development which is in line with our, current General Plan, the intentions of the former City Council, and without changing the zoning for the area. Finally, on a. daily basis we are blessed to see variousforms. of wildlife, including deer, turkeys, possums., 'skunks, racoons, and. different birds. The area Davidon is proposing for i development is in ,a very unique area in that se' have this-wildlife within walking distance 1 to downtown! It"s beauty speaks for itself; it is an travel corridor. into Marin County. Any development will -permanently.:destroy the beauty and displace wildlife-, We urge you to keep this unique corridor as it is, 'but if development must occur, please make sure it reconciles with our *current* general plan and zoning. Thank you for your consideration in.this important matter, Pete Sikora 529 Hayes Lane, 94952 Mobile: 707-291-1745 I Davidon DEIR Kristin Nelson [kr stinputabirdonit @9mail,corn] Sent:Thursday,•March 07,2013 1:12 PM . To Hines,Heather 1 Cc petrp@comcast.,net,jenpierrepetaluma@ yahoo.cram; dennis.elias@ cbnorcaLcorn;:oideastpetaluma @yahoo.corn, akherries @comcast.net; rayvs@pacbell.net;wolpert@sonic.net;Giudice,Alicia; Neil`Smith:[cheersguvnor @gmail.com] Dear Ms.Hines, 1 The traffic studies used in the face FIR for Davidon's n's pw posed development on the Scott Ranch were conducted in 2011 and fail g ors: m fact 1. Based upon the increase in traffic volume from the 2009 study to the 2011,study,it is reasonable to assume that the increase has continued into 2013.The FIR reports that the lower volume in 2009 was due to the recession.If traffic volumes are linked to the improving economy,the improvement since 2011 would indicate increased volumes in 2013.The City should request a new study for this reason alone. 2. The 2011 study was conducted before the changes toithe 101 freeway in Novato were completed,adding an extra lane.The city should require a new study as a result of this, since the increased afternoon traffic flow caused a knock-on decrease in flow.in the'two lane segment of 101 north of Novato.The in Novato has taus i slower traffic in this segment has moved,more'traffic onto San Antonio Road and Point Reyes-Petaluma Road, which would have a significant effect on traffic flow into and outof the Davidon development. 3.. Federal traffic studies, conducted by the U.S.Census Bureau,have just this month identified a class of commuter who spends 90 minutes or more commuting, and typically leaves before 6am.A great � concentration of these commuters are in the Bay Area Since the draft EIR does not define peak hours into this time period, the City should require that a new study is conducted;that mote accurately determines when peak traffic occurs on D Street. Thank you for accepting public comment on the Davidon DEIR. Regards, Kristin Nelson 1290 D Street (415) 254-5382 j 1 li 4-20 Davidon Building Barbara.Arikat-[barbaraarikat:aaul @statefarm.com] Sent:Thursday,March 07,2013 1:06 PM, To: Giudice,Alicia ilive in Victoria and have witnessed the slow-removal of so much of the rural and agricultural land in Petaluma over the years. Davidon wants to build their homes on our beautiful countryside and then move.on to their next conquest!They . care nothing about Petaluma or the impact these home would have on the land and people who do in fact live here. I urge anyone and everyone who can prevent these homes from being built to do so.These homes would create an incredible negative impact on D Street and'the areain general due to increased traffic,water use,etc. Please preserve our open spaces,which there are fevwer and'ewer of. Thank you. I am a 41+year resident of'Petaluma,andlove ou'r city and want to see it preserved for future generations to enjoy also. I I ®avidon Eir • Pad Schmidt [30312 @COmcast,net] Sent:Thursday,March:07,2013 12:53'13K Toe Giudice,A licia I I. Alicia Giudice, I . There is not much information on the effect§ of the scouring that will occur when the Davidon project allows more runoff from roofs; sidewalks, streets etc. These hard impermeable) surfaces direct more water into Kelly Creek at a. faster rate then if .allowed to seep naturally through the earth. The results' are obvious as experienced by myself, and other ,properties on the creek. The water comes down at much faster rate with a much more powerful headlthat undermines the existing infrastructure (creekbottoms, retaining walls, underground Creek is a private creek with the II culverts,, vegetation etc. Kelly yet there has been, no discussion about responsible alreadyndone,to,ourIproperties. by the Victoria subdivision and other developments in the same watershed. I. do not want to, lose my ;home -because these 'issuer havelnot been addressed by my city counsel or the City Attorney. Kelly Creek is a seasonal creek and should be returned to such. I I recommend that all issues concerning Kelly Creek be looked at extensively as many home owners:wrll be affected. 1 i ' I sincerely, Paul Schmidt . 303! 12th St. Petaluma, Ca. 94952 ,, I I i . I 4,zZ I Giudice; Alicia - From: Tom Corbett'<yosemitecorb @yahoo.com> Sent Thursday,-March 07„2013 1'1:05 AM To: Giudice, Alicia. � Cc: Susan Jaderstrom; Petalum ns For Responsible Planning solving @silklaw.corn, Linda Corbett Subject: Davidon Development EIR Comments Attachments: 2012 Corbett Yard Flood.JPG;Installing pipe to drain yardJPG; Pump pipe route.JPG Dear Alicia, I We've just begun reviewing Davidon's €IR for the proposed development next to Victoria at D St and Windsor and we have Some initial comments as follows: � I First, we believe the developer has the need'and the right to develop a portion Of the Scott property in light of their investment and purchase from UOP. However, we believe they must be held to the standards of our current general plan and respect the needs of our community, our quality of life and especially their closest neighbors in Victoria. Our preference is to keep the development to approximately the same home density that was agreed to when development of this valley was originally approved. Since one of their proposals is for 47 homes, this should be the maximum and would allow for the protection of numerous trees, wildlife, the Red Barn and provide an excellent entrance to Helen Putnam Park from D St-. We would also like to see an "active park” with parking considered for the flat area near the Barn. The confusion Davidon has created 'by presenting a 66 hone proposal to members of the community while formally submitting a 93 home EIR to rtherCity with the contingency of using the out dated Gen'l Plan has damaged our trust that,they will do the right thing for our community. The apparent "bate and switch" tactic of avoiding the. 08-25 Gen'l Plan vs the outdated 87-04 Gen'l Plan is pretty transparent. I trust that the City will see through this and require use of the current plan. Our City Council, their staff and many of our citizens worked hard and spent significant tax dollars developing the current Gen'l Plan to protect our heritage and our quality of life now and for future generations. We live at the upper end of B St, against the knoll,for the proposed Davidon lots numbers 1-3 and have had significant problems with flooding 'in our backyard during rains (see attached photos;from 12/12 rains). Even though the original developer (Garrett) anticipated considerable water flow sheeting ,down the hill and due to a rising water table during heavy rains (to be mitigated by them installing eight drains in our yard), we still flood during prolonged and heavy 'rains. The Davidon EIR indicates that we may see an increase of 70% in water flow at B St! This could be disastrous for our property and others along the B St side of the knoll. The EIR suggests that retention pondsfmay mitigate this increased flow but it is not cleat where they would go how this 1 4-23 Would work. We trust that you will address this and the in pact'.on Kelly Creek in the review of their plans. Since we have not seen a plot plan of houses on any of the proposed plans in the EIR (28, 47, 66 or193 homes) we can not determine the.impact on our drainage situation nor our loss of privacy, view and increased noise.;�We also trust that we will be given the opportunity to see plot plans of house footprints and paving before the end of our EIR comment period. Some height indicator poles, on the knoll would be very helpful too. These are our most immediate concerns but since full review of this substantial EIR will take more time we hope to provide, more comments later. Thank you for your attention to ourconcerns, Tom and Linda Corbett 1243 B St 775 3636 2 ■ ........ .. . . . . M- .. . il 14CIV)/0a1J '1/ * (1° CS TOP TO BOTTOM p —F9 1 ett-cc„.9AjL-rn_0.---, , DESIGN riDa—C , I 1 ri re-- - 0 el. 4 ti " 0 ' A,r,Age-liate 6.t2d ' . . i 6,--n yth2-• cri”---)-TrA62-ti . r,_ (lia2 4- st 1 AAA^ ; 66304> cfia.4) rilac-ncd ./C-44,--- eA-e-ac-4-a--ct A(l/Cir @Th/Q--2-k.0-l- ' Du( AryLts- /a --tc_c, • ("in-° f 0 CL:c_e_. e .e__AA..,/) 0-1.-- erux) , ,\,,,, ,k,2eLoo . ,- ,. Jr. - , - -- • ' • ,„, LAR.Let ) c _,fLei ,a /t-e-et vb0-11A3Cag do • • - . —C404-19--YAL1-4 , I go BOX 1001 9495 3.- 1 00 1 ,, (415;),307-6094 ail- ----A--' ' ---bLej pficus 0-7/o (/6--4 €4,15.)fitok86 , 6. I 4 ---26 TOP TO 47) 1-t-e-A)--6RPA-g -5 4 .y - CS 13 iL rs &a , M BOTTO DESIGN 01/1/2-1 "-ryvirwt-r-f----s I a r (2 r ---r-e2_27-44-7_ -L 4- n +-R5 it '''' Pv(A9cri creac_c_Ary\a_ 01,_ tim--c- fvuve .f, i ‘c0-6 -r4/41 , . • : . . • g-3 , •'( de i l ti 1 c c - P At 12altdiA>11fi 'in 0, Dpe-u-ei2-ei LoaT --OL, akaAasr----- , X-vt}j/rt:ar atc-c(2-d r/o--t-0-11-) vi-A4-,- . ' . 6,taig--04-4-64 .66,07-01- kg-ff a 1 1.1 S 13 :1 if r Y 0%/thi 4(149/ 2-1- 1 2 bk\CCIVrieTh) e ' AA) ( I • "L --(AjCL : arlA ) Ws" F e b- ( vAinfor.) dm. 9ztic, P.O BOX 1001 I PETALUMA, CA 94953 - 1001 (X15)307-6094 . ,(41,5)60.1 -8616 vnvw:lep2bottOrndesign.c0m I 'II ®avid®nitEIR - Housing Alternatives Mark')aderstrom.[mjaderstrom @comcast net] Sent: Thursday, March 07,2013357 PM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.mm,dennis ellas @cbnorcal(corn; a oldeastpetaluma @yahr oo a in;akherries @comcastnet; ayys @pacbellnet,wolpert@ sonicnet; kathlee nnrllerofce@gmal.corn Grudice, Cc: PetitP@comcast.net Atlachments:Dayidon DEIR.pdf(166 KB) Attached are my comments about. the Dayidon DEIR and the housing alternatives. Thank you for reading my comments. 1 � 1 Mark Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court Petaluma CA 94952 707-7.62-5166 'I mjaderstrom @comcast.net • 1 1 it 4. l7 Mark Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA 94952 mjaderstrom @comcast.net 707-762-5166 , I March 7, 2013 Dear Planning Commissioners: The Maps of the Proposed,Davdon project were reviewed Figure 3:5-1 —93 homes Figure 6-1 Alternative B—66 homes Figure 6-3 Alterative C—28 homes Our home is.on Oxford,Courf in the Victoria subdivision,. In'all'three proposals,three backyards are backed up directly to our one backyard. i None of the plans include any feathered density or a separator: 1 Figure 3.1 C. is a view of the Western houses'cm Oxford Court. s 3 C 2 C.Western view of houses on Oxford Courtin r _. s t:if s-p Y om '.£ y> Victoria Subdivision from rom the p. io_ ject site. r ` r _ r Y `lte ` y is 4-2-S Planning Commissioners • ,March?-,2013 Davidon'DEIR ', I What Figure 3.1. Cdoes'not accurately show is Iii w flat the Ian is directly.below Oxford Court.;The following'picture was taken above the proposed'Dayidon,projectnearthe City water tower. i �yEh,w. LI. ,,,: p Fy I Fs t,ll JYj ( rA FYI �N9t t�Y _ :Y f f SS [A .,—,-. . ? .. . ,--47{� is e. ffi} .4 nT S Y -„, -�.T;, T R S"3 The picture below is taken from 69 Oxford court for anjadditional view`•of this flat land. , -� , 2,44r. r '`,t' gi'' r it sh-1 Y'� t . a k V �,.tY& -,,,,A-,..,..:y R w rtf '. 1 ZT � � '�ty - �r"" :v"wiy' �. .adsR . 6f'j1r57:;' -. :�' ` W A-•-r1 1/4,54,-.‘i. Q._. % r b � y 4i., Al 314'ti ,�e45. A +.A4 Rc�,f� -1"' ,cy� s { 'y,'..A s .- a—.•uT Ky.�' r " 1 e: n ∎:.% ..1 Cr 1.-- i-. �y.S f' ,.•v 1Ui.9l •"�' "1Y ,‘14-1w,,,,,'y �fl n w� �kCxy -S' M" Yd k Il A. .. -' l� 'y�'fi'•,E 4St'f{FT �Y 6.r 4.S' ;,+ ; 1%t `, i 1 9' 4.a s� )L x 4 ,i_ Because;) am not,asoiifengiheer an rem not!ableto tell from Figure 3.14, I cannot determine how much actual;soil will need to be removed below our house nor can I tell how steep the dropwill be behind our house:.Victoria'is prone to documented landslides. When;that much soil is to put a cul-de sac with six homes II Planning commissioners March 7,2013 Davidon DEIR backed up to the property lines of Victoria,we all fear a repeat of the prolonged court , cases es necessary to repair the slide on Oxford Court. addition, I could not find information about preserving,the views from Oxford Court. For a,variety of reasons:that arenot just related'to the location of myhouse, I support no housing. Reluctantly, I would support 28 homes. If housing is decided upon, I urge the City to consider new housing alternatives not currently in the Davidon DEIR. These new plans should take into consideration.`all of the feedback that the public is giving for this property. Particularly, the design plans should include an urban separator between the Davidon property and the Victoria subdivision and not back up directly to Victoria (both Oxford Court and B Street). If the City decides upon.any housing plans,the;City must require Davidon to use story poles for every house so that Petalumans have an opportunity to see how this housing development will affect views and impact open:(space. Sincerely, Mark Jaderstrom ' 3 1 � d -3D VICTORIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION In re the proposed Davidon Development at D(Stand Windsor Drive,four issues March 7th 2013 To the City council and those;others it may concern: I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors and members of our Association.Much attention has rightly been directed toward the potential ill effects of this development on the area around Kelly Creek We support those protests,but wish to add other issues to the debate that have had less attention so.far. Less attention has been paid to‘potential issues on the other side of Windsor Drive where the proposal follows our border on the South side of BSt;essentially along its whole length. Like near Oxford Court and below,we are concerned thathomes may be built too to that border and of such a height as to affect resident privacy and damage or destroy views to the South.This is especially significant in the light of the fact that Jots on the south side of B St have deed restrictions on use of the upper parts of their lots(they are steeply sloped up to the Davidonland) to;preserve these views for their neighbors across the street and on Hayes Lane.The Davidon land rises rapidly eastward from Windsor Drive and reaches the same height as the,lower homes on Hayes Lane. Any new homes on this border,like the other border from Oxford Court to Windsor Drive need to be as far away as possible,as low as possible,and screening vegetation needs to be planted along our border.Theseplants need to be evergreen and should have a limitedifinal growth height so as not to wreck the long views to the South:Victoria HOA now has rules prohibiting planting of out-Of-scale trees by,our.homeowners,for example Redwoods and most Eucalyptus.These trees and similar huge ones must be prohibited in the CC&Rs of this development to preserve views,and not only along B St We have had big problems with such trees here.Deed restrictions should be in place to prevent later view destruction by residents of the new development' Secondly,there have been severe drainage issues along this hillside south of B St,especially the homes nearest the dead end of B St Large volumes of water pour off the rear of the lots and can flood,the lower parts of the yards(see attached photo from earlier this year).Some seems to be surface runoff but gopher holes become fountains,so there must be subsurface issues too.Most of the water must be coining from the Davidonparcel.Close attention needs to be paid during excavation and drainage design here There should at least be a v- ditch with perforated pipe in gravel below,along this border. There are also two other issues that we would wish to be required as a condition of development approval in the event,that some version of this proposal is built One is that if you consider all three developments along Windsor Drive,our private parks are,in the geographic center of the combined Victoria Residential Victoria Homeowners,Association • y ail One Willowbrook Court Suite 105 Petaluma,CA 94954 Tel.707 Z85-0600 Fax 707 285-0601 ■ 4-31 VICTORIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA'jTION and proposed Davidon developments.Most of the Davidon.area is closer to two of these parks than the great majority of the homes in the other,two HOAs who currently share the costs.Victoria Residential was required to proportionately pay these park costs as a condition of approval.We demand the same be required of any approved development on the Davidon land.The Board of Directors of Victoria Residential supports us in this demand. Fourthly,as a matter of mitigation,we also demand that a new,access to Helen Putnam Park be constructed through the Davidon parcel from St Adequate,parking must also be provided off D St adjacent to this access As part of this,we also demand that Residents.Only parking rules be established for all Of Oxford Court,except for disabled parking next to the Helen Putnam,Park entrance there.We are not interested in closing this access,merely in having visitors park instead along Windsor Drive,rather than on this narrow,crowded and dangerous cul de sac. Thank you for your attention to all this, President, VHOA In the photograph,below,the fence is the Davidon border. 1 •1 e One Willowbrook Court Suite.105 Petaluma,CA 949 S4ITe1.707.285-0600 Fax 707 2135-0601 ,'. i. VICTORIA HOMEOWNERS AS`SOCIAI TION te a r' _ t A , ''r'- �t (;< ,i to e \ x t to tt �c? .. rt I'% •yAJ�IY �F� - ' .n.-.a r✓I+t ` a- '3;� Y' '� i. : ' y,'' - 2. X91 %tv . rc T A f :Iu)ti:-714t-a .H rr . .r te cJt.2;" rr ' � '1,,I x -1 �r i"{•3•;-"41,4-v.4 r' 5, y/.L.y_ y y a" 714: - >v.py, w, n ',•-5 J fl < h. [ , "°5 , .r s 1, ; i `frY `. �+ '4t' f a i ' • y Y At X 3t,:c •^-�` t3 y „Pat r5' ;, F s \ rY • z , ra vt .n r A a J� r if c:;',4.- a' +F b 7.,-,,p lc;,..•3-.. ' ¢rr -;w g �4 ` "C°,t i y.®�rP n r "pt °tom `/ I i rS '' -- II .° tI` �W }j- rF n V ay� 4 .,.T�- -�; J r e a .` e b•1147--'7. j a '4• w* -�`1 7-Y .'� si.r+ ,y'f t a `' r Y r' �'�. y t 4l G" >3 -rY p4ri ^drt A � r � � � +4 SI�r �r� r'FS co- r + . n { ° " a ' �J, dr .. r "Sd` .a 1itt I mf xr 3? � -I ¶0• R I • b. -.fir { - g r t r' e- 4' ' t•'Lf r Y- i 4 'l '11..41'7:•C'''-')p• t' y rIt 't.`7.---, v' +41 �1 - '�S 4L tY s t W..;--t.'r qrf t _� w 1i`yitisx ` E I 4 !h9 'W £;t 7?4 pi'S,ryDa & ' �� I�'eri'•!2 ?i' P�`Jb-I 4,7 i. . i A d r � n' .I 4 v�$P �� a f� t/474.4�x r s1 �i "-_+?r W � �.i"'',:'141' ��ry. rr �j.. ]bi-.t� Yir� t t"r ;"n"4 9 � .f x1 �. } £1 14 Nor coy `' + ) r ' t y .{L �t .- n4 r -+ t.)r" p`".'- t 1 - e t4.:,:/., 1. r eF Vb' :„T5� i t •, U I ,�V 2f"k 3r, f i-h xs4 t Ft s ��--sM 6 SK v-ti VS ^i' ,. 1• fr.1" .r'R .1 it::�,I , 2 f t •";-.1:1;•,-.^17%F J s ,A.‘".---:,..4.;•,,l' , y -fbi E tr Is *a .7.4.13,:t-, 3if Ea*« 1 . + r 7. " 1 --3:. s ,, - 4- x:3. r 1 7 S ra y FE� Std y.�t t p i {yyp.' ,�.,�.,y •Y� st",.ywN` yl I x r_Jn ct'Sf �+ • a.t.R dw....t - 'k $a_ :; 1• a,a 3 F v 2 G� t f '0fi I :`.1 r . '!‘:.2--.....-4,om : S n ••-•,'", f f ¢ '° ! �: �r T ` a � Y . '. e -stir ! yr{<,.. ..,+� 3-r'Pt q w ..:374::::.,..-,, t+ air F r'fl °.F•k, ,�� x „At,:??,•••4„,'‘17,l"Y"b� yrf .,�fn •_7•441:.i r,�. c`-`-, ` ,^ .-4k r c yA Tr, } s v V A . �a"f` '• ayY p7s 4K h4�, r.P r srY"t t Bpi' ` ' y Y yrk°`a'�e pit 3 ° 3 'y,r r 3°E I.ps:c.: ° ° 4 ,i, sv. I I r ''. - N!tLP >Y 44.'"4 k �p t� 1 ri 'ax E'r4Y 21,2 p .£r t e�t,A y r .�4 F y �9'p v1'Ik }p S .b"l _ �' E A 'q-k § � r� :�� r'� -nr• rp+ 4rChY' 1 ,4 ' ' ' h S. ', .. t e('a,vt a£h, a v. i r+L S '' J..q• Qr°ip� ib t3u f aJ 4=hrrds,. fig k4`••••••a �' I , zi > 2a I-i ? :- R a ygx. r. r r t ,. i . a' '',to''r- S-.s r63 II��: h a la 4 t I 4i a M t<aE t*A 5�( f r�. tt�Fp� Z ' r"y a� � �`a�i� A`� I la' sa I rAd�`r' fi •••,4,t;4.Y` y �k. �., 1- .c x4 '1 "j irlY ^P" ',3n rs=•jt,-47 ?.�7'?;."�'+ry r -. .„r�,. I{ s ua,`°r`:t3:Tr., - eJ' ` r�r''' z V @7i� ,t.yr asat" r v aU irc +�'rg"77 , .."A�1 -. A3'' 't _3 *. k Ira -f{ ,t7 r Fyr j t u _�"+' t ^e!' d'!'t1 s( 5 x � .T'SF t ei rt$ ,T.,-rti P Y F z �`� t4 v} r�P y T� "` ai-1��'t p n y Y�.,r-� � S .m - E•:4,7/14� �ujnA' ` ...Pe-Pier di' revs �,,sv cl `,� NsE t c� a I ;l„'# Y% .:i. '1,;:i.,...,•:!'Al: < ^�'';414 AI q...3j -a µ J C ni++r,_I Ku � �f� ]p�'M• I �_ , 4 33 'Davidon.Development:at Winelsor, and D Street�(Sd t Ranch)- DEIR comment period extended to Apr 15 Gregory L Colvin [colvin @adlerc0lvin:corn] I Sent Monday,March 11,2013 12:45 PM Toe Giudice,Aficia. Dear Ms. Giudice: Apparently, the City website still shows April 1st as the deadline. Can that be fixed? Thank you. I Greg . , Original Message , ,From: Hines, Heather [mailto:HHINES @ci:oetalumatca.us], Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 Sr13 PM. To: Gregory L.• Colvin . ' Subject: Fwd: Davidon Development at Windsor and D Street (Scott Ranch) I Mr, Colvin, I The City has extended the public: review '.periodifor the Davidon DESK to 60-days, extending to .April 15th. As a courtesy, notice of the extended review period will be sent next week to everyone who received the 'original notice. ?will also respond in writing to your request. Please let me know if I can be, of further assistance. Heather Heather Hines Planning Manager City of Petaluma From Gregory L. Colvin. [mailto':colvin @adlercolvin.com] Sent: Thursday, February .21, 201'3 '4:03, ,PM To 3; petalumaplanning Cc ',Brian Gaffney' ; 'Kelly Franger.' ' Subject: RE: Davidon Development at Windsor and4D Street (Scott Ranch) Heather: Things have not been going well with online access to -the essential documents related to the DSIR; so'we are asking again for,more review time, see below and attached. Greg Petalumans for Responsible Planning 69 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA 9495,2 Voice 707-=762-,5166 ..Fax 707-769-0622 <mailto:PetRP @comcast.net>PetRP @comcast.net<mailto:PetRP @comcast:net> ... httP:'7-/www+PetRP-.or4? www.PetRP.orq<htto://www:PetRP.or4> February" 21, 2013 By e-mail! toj <mailtometalumarilannino @ci.oetaiuma.ca:us> _, . petalumaplanni.ng@ ci.petaluma.ca.us<mailto:petllumaplanning @ci..petalgma.ca.us> sef'J 22 Ms. :Heather! Hines, Planning„Manager' Community: Development Department City of 'Petaluma 1L -Englieb Street 1 Petaluma, CA 94952 Re:. Davidon Development at Windsor and D Street Dear .Guideline 15105, for a I understand that you did not grant our request/4 pursuant :to CEQA . 60=day public review period for the Davidon draft EIR. The public notice stated that the 45-day review period began on February 14 and will end on April 1; 2013. However, the notice stated that the DEIR was available. then for review on the City of Petaluma website, which was patently untrue. it appears that it was not posted online until the morning of February 20.. Further, hard copies were, net available to the public at City offices from February 15 to 18 due to the Friday closure and 3-day holiday weekend. Furthermore, essential documents for evaluation,!of the DEIR are not available online. The 1987 General Plan is not posted' on the City website, and on,numerous occasions we have tried to access the. 2025 General Ptah, only to •get a message that the file "is damaged and cannot be repaired." )I` Therefore, I renew my request for 60-day 'review period to end on the later. of April 15, 2013, or 45 days from the date that both the 1987 and 2025 'General Plans are truly accessible to the public on the City website. This is awhhuge housingtdevelopmen issues,on sensitive environmental land next to; a county park, Y massive DEIR document to review, and intense interest from the press and the public. Electronic access to the pertinent documents is' critioal in. the 21st century. <signed> I Greg Colvin For the Steering Committee (415) 421-7555 ext. 211 •',, Gregory L. Colvin • Adler & Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220. San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-421-7555 x.211 Fax: 415-421-07121 email: <mailto:colvin @adlercolvin.com> colvin @adleroolvin.com<mailto:colvin @adlercolvin.com? <httn://wow-adlercolvin.com> wow.adlercolvin.com<htto:/.fwww:adlercolvin.cow> The information in this! e-mail .message and any attachments may be privileged, Confidential, and protected :from disclosure. `If you are not the intended ,recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution,, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please a-mail the sender at. <mailto:colvin @adlercolvin.cor> colvin @adlercolvin.com<mailto:colvin @adlercolvin.com>, and delete all copies of this 'message and its attachments, if any Adler and. Colvim is a. San Francisco Green Business certified by the City and- Countyfof San • • Francisco. Please consider tleenvironment before you print this. email. Thank you: <PetRP: ETA 60 day renewed request (00472043) .DOC> Proposed<Davidon development Matthew Ingram'[mingram @gmail,corn] Sent Monday,March'11,2013 8:51 AM To:'. Giudice,Alicia Hithere, Thank you for your work on the proposed Davidonidevelopment. I live on Western Ave. and have a toddler.,,We:are concerned about the traffic flow and volume on ourstreet and its implications for the many families with youngichildren who live'in,our neighborhood I;know that many residents from the Windsor and Victoria developments use Wester Ave.,to get downtown and to schools and businesses,in addition to using it to access Washington and the freeway. When I.reviewed the draft EIR for this' ro oseddevelopment, I didn't feel that the plan adequately addressed traffic_ p p implications for neighborhoods like ours which iltbe affected by new"cut-through"traffic.:In fact,we find that many from that part of town choose to cut over on Windsor Drive and use Western Ave often,with major implications for neighborhood safety and livability. I was also concerned that the developers plan to have.this plan reviewediunder the expired general plan and this this project would not be subject to the revised 2025 Plan.This seems like an attempt to exploit la'loophole: Let's review this plan in good faith using current standards. Thank you. Matthew Ingram 811 Western Ave. Petaluma II II I I , 4-36y, Davad®n developthent Draft Environmental IlrtapactReport„ Kpiro [kpiro @aol.Corn] Sent:Sunday,March 16,2613 3:46 PM' To jenpierrepelaluma @yahoo corn dennis elias @cbnortal coma;oldeastpetaluma@yahoo corn,akherries @comcast.net,rayvs @pacbell:net; olpert@ onlc.net kathieencmilleroffrce @gmail:com;Giudice;,Alicia; PetRP@mmcast net,;davegiass @comcastnet; councilman.albertson @gmaii.com;teresa4pelaluma @c5-ficastnet, mike4pet@aol.corn,mtheay @sbcgiobai.net; counciimemberkeamey @me.corn; kathieencmilleroffrce @gmail.com;-'city Clerk We are encouraging all city council members and city planners of Petaluma to look ahead toithe future. The land that Davidon plans to develop is a priceless pierce of property adorned with wild Oaks, streams, and grassy'hills. What a treasure rightin our'own backyard - a few minutes from downtown. We need to preserve open space in our beautiful city for ourselves,our children, and their children.:Our city is growing. It is vitally important all of you to save space for'parks and hiking trails for the citizens Of this community. We are not opposed to future planned growth within our city, but please, not on this spot! We askathat all of you, do all that you can to prevent;Davidon from replacing these SB acres ofagrassy hills with monster- size homes and 'asphalt And hopefully some day in the,near future/the city will be able to incorporate those oak-studded hills into our already existent Helen'PutnamPark..Don't,throw away that chance. Thank you. Kathleen and Bob Piro .( 37 Oxford Court Petaluma I II i I 4-31 ®avidon DEIR Comment'- Publiogrocess Gregory L, Colvin [colvin @adlercolvin:com] ,sent; Saturday;March 09,2013,415 PM :I To: Giudice,Alicia Cc: dennis.elias @cbnorcal.can. Attachments:Davidon DER Comment#2,(541.DOC(28 KB) Please include the attached in your delibe'ationespeciallyat the Planning,Commission, Thanks. Greg'Colvin • • I _ 4_77 • To: Alicia Giudice,:Senior Planner,City of Petaluma CC: Planning Commissioners .' • From: Greg Colvin, 111 Dublin Court,Petaluma CA 94952 Date: March 9,2013 Re: Comment#2 on Davidon Homes Draft EIR,;Public Process I am writing to ask you to consider that;the special situation of this property--its location, character,importance to the City,size rand sensitivity--callfor additional to fully engage the public in the determination of its fate. Notices announcing the DEIR and the public comment period have gone only to those residing within 500 feet of the property or who expressed a prior interest to the City,and the deadline for comments has been set at April 15. 'This,is not adequate. 1.driving out First, Street,you you seen the not pert I suggest S recently? Unless you are in the habit of Y property ourselve Y gg you view it from the D Street side,from along Windsor,and walk up the trail into Putnam park from Oxford Court so•that-you can look down into the Kelly Creek valley: Every public official involved,in this process should do this. 2. Even though two;sets'of notices have gone out and the project has been covered in the Argus Courier,we encounter people every day who would be affected by the development and-- occupied with their busy lives—haven't heard or seen anything. One of the neighbors within 500 feet is Helen Putnam County Regional Park,not a private landownerbut-the general public. How do you notify those who use the Park,most of whom live farther tit' han 500 feet from the site? Since this is not just a vacant infill lot tucked away on a back street but one of Petaluma's most stunning gateways, Y pep i_ y i my .flow do you uiform'the people who dnve by it? Here are m recommendations: a. Place signs visible to drivers-on D Street and on Windsor, and at the Oxford Court entrance to the Park,telling people that`Day_idon Homes has proposed to build 93 houses on this property.e Learn more by contacting [Petaluma City Planning;information]'." b. Require Davidonto-erect story poles showing the perimeters of the four areas of housing they propose to build on the property,so-that the impact on gateway views and aesthetics;can be visualized concretely. c. Notifyby.mail all those residing within 500 feet of Kelly Creek and the other downstream'watercourses thatwould be'affectedby drainage and water quality issues; d Consider'an`inexpensive'way to notify the,whole city,such as;including notices in the monthly water/sewer bills. I {59O227.1)DC;1) I 1 Davidon has taken to produce the DEIR,yet the public only has afew weeks 3.: e n man Y years P to respond to it The main document and its appendix are enormous Timers needed to review its many topics,impacts,technical,analysis,and alternatives in order to spot problem areas. And when critical issues in the DER are revealed,time is needed to find and hire expert scientists and engineers who can fully examine these issues,review the records,make site visits, and write up their findings for your consideration. For these reasons,and because many in the community still have not even begun to understand this project and its implications,I recommend that you: a. Grant another.extension of time for public comment,to 60 days after the current April 15 deadline expires. b. Require Davidon,to allow those:independentprofessional experts who may be hired bylinterested parties,to enter,the property(supervisedaf necessary)in order to perform tests and inspections related to providing their opinions on the DE]R This is a large, 58-acre parcel,and many areas of interest to biologists,geologists,soil engineers,hydrologists and others are located well inside the property and cannot be studied adequately:at a distance. • For nine years,Davidon has been unable to decider! it wants to dowith this land. Its environmental consultants have hadyears to analyze this project,.yet their results have only been available for public inspection for about three weeks. There is no;reason'to rush to judgment, and every reason to increase the public's awareness and its time to respond,•.before the City stops receiving comments and moves onto making a decision that will alter this piece of green earth forever: Thank you. {0047574600;112 • 'III 4.4C) Davidon DEIR a Public tOtificati®n Susan Jaderstrom [jaderstroni @'comcast.net] ,i SenbSaturday,March 09,2013 147 PM' ( tioo:com; akherres @comastnet rdyvs @pacbell.net To: jenpierrepetaiuma@ yahoo.corn,denmselias©onorcal.com;oldeastpeta luma @ya Bill Wolpert[woipert@sonic net];kathleencmilierofflce@9mail.corn,Giudice,Alicia Cc: Petalemans for Responsible Planning[PetRP @corrxast.net] Twoletters have been sent about;the Davidon development tocresidents who live within 500 feet of the proposed development. If you as:a Planning Commissioner know the number of letters sent, the percentage of Petalumans notified can be calculated. I 'suspect that the percentage is a very low representation of the Petaluinepopuiation. Page 1-4 states: The Draft EIR will be circulated"for review and comment by,the°public and`other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for 45,days:During thel45-day review period, the City Council and Planning Commission will hold public=hearings to receive comment on;the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Finding out about this Draft EIR by the public is word of mouth for anyone living more than 500 feet away. People driving by the property,'riding their bikes-along the D Street;Extension, or hiking in Helen Putnam Park have no idea about the development. If the public does not know about the DEIR, they cannot comment nor attend public hearings. Other communities do much better job of communicating"about potential development Communities post large signage owdevelopment proPerty,with drawings of the proposed development and notices about the Planning Commission;and City;COuncil meetings: I request that the signage be prominently posted on the land of,theiproposed Davidon development The purpose of the signage is to cornmunicate withta wider range:of the public about the Davidon DEIR. Susan Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court, Petaluma 707-762-5166 DEIR Davidon they Moore ach 09,2013,9:55 satSetnwo pe t@sonic.ne�dennis.efl Tout Saturday March 09 s@co as l To: 6ludree, as @c6norcai com;lenpier2petaluma @yahoo.com; kathleencmilierocfice@gmal.com;oldeastpetatuma@yahoo.con, pip© omcastnet,rays©pacbell.net What is the big deal about the Red Barn? It's,a historical legacy landmark of what Petaluma was built on. People feel;tied to our small town by seeing and preserving our old buildings It's a proud,appreciative,culturally interested feeling to see this red barn, representing agriculture,past and present, People are very passionate about saving and preserving landmark buildings that represent our town's agricuiture'legacy. The Davidon report dates the red barn being built in late 1800 to early 1900. DEIR Section 6: Davidon alternative B Jeff Thayer had proposed,to certain groups,,a`plan "that would be like" alternative B, but not sure of the exact details. Alternative B shows 66 single family lots with the red barn being relocated over Kelly Creek. Prior to the consideration ofthis alternative plan.Davidon must erect story poles which would pin point the exact location of the homes visual impact inmelationship.to the area where the red barn would be moved. We must be able to see the side and the height of the,proposed homes and-the set back from D Street in relationship with the red barn. In other words,we must makeiurethe red barn is visible from the city side as well as the county side. Windsor Drive must also have story poles erectedto show height and positions of the proposed homes Windsor Drive is a main connector street between Western and D Street and has substantial traffic. We must make sure the red born remains visible to the public. Thankyou, they Moore,52 Oxford Ct, Petaluma • II 4-42 Petaluma comments for Planning Commission Burch 12 2013 meeting Man Gaffney [bgaffney @Igwlawyerscom] gent;- Friday,March 08,2013,5:09.PM To: Giudice,Alida Susan Jaderstrom Uaderstrom@comcastnet] Attachments:0001 Letter to Planning Co 1. f(16 KB) If Cc Gregory L.Colvin[coivin�adle�Ivin.coml'; Dear Commissioners Abercrombie;E1►as,;Hernes, Johnson,Miller,Pierre and Wolpert, Please see attached preliminary comments on behalf of Petalumans forResponsible Planning regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report-Davidon Ho es Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project. Sincerely, Brian Gaffney LIPPE GAFFNEY WAGNER LLP 329 Bryant Street,Suite 3D SanFrancisco,CA 94107 Tel415 777-5600 x 207 Fax 415777-9809 bgaffney(thlgwlawyers.com www.gaffneylegal.com ' 6 I I • II 443 Public Records Request Pursuant to:Government Code § fi250► et seq. Regarding::Property tocetediat;APNs 01-120-140 and 01-120-141. Kelly Franger-[Iffranger @Igwtawyers.com] Sent•- Friday,March 08„2013 4:45 PM To:. Oty:Clerk;.Giudice,Aiida Attachmenis:PRA001b SENT PRA Re questwpd•pdf,(855:KB). ' • Dear,Ms. Cooper and Ms..Giudice: Please see the attached Public Records Act Request,submitted i on behalfrof,Petalumans'for:Responsible Planning. Best, I. Kelly Franger ' I • it 1 I. I i Thomas N. Lippe Lippe Gaffney Wagner LLP wwwagwlawyerscom IsranGafiney — --` i Keith G.Wagner SAN FRANCISCO•329 Bryant Sk Sta.3R San Francisco,CA 94107•T 415777 5600•F 415777.9B09. I Kelly A.A-anger SACRAMENTO •9333 Sparks Way,Sacramento,CA 95827•1 916.361.3887-•F 916.361:3897 ; Henry Steinberg q , March 8,2013 I Via Facsimile,Entail,.:aiitlU.S Mail , Claire Cooper,City Clerk ` City of Petaluia 11 English Street I Community'Development Department , Petaluma,CA 94952 I Attrit Alicia Giiudice,Senior Planner phone: 707.778:4360 11 English Street fax: 707.778.4554 ,I Petaluma,CA 9495272610 t •clerk cr ci petahava.ca.us aaiudiee 7yci.petaluma.ca.us Re: Public,RecordsRequestPnrsuant to Government.Code,§;6250,et seq. Regarding Property Located at APNs 014120-140 and 01-120-141. Dear Mins. Cooper and Giudice: On behalf of myclient,Petalumans for Responsible Planning(Petalunrans),and pursuant to the California Public Records Act,Government Code§6250,et seg.,I request copies of all records' relating to the property:locatedat APN 01-120-140 and 01-120-141 for the period from 2002 to the date upon which your search.coriimences,including but not limited to the following.. 1. , DavidonHome/UOP Property;Vesting Tentative Map Application,filed August 5, 2003 (BKF Job No 20020038-10);including,bill not limited to • All documents,regatdingrthe•application for an Initial Study, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map anda Zoning Amendment: • All fiuther application materials,including,lint not limited to airy re=filed application and related documents, expired application and related documents, and any amendments toany,pottion of any application and related documents. • All related correspondence to or from the City of Petaluma„or any department thereof,including,but not litnited`to,correspondence to and:from the applicant;the I Public records include"any writing containing;information relating to,theconduct-of the, public's businesspreparetl,owned,used,or retained by a local agency iegaidless of physical form or characteristics:" (Govt. Code§ 6252,subd. (e),emphasis added.). 'frRecords," includes all documents,correspondence,including'email; agency guidelines and policies; memoranda;agency of Understanding;notices,comments,and responses to comments;biological,scientific,-and other studies; reports;environmental;analyses,surveys; timelines;:charts, graphs;;maps,analyses; data; meeting minutes and.agendas;'distiibution lists; notes.and transcripts'of meetings and conversations;and any other relevant information,whether hi hard copy or electronic/computer format. i 4 _45 II .Letter to Claire Cooper&:Alicia Gild_ice i March 8,2013 Page 2of3 developer,the landowner(s),consultants, other agencies;and the public. • All related determinations,denials,approvals,and/or conditional approvals made by the City of Petaluma and/or any department; employee,commissioner, or official thereof. • All related review,studies,analysis,consultation,study,and/or other documentation. 2, The Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project,State Clearinghouse Number 2004072137 including,but not limited to • All application materials for the Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning.Project,, including any re-filed, expired, or amended applications and related dooumentst; • All related correspondence to or,froin the City of Petaluma,and/or any department, employee, commissioner, or official thereof, including, but not limited to, correspondence to_and from the1�applicant, the developer, the landowner(s), consultants,other agencies, and • All related deteinmiations,denials,,'approvals,and/or conditional approvals made by the City and/or any departnient,employee,commissioner,£or:official thereof. • All related review,studies;analysis,_consultation,study,and/or other documentation. • All related review,analysis,consultation,study,and/or other documentation. 3. All other documentsfrom the period 2002tto the commencement'of your search relating to the property located atrAPN 01-120-1400nd'01-120-141, including, but not limited to, materials relating to land use planning,Kelly Creek,environmental,conditions on and near the property,all proposed project,and thelimpactsnf any proposed'project? 4. The City of Implementing Zoning Ordinance(June 2008)`and the City of Petaluma 2004 Zoning Ordinance. I fiuther request,pursuant to Govermnent Code section 6253.9,subdivision(a),that the City provide electronic copies of any records that exist in electronic format' Please.let me know what the approximate cost of duplication will''be priorrorproducing any records: As;you are aware, the Public Records Act allows you to charge actual duplication'costs, but,no costs associated with overhead or staff time,: (Govt. Code § 6253,subd. (b).) Please notify within ten days of receipt of this letter whether-the request,in whole or in 2 Please note that'Petalumans:do not request copies of the Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map'and Rezoning Project Draft EIR(February/013)or the TechnicaleAppendices;(February 2013) ' Government.Codelsecuon 6253.9,subdivision'(a) provides that"any agency that has, information that constitutes an!identifrable public record, . . that is in an electronic format shall make;that;information available'in an electronic,format when requested by any person," and that the"cost of duplication shall be limited to the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an elechonic;format Letter to Claire Cooper&'.Alicia Giiidice March 8,2013 Page 3 of 3 part, will be granted: (Govt. Code §6253, subd. (c).) Should you claiin an exemption from the Public Records Act for all or part of this request,please indicate the statutory:basis for the exemption and explain why the public interest favors;your denial of•the request. (Govt-Code§ 6255:) Please also indicate the person who made the determination that the record's are.exempt tf om d;"lo . Govt.Code § 6253(d). If you clairn that a portion of the records is exempt,y provide Copps of all reasonably. sigh would-otherwise be withheld on privacy ground6253,ay of course be Responsive documents which redacted in order to protect the identities of the individuals involved. (Govt. Code §6254.) Please note that the California Constitution guarantees "people the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business and that.a statute shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access: (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, subd. (b).) 'Thank you very much fo r-your'attention to;this matter. Please direct all correspondence to the following address: Lippe Gaffney Wagner LLP Attn:Kelly Franger 329 Bryant St,Ste. 31) San Francisco, CA 94107 kf anger a,lgwlawvers:ceti.. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding,the scope of this request„the nature of the records sought, or any",otheraspectof this request. 1 look,forwarcl to hearing from you. Sin 'ely,,; Celly Franger;/ cc: Greg Colvin,Petahnans•for:Responsible Planning G:\Petalunia\Corr\PRA\PRA00 l b PRA Request.wpd 4-41 DSvidon project james page[jimmymio @yahoo;corr] SentThursday,March 07,2013 7:49.PM To: Giudice,'Alicia i Hi,,in the 17 years I have lived on Laurel,Ave I have°witnessed a startling;growth of traffic on.D St. It has become a challenge for a pedestrian to cross D St. and in a car, I sometimes wait several minutes before I can turn left from'Laurel Ave.,onto D St. The last thing this neighborhood needs is another huge development. I wish the out of town developer would just go back to where theycame from but if they must build here, p lease keep it to a modest amount and by ll ieans adhere to our current general.plan. Thanks JP Jim myJamesPage.com 11 1 • • Q TFEVQK PITTS 1236 B ST. PETALUMA, CA 94952-4065 PH 707-765-0420 CELL: 707-338-3336 EMAIL tpitts®pobox.com To Davidon Homes,the Planning Commission and City-Councilof:Petaluma in it the Davidon proposed'development 03/10/2013 - - - ,4 - Ladies and Gentlemen, I am writing to you, and hopefully addressing you at the meeting on the 12th March strictly as an individual,but very aware of my fiduciary duty as President of the Board of Directors of the Victoria,Homeowners Association.Many of,our members may disagree with me on this,but I:believe that we need to have an optimized plan for the Davidon project,so that if it is to be built it would have the least net negative impact on our HOA and also on that of our sister and neighbor HOA,Victoria Residential,which shares on a per household basis the expenses of our three private parks.Two of these parks actually border on the proposed development,and the other is not faraway.There is definitely spare capacity in our parks,especially the tennis courts,currently severely under-utilized. Davidon residents will certainly use these parks,so they must share the costs like VRES. As mentioned in my earlier communication about the problematic aspects of all this,we need a new access to Helen Putnam Park from D St with some parking spaces provided, preferably not so expensive per hour that no-one uses them.Currently our Oxford Court residents are severelyrimpacted by overwhelming visitor parking there to avoid such fees. We desperately need Resident only/disabled parking there,so that people park nearby on Windsor Drive at least,hopefully in the Davidon-proposed new parking lots on D St. and Windsor Drive. Wliat is the major distinction between all 3 proposals,28,66 and 93 homes and the two combined Victorias9 We are separated from nearby homes by large open spaces on all sides.In contrast,all 3 proposed plans are in direct contact-With our home property lines._ Paradoxically,the worst is the 28 home,proposal, all homes crushed up against us,open space everywhere else where it,does*,us'least good. To fix this problem;I propose as follows,using the 93 home proposal diagram'and lot, numbers'becauseit'is the;clearest to follow. • Eliminate 53 thru-90,replacing them with the 16 lots on,E!St as in the 66 home plan-22 lots eliminated.91,92,93 along D St to be kept if that does not prevent adequate Helen Putnam parking.spaces. • Let us be honest about the.Red.Barn and not allow it to be used as a Red Herring- it can be moved if theresult is optimal.Many,beautiful and/or historic'structures have been,preserved by moving thenito the most beneficial location. TKEVOKZ P1TT1 1236 B ST. PETALUMA, CA 94952-4065 PH 707-765-0420 CELL: 707-338-3336 EMAIL tpitts@pobox.com • Eliminate lots 41,42,43 below oxford Court.The remaining lots 44,45 and 46 border our highest level park,which has been plagued by vandalism.If homes are oriented correctly(heavy use area windows facing the park).the resident surveillance(and hopefully nighttime illumination)provided will discourage noisy teenage drunkenness and drug use in that park.3 lots eliminated-that area should be open space connected to the new access to Helen Putnam Park.The eliminated lots are,the highest and worstifor view damage and privacy effects on Oxford court.The lots 44-46 are much lower in altitude and view impact. • Lots 1 through 7 eliminated and the proposed A St extended to the open space adjacent to D St. so as to also keep lots S and 9 away from our B"St. boundary. The eliminated lots can then connect allfthe way;to D St as an open space barrier between VHOA andDavidon. S lots eliminated. � I • Public open space along Kelly Creek and the new bicycle/pedestrian path to Helen Putnam Park,parking along Windsor Drive and the Roundabout remain as in the 66 home proposal.The bicycle/pedestrian`bridge in the 93 home proposal is to be retained. • Total lots eliminated,33.A 60 home subdivision remains'with?greatly reduced impacts on the current residents and-significant benefits to them and the community as a whole if all the above needs and suggestions are approved.This compromise gives about the same split of development area versus open space/parks as Victoria did as built. Please carefully consider this compromise;especially in,regard to desired separation and view preservation between us.I sincerely believe it is close to optimal and balanced if some sort of Davidon development bas to be built. Please click on this URL for diagrams and plans discussed: hops://sites:googlocom/site/petrplannin g/home/davidon-deir-maps-february-2013 %%env ,Dc I Davidon project David.Powers [powers.davidf©gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,March 07,20135:18 PM To Giudice,Aiida , - Ce. David Glass[daveglass @comcastnet],Teresa,B?rret[te 4petaluma @comcast net]; katleencmilleroffice @9mail.com; wolpert @sonic.net; rayvs@ pacbei t.net;'akherries @comcastnet;oldeastpetaluma@ yahoo.corn,dennis.elcas @cbnorcalcor ; mthealy @sbcglobal.net;jenplerrepetaluma @yahoo.corn,mike4pet@aol.corn, counolman:albertson @gmail.corn, councilmemberkeamey@me.com;katnieencmilleroffice @gmail.com; -.City Clerk To the members of the planning commission Growth is an inevitable fact of life for any city. Managing it is another._ The ,key is to create and approve projects that don't handicap the city's ability balance its books and govern effectively. Why is this important with regar4 to the proposed Davidon development? Because Davidon, and every other development like it, will not generate enough tax and fee revenue to cover the costs that the city will assume in order tolmaintain the project's infrastructure after Davidon walks away from the project. A single project may not seem significant, but the cumulative effect of the revenue- shortfallof the previous failed projects has created a millstone around the city's neck. With apologies in advance, I'd like to present simple rough income/expense sheet for the - project'sinfrastructure--just like every small business owner would: On the INCOME side, at $1M each, the generally discussed sale price of the homes in the project, eachlhome will generate 1$10K per year un property tax revenue to the county, or $930X. The city gets somewhere between 114 and 144 for every dollar paid. That's $130R per year for the total develop`ment, a, number based on 144 figure. For sake of argument, if the city doesn't touch the tax revenue it receives for its share of Davidon's property taxes for 25 years--a rule-of-thumb' figure forithe general useful life of infrastructure-- it would accrue about $3.25M, maybe $3-:5M with:interest. That's the amount of money that would be available to it to uphold its obligations to maintain the infrastructure (now. aging somewhat slightly) at the site after the useful life term has expired. This assumes that no interim maintenance issues arise. On the EXPENSE side, if things go well for Davidon it could make 33%, 1/3 of the sale price, in profit from the sale of each house. That makes its cost, including infrastructure, about $660M per unit. Using 10% as a rough figure for infrastructure costs, one can back out the total, cost for infrastructure of approximately $6.1/4 for the 93 homes. This is an estimate, but even at 8%, the figure is around $514. That's over 40% greater than the funds that city will have at its disposal to cover its obligations. From the city's point of view, .€he project does not generate enough to cover its costs. Davidon it is not pointuo•t ie . Everyoneakn ssnte toPetal da'si g ibl well—from finfrl truc city's urepis iand the citizen's oint of view. Ever one 'knows that Petaluma s visible infrastructure is in critical condition. I 7 .. with each new project the city approves, especially withPetaluma's own tight fiscal ,I situation. The Davidon DEIR cites that impact fees will be necessary to mitigate the cost of increased demands on the police, fire, schools, libraries, and parks. systems. Will those impact -.fees iindeed be charged? Will they be paid? If not, the minimal revenue from this project will, in theory, !'have to be diverted away from infrastructure liabilities to pay for those future 'cumulative impacts.; A further pressure on the income/expense ratio. There are steo teriandtsewagelsystempressures . Therplanninl commission should determin the oh the traffic grid in town, and o ' ue from the current wastewater and sewage systems. The planning Public works departm exactly ent volume utilizations are . and what the � r future: holds for Superficial and/or significant upgrades to each of those system(s),. Is i 4-61 the planning commission wiIIing'to address the fact that some of °the increased pressure on the 'systems will come as A result: of their choice to approve this project? Many ;people:. will lobby for fewerhomes• in the development,for obvious aesthetic reasons.. The rough+figures above are based on the maximum''number of homes for which Davidon is requesting approval. Should -the ,planning commission choose to approve a -smaller number of units, the revenue/expense ratio will likely be even morgrhoose would the first challenge is to either choose for ;much greater density, er case, with enough additional units, the project might pay for itself from an infrastructure point of view. In the second case, the city incurs no fiscal obligation at ail Best regards, David Powers • • 1 A-52, To: Alicia Giudice, Senior-Planner,City of Petaluma CC: Planning Commissioners From: Greg Colvin, 111 Dublin Court,Petaluma CA 94952 Re: Comment on Davidon Homes Draft E& � I In this comment,I want to draw the Commissioner's] attention to one matter:,of extreme importance at the outset of your review and feedback to the City Council: which General Plan, the current 2025 version or the prior'l987 version should bused to guide your evaluation of the BLR I know you have received postcards,a,petiflon,and;comments from community members on this topic. I recently had the following exchange with Ms.Heather Hines,Planning Manager for the City about it. Sent Sunday,February 24,2013'9:37 PM To: 'Mmes,Heather' Subject RE: Davidon Development.at Windsor and D Street(Scott Ranch) Dear Ms. Hines: Yes,you could be of further,assistance if you could clarify'one critical,partof the Davidon development situation--the question of which General Plan the development must comply with, the 1987 version or the 2025 version currently in place. I understand that Davidon believes,and has takenrthe position`in the DEIR,that it is entitled to proceed under the 1987 General Phan These are my questions 1. On what basis is Davidon making that claim? 2. Has any City of Petaluma official confirmed,at this point in time,that Davidon is correct on that score? 3. If so,who? 4. If so,to whom could their decision be appealed? (whether informal e-mail or . g_ Has the City Attorney provided any'oplmon'ln writing( formal legal memo)as to whether the old or new General Plan ought to apply? 6. If no City official has yet confirmed Davidon's claim to rely on the old General Plan, at what will that occur? 7. Who will make that,decision? 8. To whom could their decision be appealed? Very truly yours, Greg Colvin,Political Director,:Petalumans for Responsible Planning {0047574s.DOC;11 4-53 I From: Hines,Heather;[mailto:HHINES @ci.petaluma.ca:us] Sent Wednesday,March 06,2013;12:38 PM To: Gregory L. Colvin Subject: RE: Davidon Development at Windsor and D Street(Scott Ranch) Mr. Colvin, Davidon's basis for its belief that the prolectis:entitled to proceed under the 1987 General Plan is Government Code section 664742;a-provision in the Subdivision Map Act that applies because the project includes a tentative subdivision map. Airy final decision on this point would be made by the City Council at the,pme it makes its determination onthe ElK for the project There are no interim appeals of factual orilegal issues applicable to the DER or the.eventual FEIR. All. challenges to any EIR certified by the City Councillwould be made pursuant to CEQA and other applicable law. If you have any additional questions.please it me know. Heather HEATHER NINES 1 Planning Manager T: 707:778.4316 E: hhines @ci.petaluma.ca.us City of Petaluma Community Development-Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma,CA 94952 From this,I understand that NO POSITION has been or will be taken by any City official on the question of which General Plan,applies to the Davidon proposal and ER until the City Council decides whether to certify it,a decision that is not expected for many months. There are many reasons to doubt the validity of Davidon's claim to reliance upon the 1987 General Plan, including: 1. The need to evaluate environmental impacts based on current conditions and City standards of aesthetics,gateway protection,:urbarigrowth boundary safeguards, and other community needs that cannot possibly be represented in a;26-year-old GeneraFPlan. 2, The length of time that Davidon has allowed to lapse,nine years, since its 2004 application. It has,in reality,abandoned its 2004 proposal. 3. The substantial changes:to its development proposal contained in the DER and in many presentations it has made to the;community over the last months,to the extent that it,no longer resembles its 2004 application. {004757482)0C;l}2 i I 4-5AH 4. Davidon's own,participation'and attendancenthearings and deliberations on the 2025 General Plan in 2007 and 2008 during which specific gateway protections were imposed on this site by final decision of the City Council. Davidon has been well-aware of these stipulations. 5. The precedent set in other, (e.g. El Rose)in which reliance on the old General Plan was denied and the2025 General Plan governed the outcome. The refor ,the te prudent course for the the Planning o mission and the City to follow is to make p _ Co Plan'are used,to'evaluate this project throughout the EIR`process;now. If the 1987 General Plan were to(be used and the 2025 Plantignored,ultimately the City Council, or a court of law,could decide that the 2025 General Plan Must be applied after all The City and Davidon would be required to go back and completely redo`the EIR process,resulting in further delay and administrative burden for the City., Therefore,I strongly_recommend`that the PlanninglCommission direct the•Planning Division as follows: 1. To conduct a parallel analysis of Davidon's development proposaland'EIR-using the 2025 General Plan in addition to,use of the.1987 General Plan as Davidon asserts, and 2. During this time,mstnrct Planning Division staff NOT to indicateim any way to the public that the City has decided that only the 1987General Plan applies,but instead to state, correctly,that Davidon has taken that position but'the final decision will be,made by the City Council when it votes upon certification of the EIR. Thank you {00475748.WC;1)3 i + 4-SS I 'I Davidon Development Draft EIR response' Gene.,Ellsworth [GENE_ELLSWORTH @yahoo:corn] Sentmursday'March 07,2013 4:37 PM Toe. °,Giudice,Alicia Cc: Elaine Ellsworth[eshellsworth @9mail.com] I li As a resident of 103 Dublin Court I am directly impacted{by this Project. In the draft EW Davidon presented pictures of D street with a sound wall and homes without any setback, but the requirement for a 100 foot;setback isggnored. The sound as shown and without lot setback should be unacceptable in light of the other':developmentslacross D street and along Windsor and is not compatible with the 2025 city plan. How are we able to determine what the real 'view would be without a new proposal with corrected information. foot lot size is not compatible with this arerezon not equal Mahe lot sizes for the "new"West Haven project in our neighborhood. This 10,000 foot minimum'lot size:°as shown,m their plot maps is incompatible with the rest of this area and should be more like R-1 26,000 minimum lot size. This lot size adds to the noise,traffic and is a lower quality of life for this"neighborhood. There is no needfor ,higher•,density housing'infill in this area,in relation to the country setting that exists today. We have Some small lots`within this area and we do not need more Gene Ellsworth 103 Dublin Court Petaluma,CA 707-7764995 • I 1 ,Davidon -- we are not;zonedAorthem Elaine Ellsworth'[eshellswortt @gmail.corn] SentThursday,March 07;20134:47 PM_ To:. �iudice,:AGcia Dear Allicia Giudice, As a resident of 103 Dublin Court at the cross street Windsor I am directly impacted by this Project. In reading the report I find it impossible,to:determine which project they intend to have in the end and therefore how that all will impact me and the needs of the`,neighborhood and.the,city. Is it 93 home sites, 66 home sites,47 home sites or 28? We would be most happy with 28. The main details and representations of the final development are shown with 93 home sites,but;-the meeting I attendedin November, 2012, presented by Jeff of Davidon was presented with 66 homes. The city of Petaluma has designated this area to be a max of 340 homes,which means,that Davidon is limited to 41 homes. Also the 2025 general plan has many.itern thatDavidon is not following. g i This is the gateway to Petaluma from the west and I feel it would be the bucolic hills demolished and covered with homes. Also the long views have not been mentioned in the EIR Have you ever walked.in Helen Putnam Park and looked at our lovely rolling hills? PLEASE let's keep them! The red legged frog is also in danger. Elaine Ellsworth ■ A--.51 Re: Davidon.DEIR comment, Grubaugh &Seifert [gsviofin@SoniC.net] sent Thursday,March 07,2013.4:55 PM To: Gregory:L Calvin[coMn©adlercoldinicom] Cc: Giudice,'Aliida Attachmems:Davidorr'0QR Comment#1(0^4.DOC(36 KB) i I Very smart exchange,Greg. J&S On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:19 PM,Gregory L.,Colvin wrote: II -- ...—. 4-6S March 6,2013 Alicia Giudice Sr.Planner City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, Ca 94952 li RE: Davidon Project Dear Alicia: I am responding to your letter regarding the public nonce for the Davidon project I am currently residing at 2200 D,Street Extension,Petaluma,Ca, Part of my property line is shared with the Davidon project I have questions and concerns regarding this project: 1) Do you have any information as to what Davidon is planning to do as far as the current fence that is co-owned,between our properties? 2) What is the set back between the property line and the proposed housing project? 3) If this projects moves forward,how many,new lots will be along my current property line as'a;result of this subdivision? 4) Are they planningto install a new fence?I currently have cattle that graze on my property and I am concern that if the new resident trespass on property, which they can very easily because of the existing fence,they might get injured or worst electrocuted by my electric fence=installed in other location of my property: I appreciate any information you have regarding this matter.Thanks Sincerely, Amir Abolfathi 650-804-1397 aabolfathi @mac.com 4 -5c1 Giudice„Alicia. } From Rachel Kaplan <rachelkap @fullcup.info> Sent Monday, March 11, 2013 6:50 PM To: Giudice,Alicia ■ Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR Dear Alicia Giudice, I am writing to share my comments•on,the Davidon DEIR Plan to over-develop the 58 acres on D and Windsor Streets in Petaluma 1)Firstly, it is patently ridiculous forDavidon.to be able to base a plan on an outdated and antiquated 1987-2005 development plan for Petaluma. It is irrelevant when,they first proposed and project- it is now 2013,the development of PetahSma is now subject to the 2025 General Plan they must be held to that. The 2025 General Manilas specific requirements for this site--to keep the red barn and native trees in place, save Kelly Creek and the animal habitats, and provide a trailhead and public park facilities: Anything else a betrayal of the plan, and the people and landscape of Petaluma. This must be adhered to. , Development is moving too fast in Petaluma- we"are at risk of losing many of the things that people like about this area-- open space, clean air, less congested streets, a smallish city. A project of this magnitude is inappropriate for.Petaluma in 2013 and into the future. Davidon must be held to the same standards as any one else currently planning to build in Petaluma. 2) This particular spot, at the exit/entranceto Petaluma remains lovely,as,it is, with a few old barns and open space. To put in ridiculous number of houses, so near a creek, and a major traffic artery, is absolutely wrong for our town. We do not need any more over-sized McMansions destroying our remaining open space.We need the exact opposite- protected land that keeps the sense of open- ness i. we all need and love, as well as habitat for animals and birds. 3) The new criteria'of the 2025 general plan, which include aesthetics, air quality,greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources,care of geology'and soils, less development on hillsides, water quality, land use, noise,traffic and the preservation of parks;and,recreation are contravened by this project. 1) it will be,ugly- a SOUND WALL on D Street? Are they kidding? Protecting the countryside for who -the rich? 2)Air quality will?suffer with that many new buildings 3) Biological resources,on site will not be preserved or well-tended, especially if, as with other ridiculous Petaluma,developments, the open hillsides are turned into unnecessary, wasteful, pesticide ridden lawns 4) the geology of the landscape will be destroyed 5) the creek that cuts through the property is likely to be seriously and negatively impacted 6) this particular kind of land use is outmoded, not part of a 21st century plan for human survival or beauty, and must'be stopped 1 4- coo 7)":more traffic and noise at this,,already busy part of town 8) a diminishment:of our Helen Putnam Park;Petaluma'sjewel In every way, this project isridiculous, ugly,unnecessary, offensive and should be stopped. We demand that if any development happens itis MODEST, in SCALE with the needs of the 21st Century, SUSTAINABLE, and takesinto account all the lives that are touched by this place, not just the pocketbooks of:some out of town developers who could care less about Petaluma. I sincerely hope the City Planning Division will do',Ithe correct thing and adhere to the 205 General Plan. Sincerely, Rachel Kaplan, MFT 415-269-2721 www.RachelKaplanMFT.net 2 • Giad'ice, Alicia, From Katherine 1 Rinehart'<KiRinehart@Comcastnet> 'Tuesday, r 2013 1033 AM To: Jennifer Pere;d nn s.el as@c bnorcalcom;!Melissa Abercrombie;Alicia Kae Herries;es; Ray Johnson'BiII;Wolpert; kathlei ncmillerofce @g mail.com;Ter Kosewic Petaluma Museum Cc: Giudice,Alicia; Cooper, Claire; PetRP @comcastnet, Robert Girolo Subject: Comments on Draft'FIR for the Davidon Project Attachments: letter to council re Scott Property.doc;Scott Ranch March 8, 2013.psd; Historic view of Scott Ranch:circa 1922jpg Dear Planning Commissioners: As you review the Draft EIR for the Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project tonight and discuss the future the barns on this property I ask that you pay close attention to page 4.5-7 which states: "The lead agency,in this case the City of'Petaluma,may'also determine in its discretion whether"...any object, building, structure, site, area,place,record or manuscript..." should be treated as an historical resources, even if not listed on a local or other register.Public Resources Code Section 21084.1;,Section 15064.4(a)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA does not limit a local agency's discretion in this,regard if the designation supported by substantial evidence. A determination thatta resource should not be listed on a local register does not relieve the City of its obligation to determine whether the building(s) are an historical resource." Substantial evidence has been provided in that the Council supported inclusion of Policy 2-P-68 in the 2025 General Plan which states: "Preserve the uniqueness of the property at the intersection of D Street and Windsor Drive(Scott Ranch) through incorporation of the following;criteria in the future development.process: Preserve the unique property preserving red barns in place,designating them at Scott cott;Ranch`throu h the historic, and encouraging the incorporation of a nature study area." Even if the Davidon proposal is reviewed under the 1987 General Plan you cannot deny that the community has made their views known about the:historic,importance of the red barns in a"significant way. Please take action and uphold the desires.of the community. Demand that the barns be preserved in place and make sure an endowment is created for their preservation and future use. The setting of these barns is key. Don't allow the barns to be moved. Moving historic buildings—taking them apart and reassembling is going to be expensive and challenging. Attached is ailetter I wrote on behalf of Heritage.Homes in 2007 on this subjecdt as well',as a historic view of the property and current view courtesy.of Scott Hess. Thank you for your time and consideration. Katherine J. Rinehart,MA Historian r ' 4_412 P•O.BoxJ 3 I Petaluma, CA 94953 I (707)'766-9462 II 11.! 2 4• to3 March 19, 2007 Mayor Pamela Torliatt City Council Members City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: General,Plan Review—Land Use Designation Sub Area 8.A Lands of,Davidon(Scott Ranch)APN 019 120 041 Dear Mayor Torliatt& Council Members: The Heritage Homes Preservation Committee asks that the red barns on the above- reference property be specifically called out in the,General Plan as significant historic resources that are to be protected from demolition including;demolition by neglect. Relocating the barns is not an as their setting is part of their significance. The barns are a tangible linlc to the region's agricultural heritage that few Petaluma properties convey. Their physical location and setting serves as a natural gateway, providing a gentle transition from rural to urban that cannot be replicated. The barns are visual landmarks to Petaluma residents and visitors alike that travel to and from the Coast and Mann County. Development may be inevitable,but loss of,these valuable community resources does not need to be. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Katherine I.Rinehart Chair—Heritage Homes:Preservation Committee cc: Pamela Tuft Ii 4-(e4 • `FYI .. ..... .. .: ..... .. .. ..a . .. .�',�.� l jt: :. , ,. ..... -.... . ..,_ .: �:: ;,. _ III' Yi. , _ t.:., . . ... ; 1,-:::::::-... .. . :.. -..,... . ... ..... .-,......1..-_..-:-:-:;;.: . .. ... -:._._ .:........... .. tie.-, .... ..2--.-1;2::::.;':-..:.: _ :`i . : ..,....., b.,res 'mot. .......: .....:.:�.,,. ...I. _ .. . :-. _... .. ._ . . : r .. Jk . _ r.. _.:' .. .... _ -:-.. _ :-...ro-:.'. ..._:.•-CSR c::.c:_..'.:.. ":`._. : 1 _ :..... .;..: :1 i . I is lj:: :1 ::-.1!:4,-,-,' .y r i : � n. 'Mr, l 1 , _ 11 . R .y �Yi . . .. . 1> avidon Project Should be Reviewed Using the General Plan 2025 Davidon Homes of Walnut Creek developed plans;in`2004 to build 93 luxury homes on 58 acres at D Street and Windsor, right next to Helen Putnam County Regional Park and Petaluma's urbarugrowth boundary. Davidon now insists that the approval of.the development•.should be evaluated using the expired, antiquated 1987-2005 General Plan. So far, city planning officials seem to be letting Davidon have its way. Petalumans for Responsible.Planning believes that the Draft Environmental Impact Report'(DEIR) should not be evaluated criteria from 25 years ago. The environmental data, and the standards,for judging it,'must`ibe updated to the present and comply with the 2025 General Plan, which,theCity Council adopted,in 2008., These include protections for scenic "gateway" locations and specific requirements for this site-4o keep the red barn and native trees in place,save Kelly Creek and the animal habitats, and provide a trailhead and public park facilities. By signing this petition, I agreelhat the City of Petaluma must-reverse its position and evaluate the Davidon DEIR under the 2025 General Plan. # Name Date Comments Susan 2/2472013 1 Jaderstrom 18:08. Sherri Fabre- 2/24/2013 Working together wecan influence the;process for a "win" for the 2 Marcia 18:291 entire.community. 2/25/2013: 3 Sue Davy 2:23 All environmental issues should be evaluated under the most current, 2/26/2013 up-to-date regulations.This area'.has many-significant environmental 4 Chey Moore 18:17 issues.. 2/27/2013 5 cindy wood 5:11 This is so iniportant.,Please do the right;thing.. 2/27/2013 The town went to the time and expense to draft a forward looking: 6 :Lani Sexton 14:32 general plan, I insist it be applied to this project. It is unacceptable that Davidon be allowed to use an out.dated`Gen'I 2/27/2013 Plan! Many of us worked on the 2025,plan and our city spent afortune 7 Tom Corbett 17:'42 on,it to insure our quality of life for now and the future! Kathleen 2/27/2013 8 'Lawrence; 18:33 2/27/2013 9 Jerry Beene 18:36 Yes,yes,yes! Why update the GP if no one uses it?? it �'IKtX A development of thisrscale with.cohim'erisurate planning and envirommental impactsshould be closely evaluated using the City's Matthew 2/27/2013 current General Plan, not grandfathered in using out-of-date planning 10 Ingram 22:36 guidelines. 2/27/2013 11 chari nicely 23:22. No way this should be allowed: One development after another is taking away our natural environment, Helen Putnam is a small gem: l don't want to see plansgetting pushed 3/1/2013 ;through hastily that will impact this area for good. Please adopt these 12 Hillary Smith 0:35 'measures for review... Maggie 3/1/2013 13 Martin 1:55 David 3/1/2013 14 Brouillette 3:07 3/4/2013 15 Ellen Bicheler 3:46 Loretta 3/4/2013 16 Mateik 3:53 Robert 3/4/2013 ' 17 Mateik 3:56 3/4/2013 18 Larry Modell 3:57 Robert 3/4/2013 19 Shepard 3:57. Donna 3/4/2013 20 Shepard 3:58 , 3/4/2013 21 Robert Girolo 4:17 All EIR'sshould be evaluated based on the most current criteria. If approval for the 2004 plan was not,given at that time, and since then 3/4/2013 :the•General plan has changed, it;seerims'obvious that the new criteria 22 Cindy Riddle 4:1:7 should be forapproval of the plan in 2013. aaron 3/4/2013 23 edmondson 4:42_ .,savethe=red._barn,and,trees. Cyndi 3/4/2013 24 Niendorf 4:50 Victoria resident Not only is davidon:notwelcome, their villages are blights. The impact on local utilities, streets, etc despicable.They only bring greed:The impact on the community asa whole loses. Davidon was not welcome in Kaye. `3/4/201.3 Fremont,they are not welcome here. Greed is greed, and BTW mr. 25 'chandler 4:52. Davidon,.yourwelcome mat;ispulled. How can they dare ruin this beautiful pristine place by disturbing_the land . Once it is torn up'itwill be ruined forever and who knows the consequences of erosion and loss of.animal habitat,pollution, traffic Angela .3/4/2013 problems and all the rest-that"will go with puttingso many buildings on 26 Bellante 5:00 the land. 27 Judy Pasdach 3/4/2013 I2 4-0 502 1 Barry Albert 3/4/2013' 1 28 Bussewitz S:06' 'I 3/4/2013 29 Mary king 5:10 Laurie 3/4/2013 30 Campion 5:19: Of course it would be;appropriate:to'have the newest possible Pam and Jim 3/4/2013 development:weighed against the newest possible standard -the 31 Granger 5:21 newest General Plan. Mark 3/4/2013` Petalumans should decide'the future of this town. Responsible growth is 32 Jaderstrom 5:21 encouraged but destroying a,scenic gateway is not good! Camille 3/4/2013- am TOTALLY against any kind of development at this area traffic is a 33 Phillips 5:28. nightmare already and we do NOT need any more develpements!!! 3/4/2013 34 reva novey 5:30 As a resident of D Street and a regular walker on.Windsor Drive to Putnam.Park,jl am extremely concerned,about-the impact this developmentwill have on.the=environment,traffic and noise°in this area Not only would this development destroy one of the most scenic valleys, but it;will further disrupt the'quality of life for people and 3/4/2013 wildlife in this immediate area I VOTE NO DEVELOPMENT! Diane Elise 35 Diane Gentile 5:42 Gentile 11, 3/4/2013 36 james page 5:50 3/4/2013 37 cindy wood 5:52 Use CURRENT EIR evaluation standards not of the old (1987-2005) Jessica Vann 3/4/2013 general planAandslides have:albeady occurred in Victoria.Do not allow 38 Gardner 5:53 this developmentwithout,furtherstandards..and investigation. Alan Vann 3/4/2013 Use the 2025 General plan.foi the EIR. Do not allow unsafe building in 39 Gardner 5:55 creek and slide areas: Sandra 3/4/2013 40 Anfang 6:05 3/4/2013 41 .Dennis Zerbo 6:11 3/4/2013 42 Andy.Rado 6:13 - 3/4/2013 43 Douglas Lund 6:18 3/4/2013 44 susan herman 6:19 :Reverse your Position,City of Petaluma! Do it right or not,at,all. 3/4/2013 preserve ourTheautiful neighborhood and;stop Davidon's'non-sense 45 Zhiqi Geuillon 6:26 development!!! Peter 3/4/2013 Don't forget why we have all chosen to live in Petaluma. Don't:throw 46 Maniscalco 6:27 our way of life away. , 4-la 47 Sheldon 3/4/2013 Evaluating any reporton anything, using:outdated information (in this Bermont 6:34 case grossly outdated)flies in,theface of any sane.person's definition of logic or reason. 3/4/2013' 48 Tiffany Renee '6:36 Beverly 3/4/2013, It'is..no longer 2004. Project needs to adhere to the current General 49 Alexander 7:46, Plan. Marne 3/4/2013 50 Coggan 13:49 Madelyn 3/4/2013 51 Crafts 14:34' • Robert 3/4/2013: 52 Bruckman 14:40 3/4/2013 53 Dan Deevy 15:1.0 Stop the project 3/4/2013. 54 Annika Lund 15:23 Beverly Voloshin and 3/4/2013 55 Alan Sandy 15:55 3/4/2013 56 Janie Castles 16:10 3/4/2013 57 Tom Borck 16:15 PHYLLIS 3/4/2013 58 RANKIN 16:29 3/4/2013 59 Hella Merrill 16:33 This Developer is notinterested'in'Petaluma in any way and never has been.They just want to build°houses;make money, and then move on BARBARA 3/4/2013 -to the next project. We,have to Watch'out.for ourselves to preserve all 60 ARIKAT 16:35 that is precious to.us.'We live here,they don't!!! I walk up in Helen'Putnam every weekend and my route takes me past Karen 3/4/2013 the Red Barn.and KellyCreek area. I typically see deer and wild turkeys. 61 Winters 16:47 Preservation'of the creek,side and hill areas are essential.Thank you 3/4/2013 I„live in west Petaluma,would like to supportthis land as open.space, 62 Dana Hooper 16:54 preserve the view shed, animal habitats and the red barn. 3/4/2013 63 Val Richman 16:59 Carol 3/4/2013 Use new Plan. Build the fewest possible numberof'•homes. Keep 64 Casselman '17:07 maximum Open Space. Paul 3/4/2013 65 Werbaneth 17:08' Jeanette Ben. 3/4/2013, 66 Farhat 17:10 3/4/2013 67 Nanette Tufts 17:14 4 "tie' V4/2.013' . 68 Lori Borck 18:00 3/4/2013 69 Jason Davies 18:13 3/4/2013 70 Janet Gelatti 18:15. Be current with your choices. Rather than go in the direction of another Laura 3/4/2013 "cookie cutter" city protect the beauty of Petaluma and our valuable 71 Mathieson 18:34 .resources. Thank you 3/4/2013 72 Dale Axelrod 18:59 Merle 3/4/2013 Davidon and all developments mustcomply by the most recent laws 73 McKinley 19:07 and regulations. It is Up to the City to enforce their own decisions Maureen 3/4/2013' 74 Smith 19:11 Are you kidding me?This is a no brainer. 3/4/2013 It has been 9 years since the original review so it only seems reasonable 75 Tracy Perlich 19:38" 'to,review current information. 3/4/2013 76 Marie Girolo 19:50 Please insist that all growth in;Petaluma follow and comply with the 3/4/2013 2025 GeneraliPlan adopted in 2008, no exceptions: Why have a plan if 77 beverly schor 20:06 you don't require compliance? 3/4/2013 78 Kathleen Piro 20:13 nary beth 3/4/2013 79 benedetti 20:32 marcus 3/4/2013 80 benedetti 20:32 3/4/2013 81 Jesse Klinge 20:37 3/4/2013 82 Paul Schmidt 20:41 The DEIR should not be'evaluated,criteria from 25 years ago. I am totally dismayed that Davidon wants to proceed with their initial "walIto-wall" housing plan for that beautiful, precious property. What is equally disappointing is our city's apparent cavalier approval of it (Is 3/4/2013 there anyone there capable of recognizing what contributes to.a true 83 Peter Bordiga 21:02 quality of-life?) I've been;a Petaluma resident and tax payer for 30 years and am deeply committed to the quality of life here and`the health of the community and its•surrounding.environment.You must reverse your position and Cindy L. 3/4/2013 evaluate with-the 2025 general plan. Whatlgood:IS it to have.a general 84 Myers 21:03 plan if you won't let it guide you? Reverse;your position,please. katherine 3/4/2013 85 applegarth 21:30 Stop Davidon build-out! Peter D. 3/4/2013 86 Sikora 21:39 i 15 440 • 87 Tom Corbett 3/4/2013; There are ways to compromise andwe should,talk about them. Davidon 21:45- is,currently positioning,for upcoming talks. We should do the same and have several points of:compromise ready. 3/4/2013 88 joelle phoenix, '22:00. 3/4/2013 89 john winters 22:47 Kathleen 3/4/2013' 90 Billings 22:57 I attended a 2012 meeting by DaGidon.representatives in which they presented in an elaborate Power Point show their reduced plan for 66 homes.There'was absolutely no mention thatthey would revert to their original 93-home contruction plan. I-feekdeceived, and I.urge the City of Petaluma to apply their due diligence in•'using the most current, 2025 3/4/2013, General Plan to evaluate the impact of the Davidon project on 91 Peggy Alfrey 23:28 ,Petaluma. , Charles 3/5/201!3 92 Merrill 0:26 Way to,many;?homes. Shouldbe no more than 45. Mike 3/5/2013 93 Gottschall 0:49 Michael 3/5/2013 I believe the development being planned will be utterly devastating to 94 Sunday 1:11; that area of Petaluma and should bd;stopped or scaled way back. Robert 3/5/2013 95 Jacobson 1:31 I STRONGLY INSIST....notonly because':I live:in Victoria....but because I Susan 3/5/2013 see, esthetically the importance of the Red'Barn as a point of referernce 96 Murphy 1:35 to,our community in West Petaluma; Sherri Fabre- 3/5/2013' 97 Marcia 1:35 Scott 3/5/2013 98 Andrews 2:02 3/5/2013 99 Joan Butler 2:46 3/5/2013 100 Bob Butler 2:49 Trudee 3/5/2013 , 101 Herman 3:32 3/5/2013 102 sheryl speck 4:00 3/5/2013 'What is the use of taking the times to create an updated General Plan if 103 bryce sumner 4:1 1 it is not followed? It makes no sense to follow'an out'of date one '3/5/2013 104 'jack:Meagher 4:20 3/5/2013 105 Linda Conley. 4:33 j 3/5/2013 106 Dan Sexton 4:44 • 6 11 • susie 315/2013 What happens to all the runoff the;traffic,the character of that unique 107 schlesinger 4:45 histbric.place? Kathleen 3/5/20-13. space,and wildlife Habitat should be preserved—not 108 Meagher 4:49 replaced with a millionaires'ghetto! 3/5/2013 109 Ben Rich 5;09 The new general plan:specifically,addresses this property-to ignoreit Robert E 3/5/2013 would be allowing a glaring acceptance to publicly-supported city policy. 110 Barnes 5:13, Does law &government mean anything? The Davidon project is highly objectionable and is not in the interest of sustainabilityforthis•region. We have series concerns about water 3/5/2013 shortages, traffic,congestion, wildlife and habitat destruction... it is 111 John Crowley 5:33 quite simply not going to,improve our quality of life in any way. 3/5/2013 112 Robert Piro 6:03' JOEL 3/5/2013 113 GOUILLON 6:58 This is so scary and sad--theseere the,special areas that make Mary 3/5/2013 Petaluma so beautiful and.such a desirable.place to live! Please, no 114 Schindler 7:04 more tract home mansions.... 3/5/2013' 115 Mike Dayem 8:18_ 3/5/2013 • 116 Tim Crowley 8:38 3/5/2013 117 Maggie Hohle 12:21 - Richard & Sharron 3/5/2013 118 Cosby 13:30 3/5/2013 119 Larry Moore 15:34 If Davidon is going to be.allowed to build On this property it must and should comply with the most recent standards set forth in the 2025 3/5/2013 plan.And if the City council,'including.the mayor, doesn't insist we, 120 John Dietz 15:35 should insist the city council step down,or be removed from their post. emily 3/5/2013 121 blackman 15:43 I do;not.support the'development of"new:track homes in Petaluma. sylvia 3/5/2013 122 gonzalez 15:58 3/5/2013 Dividon is jjust plain greedy and they don't even live around,here.They 123 Ginger Irwin 16:12 needto'be'STOPPED 3/5/2013 124 ,Jared Milligan 116:30 Russ 3/5/2013 125 Freudenburg 1635 3/5/2013, 126 Kimberly Scot 1651 7 4-12- Elizabeth 3/5/2013 127 Bertani 16:58' Natasha 3/5/2013 128 Juliana 17:20 3/5/2013 129 Amber Faur 17:42` The protection that Petaluma accorded it's natural,resources, and the limits on.growth is what attracted me to this region when l graduated from UCLA in;the 70's. Lhave watched that brilliant;resolve erode bit by bit in recent years until Petaluma;is beginning to look like "Anyplace USA". That which still allows it to be "special" are the.natural resources Susan leftin the hill's around.thepopulated community. Give that away for the Hirshfield 3/5/2013. benefit of more congestion and Petaluma completely loses it's status as 130 Ph.D. 17:52' one of the best places to.liveand visit in the county. 3/5/2013 131 Terry Murphy 18:10 I understand the building industry needs to get moving. I am in the 3/5/2013 trades, but I do not want to• ee sucha'.serene and historical area just 132 Craig Riddle 18:19 plowed under to make a profit. 3/5/2013 133 Gisele Rue 18:49 3/5/2013 i 134 Linda Corbett 19:01 I'agree 100%.; Mark Neilson Seems this isSbecoming,a familiar story with developers and the (Avalon Pure 3/5/2013 Planning Dept. Due to the,size of this project, the most current 135 Water) 19:01 standards and data should be utilized. Dianne 3/5/2013' Extremely important for humans,wildlife and Earth to keep green 136 Monroe 20:48 spaces and lift itdevelopnient,tot us today and for future Michael 3/5/2013 137 McCullaugj 21:22 3/5/2013 138 Lance Cerny 22:02 Eleanor 3/5/2013 139 Hodge 22:24 John and 3/5/2013 140 Lauren Dietz 22:24 M. C. 3/5/2013 141 Luebbermann 22:33 iSmartcity planning, now will be.appreciated 50 years from now Elaine 3/5/2013 I agree that the City of Petaluma must=reverse its position and evaluate 142 Ellsworth 23:31 the Davidon DEIR under the 2025 General Plan. 3/5/2013 143 john Bertucci'. 23:31 3/6/2013 144 Jeff Rooney 0:19 Karen H. 3/6/2013 145 Sikora 0:48 18 4 13 146 Mary Beene 3/6/2013 I would hope=thatthe City of Petaluma would`hold Davidon responsible 1:00 tdineet'our Current General P.languidelinesthatnore reflect the current standards of our;city rather than expired standards. Ryan 3/6/2013 147 Johnston 1:42 3/6/2013` 148 Brian Dixon 3:11 'Resident of Victoria 12 years and Petaluma 19 years 3/6/2013 Please do the rightthing.This is a'treasure.as is and the surrounding 149 Pat Spitzig 13:45 environment is already stressed re water runoff&geology-landslides. 3/6/201.3' l strongly agree that city of petaluma must reverse its position and 150 Henry Violin 14:58 evaluate the Davidon DEIR under the 2025 General Plan It is time for our public officials to take a:stand for Petaluma. We all spoke,up for this scenic gateway to"ourtown in 2008 when the new General Plan was adopted;with Davidon arguing their side.They lost 3/6/2013 and now want to pretend that never happened?They want a do over? 151 Greg Colvin 15:16 Come on! ' 3/6/2013 152 Millie Vence 15:43 It is really important to honor the present (2025) General Plan. Davidon Megan 3/6/2013 should be considered a new project. It is wrong to let Davidon slide.in 153 Donner 16:00 under the 1987-2005 General Plan. Janice L. 3/6/2013 I agree that the City of Petaluma"niust reverse its.position and evaluate 154 Thomas 16:31 the Davidon DEIR under the.2025 General Plan. William 3/6/2013 Controlled growth has made Petaluma a special.place to live. Don't let 155 Boyce Quinn 16:34 uncontrolled'growth undermine that: 3/6/2013 156 Joyce Delano 16:50 Jewell 3/6/2013 157 Scanlon 18:34 Too many short sighted decisions to support such permanent Marcy 3/6/2013 developments have altered our cities forever....please,take a pause for 158 Lenhardt 19:08 the good of the environs and its'inhabitants into the future. From spending time painting here I have found a complete and balanced echo system of plant fauna and migrating animals and I believe this Would,be better.served as an educational,center for our youth. Realistically the barnwould notbe successfully moved all at once. It would take to much energy in planning:and permits alone and not to mention thetedious.work and.cost of dismantling each board piece by piece and reassembled on the other side,of a creek that will already be compromised bythe increased run off from the homes that are planned and removal of the 100 years oaks and eucalyptus trees that exist now It would be a great lose to Petaluma to allow this Sterling 3/6/2013 development to pass. Please consider this treasure when making your 159 Hoffmann 19:38 decision. James D. 3/6/2013 160 Curtis 19:55 9 • A- 7A- 161 Raymond 3/6/2013 Tighe 20:04 3/6/2013: 162 Gregory May 20:12 3/6/2013! Dear Sir or Madame. Lets preserve our history and prevent urban 163 Matt Aspen 20:50 sprawl.Thank,you, -'MA Please DO.NOT ALLOW'the-sale or any'building of homes on this Pristine Linda K 3/6/2013 acreage.Thiswas my great grandparents ranch, Petersen's. It would be 164 Henris • 23:41 a shame to destroy this area Add this to the Helen Putnam Park! 3/7/2013 165 Kit Lofroos 0:11 David 3/7/2013 166 McKinnon 1:30. Trudee 3/7/2013 167 Herman 1:30. Joseph 3/7/2013 168 Grubaugh 1:31 3/7/2013 169 Sigrun Seifert 1:31 Jane Evelyn 3/7/2013 170 Grubaugh 1:32 Michelle 3/7/2013 171 Markovics 1:36 3/7/2013 172 Steve Kirk 1:37 Jamie 3/7/2013 173 Markovics 1:38 Karen 3/7/2013 174 Pulvirenti 1.40 Project should comply with the 2025 General Plan: 3/7/2013 175 Stan Gold 1:42 Sherri 3/7/2013 176 Langford 1:47 3/7/2013 177 David Powers 1:57 3/7/2013 178 Henry White 1:58 Michael 3/7/2013 179 Kraus 2:01. 3/7/2013 180 Chris Cort. 2:15 Davidon will be removing dozens of native'Oaks that have.been,proven William @ to be immune to Sudden Oak Death(SOD). Over the years developers Karen 3/7/2013, like Davidon have removed 98%-of the native stands of this variety of 181 Morgenstern 234 Oak in California Frances 3/7/2013 182 Miller 2:44 10 q -15 • 3/,7/2013 183 Brian James 3:10 Asa• lover of Urban Planning and'smart urban development, I am proud that our City had the ver •first urban growth boundary in the country. It isivital'that the City of Petalum.evaluate'the Davidon DEIR under the 3/7/2013, 2025 general plan to keep a healthy, prosperous, and liveable 184 Erin Axelrod 3:12:. community for future=generations of;Petaluma residents. 3/7/2013 185 bob 3:14. 3/7/2013, 186 Mary Keelty 3:15, 3/7/2013 187 does a deer 3:16' 3/7/2013 188 Lori Lund 3:21, 3/7/2013, 189 Ria brigmann 3:28 3/7/2013, 190 gay robbins 3:51 William M. 3/7/2013 191 Hammerman '3:53 3/7/2013 192 Marcia Bush 4:20 Lucille H. 3/7/2013 193 Battison 4:25 Patty Baker- 3/7/2013 194 Bordiga 4:27 3/7/2013, 195 Julie Gouillon .4:29 don't:kill our red legged frogs! 3/7/2013 196 Brian Pasdach 4:32 Catherine Loustaunau- 3/7/2013 197 Whitwell 5::03 3/7/2013 Clearly,the responsible thing,is to require use of the general plan 2025. 198 D.K. Faraone 5:29 Please do not let this go through without further review. Rosalie 3/7/2013 199 Gillmore 6:10 Carol 3/7/2013 200 Oppenheimer 6:10 Lauren 3/7/2013 201 Lautner 6:26 3/7/2013 202 Viola Lucero 6:33 203 Harriet Coyne 3/7/2013 . 11 4/160 • 6:34 3/7/2013 204 Harriet Coyne 6.38. Patricia 3/7/2013 205 Brouillette 6:54' 3/7/2013' 206 Marcia Joynt 14:07 Resident of property backed up to Kelly Creek Laura 3/7/2013 207 Muckenhoupt 14:13' 3/7/2013 208 wendy arnold 14:35' Anthoy 3/7/2013, 209 Pulvirenti 15:05 As we learn more and more about environment, climate, and human interconnectibns,.we realize-that evenca 4-5 year window of new information provides better tools for'charting the future. So a dated plan should not be used for making such large, impactful decisions as the ones connected to this type of-project: In addition, approving the use of the older plan to support this project is inequitable, as it provides one group with benefits not,given to others.This action could 3/7/2013 precipitate other such petitions or even litigation. So it appears to me to 210 Terri Frongia 15:05 be a bad'idea all around! Robert 3/7/2013 211 Bruckman 15:28 3/7/2013 212 Leslie Ihrig 15:39 Judith 3/7/2013 213 Mooney 15:39 Save;open:spaces! Robin 3/7/2013 214 Serbent 15:44 William 3/7/2013 215 Herman 16:02 3/7/2013 216 gay robbins 16:12 3/7/2013 217 David Dodd 16:17 3/7/2013 218 Doug Lech 16:34 3/7/2013 219 Kellie Owen 16:52 Petaluma has been distinct from other towns in the:bay area, largely because if its beauty,,its charm and history as a ranching town. More and more these days,,this'is disappearing. At minimum,the Heather 3/7/2013 development should be evaluated,by current criteria -1 can't believe 220 Kurland 17:00 'this'is,even a:,debate. 221 Matt Hodge 3/7/2013 12 4-1`1 17:16 Adriana 3/7/2013 222 Lawson 17:17 For sure-current:Petaluma General Plan 2025 should remain guidline over "any" review criteria Further 93 homes ... by far ... "Too many" ... Pierce W 3/7/2013 66 more reasonable.although, likely still too many upon truly buildable 223 Butler 17:25 58 acres:available Melinda 3/7/2013 224 Maniscalco 17:57 The newer general plan calls for a-300.foot,separator between the edge of any development and:the cityJimits,whereas the old plan does not. In the case of this development,.this'separator is critical, since it ensures developmentrdoes not occur south of Kelly Creek. If the city is serious 3/7/2013 about maintaining this separator, it should evaluate the project under 225 Neil Smith 17.59 the newer general plan. 3/7/2013 226 Katie Haas 18:22.. • Many issues regarding this project should concern the Petaluma community: increased traffic,air quality, water/sewer, fire, health & 3/7/2013 safty. Just to a'few..This"development can not hope to pay for 227 James Coyne 18:23 long term services.The existing tax payers will have to pick up that tab. tammara 3/7/2013 228 norman 18:55_. Developers should NOT,be exempt froth current planning and environmental standards. I was born in 1976 but that does not mean Dennis 3/7/2013 that new'laws since then do not apply to me. Developers cannot have 229 jongsomjit 19:14 their cake and eat it too. The Megna-Thompson household's;strong,conviction that Kelly Creek should NOT be developed,is shared by,many other east side residents. I teach at Grant School and;coordinate many local environmental activities from creek restorations+to "Student Scientist" observations that link with the greater scientific community from Helen Putnam Park ' and surrounding areas. Responsible`planning means redevelopment and 3/7/2013 infilling, NOT taking more of our critical riparian habitat spaces for 230 ;Julia Megna 19:31 housing! Thank you,Julia Megna 13 4-1S