Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A - Attachment 5 04/15/2013 y. •I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—eUSMF,SS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSINGAGENCY. EDMUND G.BROWN;Jr.,Governor, AIlac iriieri1 5; DEPARTMENT OF`TRANSPORTATION No. 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O BOX 23660 ',T? OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 • PHONE (510)286-6053 Flex your "'.FAX '(510)286-5559 Be energy effcientt ! TTY 711 March 18,2013 SON101901 SON-101-3.79 SCH#2004072137 Ms: Alicia Giudice City of Petaluma, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Ms. Giudice: • � Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map'and Rezoning Project—Draft Environmental Impact=Report-(DEIR) Thank you for.continuing to include the California Department of Trahsportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review'process'for the Davidon Homes Tentative;Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project. The following;comments!are based onahe Draft ERR. Highway Operations Please cite your analysis-of the Existing(Year 2003) U.S.'Highway 101 (US'-101) mainline=volumes on page 4.12-15 of the DEIR, Table 4.1:2-8. These voluines,appear high given that US-101 has only two lanes. The DEIR on,page 4.122 states, "The study is comprehensive,the impacts are well-contained within the study area and no impacts.are anticipated beyond these`borders, The intersection of Lakeville Street and D Street was not included as part of the Traffic Impact Study=for the project. However, a sensitivity,analysis was conducted atthe intersection of;D,Street:and.Lakeville Highway which indicated that traffic impacts at;this,intersection-would be less-than',significant." Please elaborate and provide the:sensitivityuanalysis. . The'DEIR'on page 4.12-30;states, "Forty percent of tnps are expected to travel on U S 101, while the majority(60 percent) of trips would,be confined to the City-of Petaluma." Please,submit an intersection Level.of ServicerAnalysis for/US-101 riorthbound'sramps/State`Route(SR) 116 and US- 101 southbound ramps/Lakeville Highway'intersections'for various'scenarios since project trips may impact US-10J/SR 116 interchange. "Caltrans.improves mobility across;California 5- I .Ms: Alicia Giudice/City.of Petaluma March 18,;20.13 Page/2 - -- _ - • Please feel free to call or email Luis•Melendez at (510) 286-5606 or luis melendez cr,doLca.gov with any questions regarding this letter._ Sincerely, ERIK ALM, AICP District,Branch Chief • Local Development- IntergoverrimentalReview c: State Clearinghouse — - - _ r • • • • • • "Cahrans improves mobility across.California" • 5-2- SAVE THE RED BARN/TREES POST CARD T l -3 t^ � '� y.c r + a : ' --0, r i _S-" ;' S� -,` I i fi 7 Y � **- n v , f n 4:,- - . , • Ap1 yr A `li. u t y 1 i i p F,,� f +i -'�'n C.i $e'' f BAs i Y �^ a-iih y try i t f ,; a,14 Bss tt t �8-tea 74111S ..}"Y$ ] n . .f, Or S �.I t� + !� P ��tt t � dal ¢JF1. �� S M - -4-.� ,., -..-...e�� � �� �_� 1 t*1.1/f yang ]x .. +q iSa,,,f ,4 M "C } d f -C" , 1 p t"d ..;_. c M fx :t ry -- .(. - r l; e.7rk >t tli < „..1- m r d . .1?r- e;xN 'IS LE ;-.i ici. ; 'd 11 r !ill.i f' > .1..... - .-.;: fit..r' tail nulxticcvtvalitaledE'#. tea' I ”Red.Barn and Trees"watercolor by PatSpithig _ �__ www.artbyspiz.coin ,..at�. least `- Artists meet at the barn on Thurs to paint/draw/take pictures t least 1 i �� Dear Planning Division: I ✓ Please save the red barn and trees at D St. j and Windsor in its present historic location ✓ And if you must consider developmentat this location,use the eurrent 2025 General Plan Alicia Giudice aU t-Q\ Senior Planner Name t as ( : Gty of Petaluma. Address i-2ZC� 't\ '1 ICZll English St. City State Zip, -,pd`f°' -�-s^ Petaluma,CA 94952 I Draft EIR of proposed development is at the Petaluma library; I Community.Center,`'CRy ClerKs Office&on the Petaluma City I wehstte—http://cityofpetaltima.net/cdd/davidon:html Stay connected at: www.PetRP.org. • 1 1 I 1 - 5.3 Giudice, Alicia • From: K5z <kszdvm @gmail.coM> Sent: Monday, March 25,2013 5:13 PM Subject: Davidon development plans at D.Street/Windsor Dear members of the Petaluma Planning Commission and City Council, I've lived on 7th Street•in downtown Petaluma for 6 years, andin the Petaluma;area..since 2002, apart from 3 years spent in the Thousand Oaks area., After moving here, I was sad to hear that the Scott Farm was sold for i development, which was not what the-former:owner would have wanted (good lesson in being very careful how one wills one's legacy!) You will hear from many concerned residents,about traffic concerns, environmental concerns, view concerns, etc. with the potential Davidon development, and I second all of these, they are very valid concerns. But rather than repeat all of them, let me add an additional perspective. As a farm veterinarian who travels in and out of Petaluma frequently, and who has also traveled frequently around the Thousand Oaks area, site of,1another Davidon project, I cannot emphasize enough that Petaluma is a unique town in California.. Many, many of my clients and colleagues in the Thousand Oaks area commented "why did you leave there and come here`?!"when they!heard I was from Petaluma. And it's not as if Thousand Oaks is considered an unappealing area of California, although it is very Davidon-esque in many areas. Please take a moment to google map'Davidon Homes,Uia Bonita,Newbury Park, CA (sorry, link not working). Are you sure that is what you want? Many (perhaps most) of us in Petaluma would not want that. You can get that almost anywhere else in California, especially near urban areas. Again, Petaluma is quite unique, and once it loses places like the old Scott Ranch and other beautiful open areas, especially at our town entrances and exits'(not to mention the sudden'lack of redwoods along the highway"), definitely uniqueness. can't , back l gone. wen eed new houses and development, but let's have in such an irreplaceable spot as the Scott Ranch land. The area around Helen Putnam Park has already been built up enough, in not very well thought-out ways, as you all well know. Let's not continue that. There are many excellent ideas that have been presented for much better uses for that land; and there are dozens of us living downtown who would donate and contribute (along with the significant sum already in place)to the Scott land being added to Helen Putnam Park, to the barns being made into museums or used for other educational purposes. Of course Davidon doesn't want to sell it, it is a stunning piece of land and they'll make a lot of money developing it, and can always pull,out if needed. iFuture,sewer and traffic problems (4-laning D Street?) won't be their problem. Our NIMBY attitudes Make perfect sense - they don't live here, it is our very unique and beautiful backyard. Please preserve it. Katherine Szabo, DVM 1 5:- i{ Giudice, Alicia From: Jennifer Pierre <jenbenthehen @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday,:March 23, 2013 12:49 PM To: Giudice; Alicia Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Davidori comments Attachments: Davidon'pdf Hi Alicia, Here are my written comments on thQDavidon.DEIR,'which supplement my oral comments at the PC meeting last week. I will not be further revising these, so these,can be treated as my official comments. Thank you! Jenny 26 5-S ) 1 Jennifer Pierre comments;onthe Davidon.Draft EIR March 2013 2 ,I 3 General comments 4 Lack of clear-analysis of final mitigated'project. The City has analyzedtheproposal from 2004, but 5 because it is so terribly flawed in its assumptions regarding the impacts to biological resources; 6 aesthetics, and geology,the proposed project is essentially a different project when the mitigation is 7 .—applied. It is impossible for a.reader to truly understand what the project is,and its associated impacts, 8 in the-way the EIR is currently written.'While it's clear that many of the effects would be avoided,what 9 is not clear is how the mitigation affects the other resources (i.e., how does-thereduction-in homes 10 affect the need for drainage facilities; new sewer, etc) and if the.mitigation°proposed doesn't cause 11 significant environmental impacts (i.e.,changes in Cut and fill). While the City is responding to the 12 applicants proposed project,:the City is clearly proposing a different project that is essentially the 13 mitigated applicant'proposed project. The EIR should be re=writtento moreaccurately reflect the 14 constraints on the project. 15 Due to applicant workshops in which-the 66-home alternative has been alluded tows the proposal,there 16 is substantial'confusion as to whatis^actually beingiproposed. The.City'is officially writing an EIR 17 reflecting the official proposal of the'applicant, butjthe applicant has been referring to or alluding to the 18 66-home Alternative (Alternative-B),as preferred, including during the Planning Commission meeting on 19 March 12, 2013. This is very confusing and has served many to question'the intent of DavidonHomes. If 20 the intent is to build 66 homes then<the application should havebeenrevised-with specific detail about 21 what was actually being proposed, so that it is not only an alternative'evaluated with limited detail in a 22 few pages at the end of the EIR: Alternative B and the mitigated proposed project do not appear to be 23 synonymous and.while-many impacts of each of these can b'e inferred,'there is not enough evaluation of 24 either one to fully understand.the environmental implications,of the mitigated proposed project or any 25 of the alternatives, especially as;it:relates to biological and geological impacts. EIR's are public 26, information documents and provide the foundation for decision-making bodies to decide if a project 27 should move forward or not. We should;be fully evaluating=the effects of the proposed project, 28. including traffic, geological, noise,and cumulative impacts based on actual proposal. As written,it is 29 unclear what the magnitude of effects will be other than 'less than the proposed project' which is 30 insufficientinformation for making recommendation for a project. 31 The cumulative impact assessment,especially for water quality, likely underestimates-effects and does 32 not consider existing conditions (past project)for many yof the resources evaluated.The cumulative 33 impact assessment omits;several developments near the proposed,project, including'Pinnacle and 34 Victoria Developments. Failure to include these other related projects has-led to substantially 35 underestimated cumulative effects analyses.for water quality and some other resources. As described 36 in greater detail below,the`project-level water quality-effects are likely not sufficiently mitigated, and 37 because there is-an acute issue with'KellyCreek water quality and drainage, any additional.adverse 540 II 1 impact,is likely to re'sultin a significant cumulative impact, requiring mitigation. This,is`notidentified in 2 the Draft EIR. 3 It is unclear if the project is consistent with the IZOl requirement.to'avoiddevelopment on slopes greater 4 than 30%.Throughout;the°decument,,there is reference to tremendous;cut.and fill.and nowhere is it 5 described if the project complies with this applicable requirement. Additionally,the EIR should state 6 and show specifically the area that is being construicted-on slopes greater than 15%, as the IZO strongly 7 discourages development on slopes'greater than 15%. $ — — — 9 Resource-Specific Comments 10 Aesthetics 11 1.' Mitigation Measure AES=lb states that moving the red bard is an option yet there is no 12 indication about whether or not this is feasible from a structural or cultural resources 13 perspective. The barn is described as needing a new foundation. 14 Biological Resources 15 1. The record of communication with.either the USFWS or the;Army'Corps of Engineers is 16 incomplete as provided and itis unclear how and when the communications regarding the 17 California red-legged'frog and the necessary avoidance measures were provided to the applicant 18 or the City. This is important relative to the timing,of the application and when it was deemed 19 complete and how that relates to the general plan by which the project is reviewed, as well as 20 the confusion created by analyzing an infeasible proposed'project (as described above). Please 21 provide complete record of correspondence on this'topic with'USFWS, Davidon,and Army 22 Corps: This will also help the public, Commission, and Council understand and confirm that the 23 conditions put forth inthis correspondence are accurately'reflected in the revised project 24 and/or mitigation;measures. 25 2. Mitigation measures for biological resources should be clear on.when construction activities 26 would not occur. For example, it is well-documented that.California red-legged frog is.present 27 on the site The.EIR should include measures that commit to avoiding construction'during, 28'. periods of breeding and/or provide specific protections for construction periods:As currently 29 written,the mitigation is more focused on permanent land use changes than the period of 30 construction,which;is,estimated'to.take approidmately 39 months,.lasting'over at least 3 31 breeding seasons. 32 3. Mitigationmeasure B10-1b;refers to potential impacts to some'scattered seasonal wetlands 33 and channels'but.no'descriptionof mitigation for these actions is provided. Any disturbance'to 34 wetland is considered,an impact and must be mitigated,;if not per CEQA then per the Clean 35 WaterAct: The,EIR should clarify.if the wetland mitigation accounts for this impact or increase 36 mitigation to do so. Further confounding this issue is the fact that original proposed project 37 is substantially revised via mitigation AND the applicant has alluded to the 66-home alternative 5-1 1 as the proposal,which are:not synonymous. Understanding thespecific effects of the project is 2 very difficult. i 3 4. Mitigationplans, permits, etc. are NOT mitigation. Mitigation is something that specifically i 4 reduces, avoids, or off-sets an impact. Writing a plan does:none of These plans should 5 either be built into the proposed project or the mitigation measure should specifically explain 6 how the plan or permit will mitigate the effect. 7 5. It is unclear what trees are proposed for removal. Additionally,the purpose of removal (location 8 vs. health) is not described. Please provide a map of which trees:would_be removd.,Further 9 confounding this issue:issthe fact that the original proposed project is substantially revised via 10 mitigation AND the applicanthasalluded tb the 66-home,alternative as the proposal,which are 11 not synonymous. Understanding;the specifi ic effects of the projecis very difficult. 12 6. Mitigation measure B10-2d should include a commitment for the City of Petaluma Tree 13 Committee to review draft plans. 14 7. Mitigation meaures BI0 3b'says'.that therelwould be grading:up to 10 feet from the top of bank 15 of Kelly Creek. Our current General Plan (Policy 4-P=1) is clear that 50-feet is the minimum 16 setback from waterways.and the 1987 General Plan,clearly has similar intentions with Policies 17 20 and 21 requiring minimization,of effects on natural resources, in addition to policies that 18 require minimal disturbances to trees and waterways.Although grading may not be considered 19 permanent, it can be a majoreffect related to erosion, loss of Vegetation and habitat, reduced 20 soil stability,and encouragement of invasive vegetation. 21 Geology and Soils 22 1. The fact that there are so many geology mitigation.measures leaves little confidence that the 23 project as proposed is safe and sustainablefrom an;engineering perspective.With known 24 landslides, steep slopes, and''substaritial drainage issues, it is very concerning that a detailed. 25 geotechnical report on the actual proposal;(i.e.,the mitigated project) has not been done or 26 provided. 27 2. Mitigation needs to be added to avoid cut and fill on slopes greater than 15%. This is justified 28 because this area is shown to be unstable in many areas and there is a'high potential to affect 29 adjacent properties, especially in the area north of Windsor Drive. This is.consistent with the 30 170 that discourages,development on slopes greater than 15%and these slopes are known to be 31 unstable. 32 3. Impact GEO-3 does not adequately identify the locations.of the unstable soils where landslides 33 haveoccurred,and it is difficult to understand if the,B10 and AES mitigation measures have 34 avoided thisissue. 35 4. UnderMitigatioW..Measure GE0-3b it is unclear if this mitigation is still applicable given that it 36 references homes that would not be built if.BIO and AES mitigation measures are implemented. 37 5. Mitigation Measure GEO-8a states.that there will be no fill slopes greater than 2:1.This is 38, greater than 30% and is therefore not consistent with the 170 and should be revised to no fill 39 slopes greater than 15%. 40 Hydrology and Water Quality. 5-v 1 1. The analysis of downstream impacts is based on a 2003'study.thatassumes only as,high as 10- 2 year storm. This is insufficientfromboth•atfloodingperspective and under the:assumption that 3 climate change will likely increase storm intensity. 4 2. The status'of the D Street storm drain project should be described. A commitment for its 5 completion should be-made prior to any grading of the projectsite. As described above under 6 cumulative:impacts, more investigation as to the cumulative status of Kelly Creek water quality 7 and flows'in Kelly Creek,is.needed with potential:for mitigation for the project's contribution to 8 cumulative:effects. t 9 3. The flooding analysis'is'insufficient and fails to demonstrate that the duration or severity of 10 downstream flooding would notbe affected. Impact HYDRO;1 dismisses this impact as a result 11 of the detention basins, but Impact HYDRO-2 (which addresses only the Petaluma River) states 12 that even with the detention basins.on thejproperty, it could affect peak flows on the Petaluma 13 River.This same phenomenon is also applicable to Kelly Creek. There is no explanation or 14 demonstration that the detention basins will work. And because theproposed project is 15 substantially changed:by the mitigation,which identifies areas-that-cannot be developed,the 16 specific areas of detention ponds needs toibe identified. 17 4. Impact HYDRO-4 states that 'the RWQCB generally discourages [gross pollutant traps] because 18 they require.regular maintenance:and because evidence of theireffectiveness remains 19 inconclusive.' (Page 4.7=29) It goes on to stay this is'the most feasible option for runoff control, 20 but doesn't describe any other alternatives,considered. It also states that additional.traps 21 beyond those identified in the proposed project would likely be needed,,but the area for these 22 traps is not identified, making it impossible to understand if these additional traps would have 23 the potential:to cause.other impacts, including those related to biological resources,or require 24 changes in the configuration of the lots. It:finds this impact less than significant without any 25 demonstration that these:are feasible or effective. 26 5. The cumulative impacts discussion only addresses future conditions and does not incorporate 27 past projects or ongoing issues with Kelly Creek downstream of the project. Additional 28 mitigation for the cumulative effect may be warranted given the current status of drainage. 29 Land Use and Planning 30 1. No discussion of whether all lots are at,least.20,000:sf,as required.by R1 zone. Further. 31 expansion the benefits to the City'of allowing a PUD are needed. 32. 2. No;discussion'of the portion or specific areas that are greater than 15%slope:and therefore it is 33 not clear that this project is consistent with the hillside development'component of the 120. 34 There should also:bea'cleardiscuSsion of the areas-greater than 15%that would be'graded. 35 Grading areas are difficult to.discern. 36 3. The 1987 General Plan-allows for 35.22 to 117.4.homes.on this 58.7 acre site, but when slopes 37 greater than 30%'are subtracted out what'is the number of homes that can be,built here 38 according,tothe 1987,General Plan? 5-`? 1 4. The 1987 General Plan says,that 1:2 acres if public p'arkiis necessary for this project. Open 2 space does notqualify'aspublicpark and therefore; the proposed project:must also include a 3 public park,similar to what is proposed in Alternatives.B and C 4 5.1 General Plan/IZO requires feathering of homes at the outskirts of urban growth boundary. 5 Proposed project and Alternative;B do not'appear to include this concept. 6 6., Policy 3.14:2 of 1987'General Plan says that the project shall provide pedestrian circulation 7 through the site.and the EIR states that the project as proposed is consistent with this. 8 However,forcing pedestrians to travel through a round-about across D Street in this area is not 9 - - pedestrian friendly: Sidewalks;on the wesfjside of D.Street should be incorporated into the 10 project ata minimum,from-Windsor to southern end ofthEexistirig.sidewalk on D Street. 11 7. Policy 3.18'of1987 General Plan states that every effort shall be,made to preserve landmark and 12 major groves. Policy 1-P-49 of the 2025 General Plan is similar. Removal of 98 trees and 13 replacement of saplings with 5 years of watering is,NOT mitigation for this impact Removal of 14 98 trees'is,completely:inconsistent with the intent of this General Plan policy. The-biological 15 mitigation isnot.sufficient;to address this.jlThe onlymitigation for this significant inconsistency 16 with the 1987 General Plan is to avoid or minimize this effect. 17 8. Policy 7.2 of the 1987 General Plan says that new public parks should be acquired at a rate 18 consistent with development. As noted above, 1.2 acres,of'public park are required to be 19 consistent with this,arid no public park is proposedias part of the proposed project. Open.Space 20 is not public park. 21 9. Policy 11:39 of the 1987 General Plan requires a hydrologic analysis of runoff and drainage. The 22 mitigated proposed project is so fundamentally different than the proposed project that a 23 hydrologic analysis mus€be dene,prior to the final EIR to.demonstrate'the potential effects of 24 what would actually be'approved. 25 Noise 26 1. Mitigation Measure Noise-1 must state the level at which noise;cannot be exceeded at a 27 sensitive receptor. As written,several minimization measures are included, but there is a lack of 28 commitment to avoid unacceptable noise levels. There;is:no.indication of when these measures 29 would be triggered.and+it needs to explicitly state maximum noise at sensitive receptors. 30 2. Impact NOISE-2 should be completely avoided by avoiding construction between 6 and.7 AM per 31 currentJZO standards in residentialareas. A new mitigation measure should be added to 32 explicitly limitconstruction per the IZO._ 33 Transportation and Traffic 34 1: Impact TRANS-3 states that there is no justification for a left turn lane from northbound,D Street 35 for intersection C. The minimum stopping sight distance is stated to,be met, but it is not clear 36 what the,AASHTO rriinimuin distance is. It is difficult to irnaginethat it is safe to not have a left 37 turn lane. More evidence'.should be provided to justify this finding and to demonstrate the 38 efficacy of a roundabout: 5-l0 1 2. It is not clear how or if Mitigation Measure TRANS 7 actually mitigates for'Impact TRANS-7. How 2 does the'mitigation addreisthe Class II requirement? How;doeslit+address the,west-side of D 3 Street issues or the need'for6etter pedestrian facilities? As proposed in the mitigation, a 4 pedestrian from the project walking towards downtown would have to maneuver through the 5 round about to the gravel walkway on the least side of D Street A new sidewalk should be 6 constructed onthe west-side of D Street to mitigate this projectand should extend to the 7 southern end of the property line. 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions) I _ 9 1. The mitigation for Impact GHG-2 should be renamed to Mitigation Measure GHG-2 Operational 10 Emissions'and it should specifically state the extent to which the components',of the mitigation 11 measure are expected to'.reduceGHGs. There should also;be a.substantial exploration of why 12 othermeasures such as solar panels,tankless water heaters,and high-efficiency appliances are 13 not specifically mandated or why'the project is not required to contribute to efforts to reduce 14 reliance on cars. Overall; a,much.more compelling argument mustbe made as to why the City 15 should allow this significant and unavoidable impact. 16 Evaluation of Alternatives • 17 1. Many of the resource,topics are easy to follow and thelogic:applied (that the effect of the 18 alternative would be smaller because of a reduced number of homes) makes sense and is 19 reasonable. However,;for biological and geological resources, it is.very unclear what the impacts 20 are of each alternative.. The alternatives evaluation should specifically describe the trees that 21 would be removed,the total area that would be developed,etc. In many instances, more 22 narrative is provided that summarizes the proposed project effects instead of the alternatives'. 23 However, I think the summary is,helpful to_,the reader and well-written. More detailabout each 24 alternative is necessary to understand the effects of'the.alternatives. 25 2. Table 6-1 showsthat'Alternative D would develop at a density of about.5 units/acre. R1 is 26 zoned for.6 to 2 units,peracre and as such, Alternative D appears to be inconsistent with the 27 current or potential future zoning. 28 3. For Alternative C, page 6-36 states'that.it is inconsistent.with'the`project objectives, but there is 29 no justification for this statement. Further, under the discussion of the environmentally 30 superior alternative,Alternative D (with 28 homes) is identified as generally meeting the project 31 objectives. The description of Alternative C should be revised to state that it is consistent with 32 the objectives. 33 4. The greenhouse gas emission analysis for Alternative B states that reduction to 61 homes 34 would mitigate`this significant impact As such,why does the proposed project or Alternative'B 35 show a 'significant and unavoidable'effect? The mitigation is quite clear- reduce the number of 36 homes to 61 or fewer. 'There is no reason providedwhy"this mitigation would,be infeasible. 37 5. The map provided for Alternative C shows a total of:48,homes, not 47. Which is correct? 5-1 • 1 6. Why does Alternative C includea 1.25 acre park in the;corner of Windsorand D that doesn't 2 ,include theredl,barn, while Alternative B includes a 3 acrepark with;the'red,barn,which has to 3 be moved to accommodate it?. 4 7. The geological iinpacts of thalternatives, a e and the proposed project=for that matter, are very 5 difficult to discern, primarily because the maps provided inithe geological section are hard to 6 read and do not identify the landslides and shear zones (Landslide A, etc.) in the same way the 7 text does. The tradeoffs ifor;alternatives relative to the geologicalhaiards are unclear. 8 8. The drainage impacts and required mitigation is unclear.The.Draft EIR says that all of the 9 —drainage mitigation,measures would'apply to the Alternatives, but some of these mitigation 10 measures are for areas;proposed'to be developed (under the proposed project) in the area 11 south of Kelly Creek. 12 9. The discussion of biological resources under Alternative B does not translate what it means that 13 it is not consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO lb. Does this mean that Alternative B would 14 have to be further refined if adopted?What would this mean for the project and non-biological 15 impacts? 16 10. Alternative B does not maintain a 300 foot setback from the stock pond and aquatic habitat. 17 Just because fewer homes than the proposed project would.be,located in this setback does not 18 mean this is acceptable. No homes should be within the300 foot setback area to be consistent 19 with the 1987 General Plan. 20 21 I , 5l2 1 Gudice;<Alicia ,ii From: kibillings ..<k,billings @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March-25, 201351428 PM To David Glass; Chris Albertson;Teresa Barrett Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller;,Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen.Billings Subject: EIR-Davidon- Hillside Attachments: EIR-Hillsidespdf;k_billingsvaf Dear City Council, Please see attached comments on the Davidon EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings • 2 5-13 Planning:Department. City of Petaluma 11 English.Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject Comments on Davidon Homes Draft EIR/Hiilside Slides I have lived on the'Westside of Petaluma forthe past 20 years. From my house, [:have seen the hillside below the water tanks collapse. I have seen the backyards of five houses on Oxford Court slide. During the time of getting these problems fixed,the owners could not,sell or finance their properties. The developer who originally built the homes did not take the necessary care in shoring up the steep hillside cuts. This oversight could have?fiappened because the developer was running out of money or because the City did not incorporate:protection for homeowners into the General Plan. Today the General Plan 2025 covers development-of hillside,property,and the current General Plan may not allow the proposed homes to be built on lots 1-7 and 38 to 45! This plan was put into place for the protection of:City. The geology in the,entire local area is notoriously unstable and weak. Professionally the geology is known as the "Bay Area Melange."This unconsolidated'junk is the remains of ancient island chains that have'scraped off Pacific plate(like so,many food,leftovers) as it sank below our plate and was,crushed: in the process of Plate Tectonics over the last few hundred million years. That's why we,haveisteep hills and beautifulopography. However, erosion is rapid. We know our ground is made up of sandy clay. How can the existing neighbors be protected from land creep,slides,foundation damage and other possible oversights that were not properly taken care of during,construction? What happens if the developer goes bankrupt or the bond`.isinot as large as may needed or in place long enough? I personally am opposed to development of this land. If the development is approved, I request a bond for at least 15 years to protect homeowners from the kind of damage that has already ropcurred in the Victoria. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65'.Oxford,Court Petaluma, A. 94952 5-14 Giudice ;Alica Front k;billings <k:billings @co' cast:net> Sent Monday, Mardi 25, 201314:27 PM To David Glass; Chris Albertson; Teresa_Barrett; Mike Harris;;Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; 'Kathy Miller;•Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject:. EIR- DaVidon mEnvironmental n Attachments: EIRTEnviornental;pdf; k_billings.vcf Dear City Council, Please see attached comments.on.the Davidon EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 1 .3 5-15 Planning Department 1 Cityof petaluina 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments On Davidon Homes Draft EIR/Hillside'Slides I have lived om the West side/of Petaluma for the past 20 years. From my house„Lhave seen the hillside below the'watertanks collapse. I have seen the backyards of five houses on Oxford Court slide. During the time of getting thes&problethi,flied,the owners could not sell or finance their properties. The developer who originally built the homes did not take the necessary care in shoring upthe steep hillside cuts. This oversight could have,happened,becaus I the developer was running out of money or because the City did not incorporate protection for homeowners into the General.Plan. Today the General Plan 2025 coyers development of hillside property,end the current __s General Plan may not allow the proposed homes to be built owlets 1-7 and 38 to 45. This plan was put into place for2the,protection of:City. The geology in the;entireilocal area is notoriously unstable--and weak. Professionallythe geology is known as the "Bay Area Melange."This unconsolidated junk is-the remains of ancient island chains that havescraped off Pacific plate(like so many food leftovers) as it sank below our plate and was crushed: in the process ._ over the last few p e rocess of Plate Tectonics million years. That's why we have'steep hills and beautiful`topography. However,erosion is rapid. We know our groundismade up of sandy clay. ,How can the existing neighbors be protected from land creepy slides,foundation damage and other possible oversights that were not properly taken care of during:construction?. What happens if the developer goes bankrupt or the bond is,not'as large as May needed,or inplace'long enough? I personally am opposedto,development:of this land. If the development is approved, l request-a bond for at least 15 years to protect homeowners:from the kind of damage that has already occurred in`the'Victoria Thank you, Kathleen°Billings.. 65`Oxford Court: Petaluma, CA.,94952 5-1f0 Giudice, Alicia From: k billings <k:billings @comcast:net> Sent: Monday,,March 25, 2013;14:24 PM To David<Glass; Chris Albert son; Teresa Barrett; Mike''Harris; MikeHealy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller;Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: EIR Davidon- Shear Zone Attachments: EIR-ShearZones:pdf; k_billings.vcf • Dear City Council, Please see attached comments on the Davidon EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings Pt • 4 5--ll To: Planning.Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma,CA. 94952 Subject Comments,on Davidon'Homes Draft EIR/Environmental Impact and Mitigation Impact:CULT-3 Paleontological Resources The geologic units on theprojectsite include the Franciscan Formation,,which is the oldest of fossil bearing marinelsediments. Although no known.paleontological resources have been identified on the project site, it ispossible that these geologic units could contain undiscovered paleontological;resouitces. I am opposed to development ofthis,Iand If this land,is developed; I;request that the city appoint a person to oversee the Palaeontology on this site.,'Without the insurance of a qualified paleontologist,.tesoorcesicouldbe:damaged or'destroyed. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65:Oxford Court CA. 94952 5-IS 1 Planning Department City of Petaluma • 11 English Street. Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject Comments on Dauidon:Homes Draft E[R/Environmental Impact and Mitigation Impact GEO-4 Bedrock.Shear`Zone The project site contains two;potential bedrock shear zones that would'intersect the proposed'development area., Characteristics of shear zones the card-deck analogue tcfg jar �._ -; �� ',, rn � / Y r w a s ? t aer.th„ ,v T tasi5 k vio frtar* R' " E n .area Jkf iXit>Y^twit.ti...z'X ,.- ,,,,,a..u,t"'n°e;'z„'X'.'tr—wSse„o .card = shear,plane 3 shear plane isu undeformed 14._"' sv-}{, u„ air;ar:,%frt,4xr°-.,. .rr. pr" Seen in profile, the ellipse,rotates towards shear plane with increasing strain. Ellipticity increases with increasing strain contlntae , -tea m ry ,�x^ awl s :4t nt ;bacRI intr,,o recapstraln eIIipse 0:4::'"F,3i**K x., .an^�'*xa v+" * When the §hear;zones are moved,'evenwith overexcavated and`.recompacted areas, what is the guarantee this•movement will not cause major damage.10 months or 10 years•down the road of adjacent properties? I am.opposed•to,;developmentof this'property because'of all ofthe`potential geological issues: Thank y,ou, Kathleen Billings 'b5,'Oxfoi=d Coiiit Petaluma, CA. 94952 5-19 Giudice, Alicia • From <k.b lin g s @co mcast.net> Sent Monday; March-25, 2O134:23 PM To: David+Glass, Chris Albertson;TeresaBarrett;Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: EIR- DavidonComments Attachments: EIR-General"Plan.pdf; k_billings.vcf, Dear City Council, Please see attached comments on the Davidon EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 5 5-20 Planning Department City of Petaluma 1I English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon-Homes Draft EIR Petaluma should require Davidonto abide by all of the current environmental policies in the;City's 20252General plan.. if FordtMotor Company had a plan in thei1950s for a car and decided not to build it until 2013?`Laws exist that:would;not allow a new car to be built without seat belts—even though the'plan was actually developed much earlier. A carin 2013 would be built in accordance with the current and'most up-to-date information and.safety features. Petalumans spendyearscreating the:General Plan 2025. The plaiftepresents Petaluma's land use and constitution. The plan represents our current awareness'of the environmental impact and the best way to build with sustainability`in mind for Petaluma. Asa Petaluman, I request that Davidon be required to follow- General Plan 2025. Thank,you, Kathleen Billings 65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA,94952 5-zl Giudice,,;Alicia 1 F •From k.billings'<k.billings @comcast.net> Sent: Monday;.March 25, 201314:22 PM To: David`Glass; Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller; Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject: EIR Davidbn Comments] Attachments: EIR.300 Foot.bdf; k_billings.vcf Dear City Council, Please see attached comments on the Davidon.EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings • • II 6 5-2-Z Planning Department City of Petaluma I 1 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments on Davidon'.Homes Draft EIR DE/R Section: Policy-2=P-68 Provide a minimum 3001-wide Urban Separator. Not Consistent The proposed project; includes a 100-foot setback at the southern portion of the site as opposed to the-City-requir',ed 300-foot. I am personally opposed to development of this land. If the development is approved, I request that a 300 foot wide Urban Separator be included for all of the borders of the property. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 65Oxford Court Petaluma, CA. 94952 5-z3 rl :Giudice; Alicia • From: k billings <k:billings @comcast:net> Sent Monday, March 25,.201314:22 PM To: David Glass; Chris Albertson; Teresa Barrett; Mike Harris; Mike Healy; Gabe Kearney; Kathy Miller; Giudice, Alicia; Kathleen Billings Subject:; EIR=Comments Proposed Development Davidon Attachments: EIR_Noise.pdf`k_billings.vcf Dear City Council, Please see attached cdrnrnents on the D;avidon EIR. Thank you, Kathleen Billings 7 5-Zc Planning-Department City of Petalunm II English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Subject: Comments onDavidon Homes Draft EIR Noise-Dining Constipetion: Loud noise can be very damaging to hearing.Both the level of noise and the lengtItof time you listen to the noise can put you at risk for noise-induced hearing kiss.Noise levels are measured in decibels,or dB for short The higher the decibel icier,the louder the noise.Sounds that are louder than 8548 can cause permanent hearing loss.The hearing system can be ihjured not only by a loud blast or explosion but also by prolonged exposure to high•noise•letnIs. The construction periodtsover 40 plus months. This kind of loud noise can cause harm to sensitive adjacent neighbors and wildlife I would like to request that an independent study be done with current dB schedules the would take into account echoing and canyon amplification that currently exist The EIR used a Aar!.from 2006 and it does not address this specific situation and location.Health and safety of Petaluma residents need to be considered.. Noise can also cause debilitating headaches,depression,and many other health risks and challenges that would be triggered by this construction. The National Campaign for Hearing Health's Toxic Noise Cuidelineslexposure times and decibel levels that cause hearing loss): 85'dB 8-hour period 85-90 dB 2-hour period 90, 100 dB 1 to3hour period 100- 110 between-2 Ind 15 minutes 110- 120 less than 30 seconds 130 dB ANY EXPOSURE WILL RESULT IN PERMANENT HEARING LOSS I personally am opposed to developrinent ofithis land. If the development is approved I request that the time of high noise levels should be greatly reduced to: No more that2 hours tedlay and no noiseon weekends. There are Many elderly nefghbors,and a nursing home on B street Canyon ramifications will need to be addressed. • T!! *YO1,1, Kathleen .65 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA..94952 5 Giudice;,Alicia From: Hines, Heather Sent: Monday; Mafch;25, 2013110:30 AM To: 'Giudice„Alicia Subject: FW:'Davidon DEIR and project From: Cooper, Claire Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:01 AM To: Crump, Katie; Hines, Heather Subject FW: Davidon DEIR'and.Ørôject From:Chey Moore 1-mailto:cmoe6 @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:14 AM To: daveglass @comcast.net; councilman:albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; counciline'mberkearnec@me:com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; - City Clerk Subject: Davidon DEIR and project Dear City Council members, I've attached, for your convenience, a link;to the March! 12th Planning Commission meeting which Was held for public discussion aboutthe'DEIR Davidon and project: http://petaluma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=5&clip 'id=1444 Please watch;Davidon's presentation. You will notice there was no clear map, no clear number of homes and positions, and there was'massaconfusion about the contents of the DEIR. At the end of public speaking, you will witness,the,evaluation from each and every Commissioner about the lack of clarity in the DEIR and proposeddevelopment. There were over 110 community'members'filling the room with thirty:speakers who gave impassioned and knowledgeable testimony on a variety of topics about,the project and DEIR. The community ,spoke about:the DEIR impacts and mitigations regarding-traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, environmental damage, loss of_habitat for endangered species, tree loss, rezoning, views and ridgelines,,drainage into Kelly Creek, the poor infrastructure of sewage piped in the D'Street- Sunnyslopearea, landslides, sidewalks, and loss of the historic Red Barn, among other items. On theother hand,,Davidon?s,presentation was not clear: It not clear about the number of homes proposed: Tile:public was shown a projected map on the wall and asked to subtract out certain lot numbers, add certain lot numbers, move them to the north, etc. We couldn't see the numbers on the lots, let alone know whereto place them: His number of homes has changed not reflecting the°application figure nor any of the alternatives. And I said earlier, the DEIR was unclear not'only to the public buf also to the Planning Commissioners. Davidon needs,to set clear numbers and locations of thehomes and the DEIR must reflect impacts and precise mitigations. The DEIR,must be re-issued accordingly: Then a new 60-day notice must be 8 5-2(, given to-the public.for:review:: At this point; the public, the community;'the Planning Commission and Department, the state and federal agencies not informed of the proposed project and its mitigation measures withtfeasible alternatives: The City is notable to cohsider the environmental consequences of consideration of the project. There is no project. Looking at the city's calendar, I see the City Council will address the Davidon;project at the April 15th meeting. I am shocked and confused that this non-specific plan and inadequate DEIR will be brought before the City Council. Please watch the March 12th Planning'Commission meeting. And then please advise us on what to do! It is absolutely shocking. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct 5--Z? Giudice,Alicia From: Hines Heather Sent: Monday;;March 25, 2013 10:01 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: FW: Davidon'development at Windsor-and D Street Ali, Here's a public comment on the Davidon DEIR. Heather From: Chris Albertson lmailto:councilman ialbeitson @cimailtcom] Sent: Thursday; March 21, 2013"'10:37'PM To: Neil Smith Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Re: Davidon development at,Windsor'and D Street Mr. Smith -- Your comments and concerns have been forwarded onto city staff. The tentative date for this item to come before the City Council is April 15. --- Chris Albertson On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM,Neil Smith<cheersguvnorMgmail.com> wrote: Hello, I'd like to submit the following comment to the City Council in regards to the planned development by Davidon Homes at D Street and Windsor: The draft EIR for Davidon's proposed development atD Street and Windsor Street contains two environmental impacts that are notable to be brbughtbelow the level of significance through-mitigation-measures. One of these is greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs): The Bay Area Air Quality Management District level of significance is 1100 CO2e/year. The project as planned, even with mitigation measures in place,will generate 1637 CO2e/yr;In order to, come down to a level belowsignificance, the project will need to scale back to Alternative C, 48 homes, The city should ask itself whether it can justify allowing a development which generates an objectively significant level of greenhouse gases, especially with the'.large number of families with young children'livingnearby. My future voting decisions will be partially informed by how seriously council members take the health of my 1-year=o1d daughter. 'to cs—n Thanks, Neil Smith 1290 D Street u 5-29 Giudice,,,Alcia From: cathy<edmondson.cathy`@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013:11:45 AM To: Pat 5 Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com'; 'dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com 'oldeastpetaluma @yahoo!com'; 'akherries @comcast.net; 'rayvs @pacbell.net; 'wolpert@ sonic:net;'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail:com; 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us'; terry@ kozyhomes:com;joenoriel @gmail.com;jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetalutha @yahoo.corn; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; Bill Wolpert; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; 'daveglass @comcast.net;icouncilman.albertsori@gmaifcom'; 'teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; 'nlike4pet @aol.com;;'mthealy @sbcglobal.net'; councilmemberkearney @me.com`; rcityclerk @c;petaluma:ca.us'; Petalumans for Responsible;Planning;trevor.pitts @pobox.com, FUTURE2QUEST @grnail.com; Knudson, Thom; bbredo @sonoma-county org;Jeff:Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Dave Glass; councilman:albertson @gmail.com;,teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mthealy@sbcglobal.net;councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; Bates, Curtis; norquist10 @comcast.net',vence1903 @yahoo com Subject: Re: Comments'on DEIR - H Putnam Parkand Davidon & Home Association I absolutely agree that there must be an_HOAI We insisted on it for West Haven, and the developer readily complied. Imagine the difficulties that could arise if they had no way to coordinate (and finance) common space items, like managing the open spaces for fire safety, slides, flooding, andpath upkeep. It's as true for Davidon as it was for West Haven. Otherwise, that responsibility will devolve,to the city and neighboring properties, right? Cathy Edmondson 1237 B St. On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Pat S,wrote: I did not see the Draft ER address the;need for a homeowners association. And yes,this seems to me to be related to the environment. There are likely many reasons this'is.of concern. At_a minimum there are at least,5 reasons- beyond the usual need,for one. These include to have,Tepresentatives to: • -establish /maintain ;relationship with the park -deal,with inevitable water issues - actively maintain_thepond(s),for handling water runoff; - interact With the Victoria Associations - be responsible on a daily baths for e&to maintain the Red Barns'. Thank you for all you do- PatSpitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 1 • 5-30 Gig-dice', Alicia From: Hines;-Heather Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013!9:51 AM' To: Giudice, Alicia I Subject: FW: Davidon EIR - Proposed development at Windsor& D'Sstreets: Comment letter From:'Cooper, Claire Sent-Monday, March 25, 2013 7:22.AM I To: Crump, Katie; Hines;,Heather Subject: FW: Davidon EIR- Proposed:development at Windsor& DsSstreets. From:Peggy Alfrey [mailto:palfrev07@comcastlnet] Sent:Saturday, March.23;..2013 6:07 PM. To: kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com Cc: - City Clerk Subject:Davidon EIR - Proposed deyelopmentratWindsor& D Sstreets. Dear Councilwoman Miller, This letter was previously'sent toeveryone on the Planning Commission in advance of the March 12'""meeting to review the Davidon EIR-;for the proposal housing development on the 58 acres on both sides of Windsor and D.Streets: I am now writing to everyone on the City Council in.advance,of th'e April 15th City Council Meeting with the same purpose: My letter is offered in the spirit of cooperation between the residents of Petaluma and the developer: My hope is that decisions made by the City Council and Planning Commission will be made in the best interests of;our City and.residents and fairly,to Davidon. From the information I have gathered,_it appears,that_Mr. Thayer at Davidon-is attempting to use a'tactic that will work in the company's favor to achieve approval,for the maximum(93 homes)development-possible. The most obvious tactic is: • Use of the outdated, expired General Plan instead of the 2025 Plan which contains specific protections for Kelly Creek Many concerned residents attended,thetPlanning Commission meeting on March"12`h at which time the Davidon EIR was presented various layouts including.93 66, 49 and fewer home sites and'it wasvery, unclear for which number of homes,Davidson is actually attempting to receive approval. We in the:surrounding neighborhoods are of course, seeking-a,significantly lower'number of structures than 93—. 66 homes or fewer. You have no doubt already heard from residents in much greater detail about their concerns on this,development including: Degradation:of.the:hillsides;soil displacement/erosion; damage to Kelly Creek watershed • Endangered:species threat Historic preservation of the Red`;Barn in situ • Open space loss&weakened urban growth boundary • • Esthetic considerations as.the Western gateway,to"Petaluma • 'Traffic impacts•on D:Street and Windsor:Drive • • Lost opportunityfer"expansion of Helen iitutnam Park L respectfully requests that the City.Council members only consider Devidon's Draft Environmental Report against the 'City's current 2025 General Plan Environmental Guidelines,and reject the EIR in its current form, reject any variance entitlements, and vote to approve a significantly:reduced number(66 or less) of homes to be built. I believe this will i14 5-31 protect a sensitive ecosystem and PetalUina asset, achiev&an acceptable.outdome for the residents of the area, and a provide a;profitable investment return.for Davidon. Thank you for your consideration, Peggy A/frey 266 Cambridge Lane Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 781-7199 home phone palfrey07(Wcomcast.net • • • Y5 5• 3z l Giudice, Alicia From Hines,,.Heather Sent: Monday,,March 25,2013 9:50 ANA.. To: Giudice;.Alicia Subject: Davidoh 300 words Attachments: Davidon 300 words.doc Public comment re Davidon DEIR Heather HEATHER HINES Planning Manager T:707.778.4316 E: hhines @ci.oetaluma.ca.us City of Petaluma Community Development- Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 For faster response to planning and zoning questions, please e-mail us at petalumaolannina eci.petaluma.ca.us 116 5-33 Petalumans onsible forges P g (Planriin (PFRP) havebeen,using rhetoric and hyperbole, however false, to.protest development of the Scott property. Actually, they are just homeowners who have their piece of paradise, and don't want-to share it ;NIMBYs, if you will. I live on D Street,and have;for almost 30 years. MyTamilyused to walk on the dirt road that became Windsor Drive;and feed carrots to the horses.If I had put up the fuss about Victoria that PFRP is putting.up against Dadidon, thosefolks would not live there now. The property in question is not as_PFRP proposes, unique.,In fact, there is a seven acre. ranch just like it right,across,the street. It even has a red barn. There are also many farms and ranches from Petaluma to the coast. There is no danger of losingour rural atmosphere. PFRP neglects to recognize themany benefits that Petaluma would receive from the development of the Scott property. County Parks doesn't have the resources to acquire, develop or maintain new=facilities. With thedevelopment, the Davidon group would donate land to Sonoma'Courity Parks— 150 feet on each side of the creek and a trail that connects to Helen Putnam Park. They will build a parking lot, so people won't have to park on Oxford Court. They will upgrade th1 red barn to a usable building, with restrooms, and space for a museum, classrooms, or Meetings. (Contrast this to the livery barn; which was only relocated; the work on the interior done at the expense of David Yeardsley's Friends of the Petaluma River.) Property taxes from the sale of the homes on the Scott property wouldsupport the school system, nearly $400 thousand per year Developer fees would add$4 million to much needed city services. How can the PFRP be so selfish as to try to stall or;stop'a,program.that is beneficial to Parks, Schools, roads and every single person in Petaluma?' Sincerely, Patrecia Graham 1315 D Street Petaluma, CA 707-763-4196 5-34 Giudice, Alicia From: Hines, Heather Sent: Monday;,,March 25, 2013 9:49 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject FW: Davidon;Comments For the record. From: CDD Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:27 AM To: Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Davidon.Comments From: Susan Thompson [mailtothompsonsusan @att.net] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:59_PM To: CDD Subject: Davidon Comments I do not live in Victoria, West Haven, or other neighborhoodsr that.will be more directly affected by the Davidon development. However, I live in Petaluma,and regardless of where development occurs it creates an impact on all of us. Ninety-three homes on sixty acres is excessive and I hope that the City and Davidon will agree to build fewer homes on the property: Nearby Kelly Creek, existing neighbors, and future traffic issues should be considered carefully in the final decision. I also suggest to the City and Davidon that "McMansion" developments are on the wane, and smaller eco-friendly homes are on,the rise. As this particular development has been in the pipeline for many years, we probably cannot stop the train that has already left the station, but it is indeed unfortunate that Davidon cannot "retool" the architecture of these homes to reflect a more modest and sensible design. Full disclosure: I am from Honolulu and and 'flake many trips back-and forth.I am sensitive to development and all it spawnsand would suggest that the City of Petaluma take a "less is more" approach to the Davidon proposal. Sincerely, Susan Thompson Susan Thompson 11 Hinman St. Petaluma, CA 94952 17 5-35 707 769-0566 "It suddenly struck me that that.tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the.Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my'thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like`a.giant. I felt very, very small". -Neil Armstrong' • • 4a 5-,? Giudice, Alicia I From: Hines, Heather ;Sent: Monday; March_25, 201319:34 AM To: Giudite,vAlitia Subject: FW: Davidon EIR Davidon public comment letter From: Michael Healy [mailto:mthealy@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:03 AM To: Hines, Heather Subject: Fw: Davidon EIR Forwarded Message , From: Chey Moore <cmoe6(a comcast.net> To daveglass @comcast.net,councilman.albertson(a gmail:com; teresa4petaluma(a)comcast.net`mike4pet(�aol.com; mthealv(o?sbcglobal.net; counciimemberkeamernme.com; kathleericmilleroffice(a�gmail`com; cityclerk(a)ci petal u ma.ca.us - Cc:petro(rDcomcast.net Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:44 PM Subject: Davidon EIR Dear City Council members, A criteria of the EIR is: Current.traffic--data°must be used to establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The draft EIR for the Davidon proposed development at D Street and Windsor"contains traffic studies that are out of date. The transportation and traffic analysis data was originally obtained in 2003, almost 10 years ago! and verified against counts from 2011. That data is not current. There are many factors that will influence these counts One factor could be the economic recession, which would have brought down the figures substantially. There are many current signs that we are coming out of the recession, which will increase the'traffie"counts. Another factofwould:be the.increase,of cars due to the highway construction at,the Novato narrows. The change in traffic pattern,has,significantly increased traffic coming into Petaluma from D Street extension. There are no studies in the DEIR showing traffic'counts at San Antonia Road coming-into Petaluma. Additionally, theDEIR-shows the proposed development will add 890 daily car trips onto D Street. There are areas on D Street that show a LOS "D" rating. The increase of the traffic would not only lower that LOS rating, which is notacceptable in.the General Plan, buf:also result in substantial safety risks. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct ' Petaluma, CA 94952 1 zo 5-31 Giudice, Alicia_ From Hines,Heather Sent: Monday,;March 25, 2013 9:34 AM To: Giudiee, Alicia Subject: FWi Davidon,DEIR • Ali, Public comment for Davidon DEIR Forwarded Message From: Chey Moore <cmoe6Acomcast.net>- To: daveglass(a�comcast.net;councilmantalbertson(a�gmail com; teresa4petaluma{a�comcast.net; mike4pet(o�aol.com; mthealy(a�sbcglobal.net; councilmembeikearney(came:com,tkathleencmilleroffice(aomail.com; cityclerk(cilci:peta lu ma:ca.us Cc: petrp(a comcast.net Sept: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:49 PM Subject: Davidon DEIR , Dear City Council members, I 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 be 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 thesame,characteristic Of the proposed development because we are located on the same land, side by side. The -Victoria subdivision has,a history of landslides—.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 River. The creek actually has an easement.on.privateproperty which makes the homeowners liable for erosion'repair, which determines if the creek even runs through. The Victoria subdivision has to be included in 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 theimpacts,:otherwise the city would not have allowed him to build. We have history of facts to counter the mitigations. Thank you, Chey.IVloore 52 Oxford Ct Petaluma CA 94952 21 5.3% Giudice„Alicia From: Hines, Heather • Sent Monday; March 25, 2013,9:31 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Subject: FW:'Davidon DEIR Public comment'letter From: Michael Healy [mailto:mthealv@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:06 AM To: Hines, Heather Subject: Fw: Davidon DEIR Forwarded Message From: Chey Moore <cmoe6( comcast net? To: daveglasscomcast.net; councilman.albertson(a�gmail tom;teresa4petaluma(a�comcast.net; mike4pet[&aol.com; mthealv(o?sbcglobal.net,:councilmemberkearnev(ame.com; kathleer icmllleroffice(a�gmail:com; cityclerk(a)ci.petalu ma,ca.us Cc:petrp(a)comcast.net Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:52 PM Subject: Davidon DEIR Dear City Council members, Section 2. Summary The project lists mitigation Measure Trans-.7 to install-an asphalt-concrete,path;along the east side of D Street for,pedestrian,travel. Pedestrians will need to cross over D Street roundabout crosswalk to access a safe sidewalk for travel. D Streetis`a maurartery of travel, a very busy street,-with cars and trucks speeding into Petaluma. A pedestrian roundabout crosswalk across 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 overD Street. We are requesting another asphalt eoncrete.path be installed along-the west side of D Street to provide a five foot wide-pedestrian travel path where:itwill.connect to the existing concrete sidewalk. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct Petaluma CA 94952 22 5 39 Giudice, Alicia From Patti Trimble<pmtrim @gmail.corn> Sent: . Saturday,;March 23, 2013 1:39 PM To: petaluniaplanning Subject: Current building plans for Petaluma Attachments: Dear Petaluma Planning Comrnission.doc Dear Planning Commission, Attached is a letter, and also pasted in below. Thank you, Patti Trimble Dear Petaluma Planning Commission, I.am writing for two reasons. The`first`is to protest the anew construction planned for Sunny slope and D Streets. The second is to offer suggestions for the proposed construction near the downtown Petaluma Depot. And these two plans'are related. I am a writer and an artist:.have lived in Sonoma County for 24 years, in downtown Petaluma for the last five. I'm also a native to North Marin, and have known Petaluma since the 1960s,watched it change and grow. I have also lived in New York, Italy, and San:Francisco,,and have seen changestin California and the world and know that planning is everything. Regarding the proposed Davidon development,we've all been to Walnut•.Creek,-(and Rohnert Park) and are sure we don't want,Petaluma tolook like that I'm afraid that will be the end result of okaying developments,on a piecemeal fashion, especially using';developers-from Walnut Creek. No imagination, really! I am amazed-how many times, when atparties in San Francisco, I tell people I live in Petaluma and they say they are thinking-,of moving here! Artists,,academics, architects, writers . . . And the next thing they say is "It's, really got a heart,,a.downtown, I like-the old feeling, the open space, the community feeling, places to walk. It would be nice to get a little place,there."� 23 5-40 They don't say they want to move,to Walnut Creek because they`want'a,Mini-mansion and shopping centers. Thisweek I?finally looked at the plan for the walkable downtown area surrounding the Smart Train Depot, and was so appreciative you are planning pedestrian-friendly connections. I-al'so saw that some of the buildings may be 5-6 stories, and the population dense in that area I live on Wilson St., south of D, and although I like my quiet neighborhood, I am nevertheless all for building densely in the downtown area So many studies support dense inner cities surrounded by open"space as a moresustainable way'to develop, building better community, better quality of life. So please understand Lam not saying don't build in my back-yard. But I wonder if eventual tax revenue from this downtown dense:construction cant be applied to extend park-land and public use on the periphery of town: specifially out D`St. Please try to think more imaginatively-about this new development! Petaluma has a chance to keep it's identity as a unique, charming yet affordable,,livable town: it will attract day visitors and new residents, and keep its uniqueness:if only the planning commission has a bit more imagination'and vision. We already have rhonert park, etc etc. My suggestions are: Stop the Davidon development:there are plenty of Livermore locationsfor things like this. If the Davidon development is going-ahead,regardless,insist on a topnotch EIR! instead of the shoddy work done so far. Increase-density downtown and use tax revenues for park-landlon Petaluma's`periphery with trails and corridors connecting to Helen Putnam, keeping the red barn. For now: take it more slowly: fora couple of years, lease they farmland back to existing dairy ranchers to keep Petaluma's historic charm,lease until downtown developments are complete,so you can plan later with:a`much better understanding of what Petaluma needs. The smart train and interoior construction will change many things. • Also,as I.urge you, to have a bit more imagination as you finalize plans: here is a.great'idea.for the depot area: Petaluma is charming„known for:it's charm. The new construction near the movie theater has not met expectations to invite pedestrian traffic, tourism, etc? Seriously,who goes there unless they have to except kids'? Both tourists and_residents,prefer the older sections of town. For a reason, charm, history, etc. 24 5-4( SO why.not scour Sonoma,Napa,;Lake_counties for historic buildings that can be saved and moved into the depot,section. Maybe three per block set them in, andfill in new construction around them. This would create a seamless mixed architectural design to:the downtown area, become an attraction-for its unique vision, keep all of Petaluma charming, make people actually want:to walk around!,And what a great thing to see when you b> P P y get off the train. In downtown San Jose,even with a topnotch.Modern museum, the newer parts are so unimaginative, visitors just don't go there. and yet, in towns like San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Larkspur are just nice places to both live and spend the day. Tax revenues, tax revenues, businesses, homes! The historic buildings could be used.as:restaurants (charming) or offices. or more antique malls to entice train riders in, or even built into larger complexes the way Berlin has built its few surviving old buildings into the modern city. Please consider using your imaginations and helping Petaluma keep its existing charm. Thank you, Patti Trimble 324 Wilson St. Petaluma, CA 94952 707 360 8189 pmtrim(a)gmail.com www.pattitriinble.coni 25 6-4? ,Giudice, Alicia From Donna;Emerson <donna Imerson05 @gmail.corn> Sent: Friday,,March 22; 2013 10:34 PM To: ,Giudice, Alicia Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; Kathleen Miller; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:com; Petalumans forResponsible Planning; Ray Johnson; Teresa;Barrett;wolpert@ sonic.net;'daveglass@comcast.net. councilman:albertson @gmail. corn mike4petaluma @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @he.com Subject Increased concerns re: developer Davidon's confused EIR Attachments: Dear Planning Comm'rs.doc Dear Planning Commissioners and Petaluma City Council Members: • After reading the DEIR and speaking at the Planning Commission meeting with 34 other concerned Petalumans, from all over the West side on March 12, the attached,letter addresses my deepening concern that we have an inadequate EIR and a confusing list of changes that has no current map from Davidon. You planning commissioners•agreed on March 12'that the EIR was deficient: This'.is not.a stable'and finite plan. See attached. Sincerely, Donna Emersop(resident of Petaluma,since 1986) 111 Dublin Court Petaluma, CA, 94952 27 5-43 Giudice, Alicia From: Lani'`Sezton <lanisexton @hotmail.com> Sent:. Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:22 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yah lo.com; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoolcom; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert@sonic.net, kathleencmilleroffice @gmail:com;;terry@cozyhomes.com; joenoriel @gmail.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com; r• thealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com Subject: Comment- Davidon DEIR; To: the Petaluma Planning Commission We were unable to attend last.week's.meeting. From what we've read,•you'had plenty of viewpoints to listen to! We'd like to add our voice to the process: I My husband and I moved.to•.Petaluma lastsumrner. After ran extensive search throughout;Sonoma county we chose a house in the Victoria neighborhood. We were drawn to the natural beauty of the:pasture and valley as you made the turn onto Windsor: We fell in love with the sense of history you get all through Petaluma in it's careful preservation/ restoration of historical buildings: It instantly.gives this community a feeling of home. I don't know how these things can be quantified and put in a power point,but.l do know that they are important to the character of Petaluma and need to be protected. So many issues are raised by Davidon's-development plans: First, filling.the pasture and valley with 93 homes is completely unacceptable. We came from Safi Anselmoand over the 27 years there witnessed first-hand the consequences of over-building, flooding in-town and along creeks, landslides, increased traffic, loss of habitat for threatened species. It looks like over the last 9 years, Petaluma did it's due diligence in adopting the general plan 2025. We strongly urge that any projects'in town are held to the standards outlined there. In going through the DEIR,the scope of project that we would support islaid,out'imfigure 6-3,Alternative D (28 single- family lots)Site Plan. It places the houses away from the creek, protects themative trees and frogs along the creek, mitigates the impact on traffic, preserves the historical barn and the valley-view from not only Windsor and D but from Helen Putnam Park, a source of enjoyment.forall Petalumens. Thanks,for your thoughtful consideration of all these issues. Lani & Dan Sexton k Sent from my iPad 129 4J-4If Giudice, Alicia From: Katherine] Rinehart <KJRinehart@Comcast:net> Sent Tuesday,,March 19, 201317:55 PM To: Giudice, Alicia; Hines, Heather Cc Melissa Abercrombie;Jennifer Pierre; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com;Alicia Kae Herries; rayvs @pacbell.net;,Bill Wolpert; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; David Glass; Chris Albertson; Michael Healy;Teresa Barrett; Mike Harris; Gabe Kearney; Cooper, Claire; Brown,John; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Terry Kosewic; Petaluma Museum Subject: Question about DavidonDraft EIR review Hello: Since the red barns are of historic value at the local level (at the very least),why weren't the "historic" reps to the Planning Commission(Terry Kosewic;and,Joe Noriel) present at last Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting in which Davidon's Draft EIR for the,Scott Ranch was discussed? Also, it seems as though Davidon is surprised by the community's reaction: I find this puzzling in that they've known since at least 2007 that there were some major-issues of concern - including presevation of the red barns. We may have some new/different council and planning commission members, but this is not a new proposal. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Katherine J. Rinehart, MA Historian P 0 Box 163 Petaluma, CA 94953 (707) 766-9462 30 5-145 G udice,,Alicia, From: cathy?edmondson.cath @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March'19, 2013`!11:57 AM To: Pat S 1 Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.corn dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo,'com; akherries @comcast:net; rayvs@pacbell net Bill Wolpert'; kathleencmilleroffice @gr ail.com,Giudice, Alicia; terry @kozyhomes.com; joenoriel @gmail.com; 'Dave Glass',councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmeintierkearney @1me.com;'- City Clerk; 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning'; trevor:Pitts@ poboxcom;';FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.com;"'Knudson, Thom'; bbredo@sonoma-county'org;Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Bates, Curtis; norquistl0 @comcast net;vencel903 @yahoe.com Subject: Re: Comments on DEIR - H Putnam'Park andDavidon & Horne Association I absolutely agree that there must be an HOA! We insisted onitfor,West Haven, and the,developer readily complied. Imagine the difficulties that2could•arise if they had no way to,coordinate (and finance) common space items like managing the open spaces for fire safety, slides, flooding; and path upkeep. It's as true for Davidon as it was for West Haven. Otherwise, that responsibility will devolve to the city and neighboring properties, right? Cathy Edmondson 1237 B St. On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Pat IS wrote; I did not see the Draft EIR address the need for a homeowners association. And`,yes,'this seems to me to be related to the environment. There are likely many reasons this:is'of'concern.At a minimum there are at least 5 reasons - beyond the usual need for one. These include to have representatives to:' -establish/maintain a relationship with the park -deal with inevitable water issues - "actively"maintain the,pond(s) for handling water runoff, -interact with the Victoria Associations - be responsible on a daily basis for&to maintain the Red Barns. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 31 5- 469 Giudice;.Alicia, ;I From:. cathy <edmondson:cathy @gmail.com? Sent: Tuesday; March 19, 201341:45 AM To: Pat'S Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yah Io.com', 'dennis elias @cbnorcal.corn 'oldeastpetaluma@ yahoo.com'; 'akherries @comcast;net 'rayvs@ pacbell.net'; wolpert@ sonic.net; 'katlileencmilleroffice @gmail.corn; 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us'; terry@kozyhomes.com;jiienoriel @gmail:com;jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.corn; dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.com; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell:net; Bill Wolpert; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;Giudice, Alicia; daveglass @comcast.net'; councilman.albertson @gmail.com'; 'teresa4petaluma @comcast.net 'mike4pet@ aol.corn';,'mthealy @sbcglobal.net'; 'councilineniberkearney @me.com; cityclerk @ei.petaluma:ca.us; Petalumans for Responsible Planning;trevor.pitts @pobox.com; FUTURE2QUEST @gmaitcom; Knudson, Thom; bbredo @sonoma.,county.org;Jeff;Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Dave Glass; councilman.albertson @gmail.com;teresa4petaluma @coincast.net; mthealy @sbcglobal.net councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; Bates, Curtis; norquistIO @comcast.net;l vence1903 @yahoo:com Subject: Re: Cominents on'DEIR - H Putnam Park and:Dacidon & Home Association I absolutely agree that there must be an HOA! We insisted on;itfor West Haven,and the developer readily complied. Imagine the difficulties that"could'arise.ifthey had no way to;coordinate (and finance) common space items, like managing the open spaces for fire safety, slides, flooding; and path upkeep. It's as true for Davidon as it was for West Haven. Otherwise, that responsibility will devolve to the city and neighboring properties, right? Cathy Edmondson 1237 B St. On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Pat S.wrote: I did not see the Draft EIR address the need fore homeowners association. And.yes,this seems to fie to be related to the environment. There are likely many reasons this is of concern. At a minimum there are at least 5 reasons- beyond the usual need,for one. These Include to have representatives to: - establish / maintain a relationship with the park -deal With inevitablewaterissues - "actively' maintainithq pond(s) for handling water runoff, - interact with the Victoria Associations - be responsible on a daily basis for&to maintain the Red Barns. Thank,youforall you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 32 6- 41 Giudice,,Alicia From:: Gregory L. Colvin <colvin @adlercolvin.com> Sent: Monday; March<18; 2013112:59 PM To: Giudice, Alicia 71 Cc: Thomsen, Leslie; Hines, Heather Subject: RE: Updated Davidon EIR]information Alicia: l Thanks, but this still doesn't answer all the questions'I asked in the prior email of 10:49 am today. And, even with these maps, I still can't see where the number"58" came from. Greg Colvin • - Original Message From: Giudice, Alicia [mailto:AGIUDICE @ci:petaluma.ca.usl Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:25 AM To: Gregory L. Colvin Cc: Thomsen, Leslie; Hines, Heather Subject: RE: Updated Davidon EIR information Greg, attached are the maps I used in my point presentation, in my prior email,the proposal has not changed. The application is for a 93=lot subdivision. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Alicia Giudice From: Gregory L. Colvin [colvin @adlercolvin.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:14 PM' To: Giudice,Alicia Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Updated Davidon EIR information Alicia, based on your presentation to:thePlanning Commission on Tue Mar 12, it seems that you'have new information, that the numbers`of houses and lots to:be;developed under each of the Alternatives, and the main proposal, has, changed'from the DEIR,numbers.. Also, you have new maps showing the proposal and alternate plans. I would like to come by your'office Mon Mar 18, between 9 and 10 am, and get copies,of that new info, in whatever form you may have it, so that we can respond to,the new, accurateiinformation:instead of what is in the DEIR. Please.let:me know if this will work foryou. Greg Colvin' Political Director P.etalumans for Responsible Planning I I I '33 5-4S Giudice, Alicia From: Gregory L4Colvin <colvin @adlercolvin.com> Sent: Monday; March 18, 2013110:49 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: jaderstrom @comcast:neti'Chey Moore' Subject: RE`. Davidon DEIR' redo'i eliminate confusion Alicia,thanks for your reply, although I`am notable to derive the results you described in your presentation without knowing your exact methodology. How were you planning to get me the maps you spoke of? 'Email would,be best. It would be really helpful if you could email me the PowerPoint yowshowed'atthe Planning Commission as well. Even with your response below, I am still not able to determine how the figures you gave were derived: 1. Where does the figure,"58 homes" come from? 2. For each of the Alternatives B, C,and D, how do the numbers change when you apply the mitigations as you did? B. 66 homes becomes ? Which lots would be removed? Why? C. 47 homes becomes ? Which lots+would be removed? Why? D. 28 homes becomes ? Which lots would be removed? Why? 3. Who gave the word to apply these mitigations and produce different numbers? Es that just the internal work of your office? Did that come from WRA, the;EIR,consultant firm? Or from the applicant Davidon? 4. When will Heather Hines' summary of the PlanningtCommission's comments be finished and available? I will be out of town for a few days, so please reply to Susan and Chey as well as me; theiremails are cc'd here. Greg Colvin Original Message From: Giudice, Alicia [mailto:AGIUDICE @ci:petaluma.ca.us] Sent: Monday, March 18,2013 10:18 AM To Gregory L. Colvin Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR-redo,to'eliininete confusion Mr. Colvin, Thank you for your;email.The°n`umber:of lots proposed is correctly identified in the,DEIR, and the project description is accurate. The total proposed by the'applicant is 93 single family lots. However,the DEIR evaluated the impacts of the proposed project and;determined that mitigation measures!intended to reduce the those impacts would be necessary. Some of these.mitigationmeasures resulted in elimination of some of the units that the applicant has proposed. At the 35 5-49 Planning?Commission meeting,.Staff,,presented a diagram showing;the visual effect ofthe mitigation measures described in the DEIR and the resultinglot:count of the proposed projectafter mitigation. Alternatives to the project were included;inthe DEIR in compliancetwith.CEQA and the:CEQA Guidelines, e.g. section 15126:6. Because for this project, reduction:of impacts is largely a`function of number and location of lots,the alternatives reduce the number of lots to evaluate the effect of a smaller project the project's overall impacts. Prospective site layout maps for the alternatives were added to provide additional visual information and a clearer understanding of the alternative scenarios after mitigation:I The DEIR evaluates the mitigation measures applicable to the alternatives and explains how the mitigation measures as applied to the alternatives affect the resulting unit count for each alternative. All of this information is provided in the DEIR's narrative text Staff provided diagrams of the alternatives and the effect of the mitigation measures on each alternative at Tuesday night's meeting to illustrate the DEIR narrative. I recommend using the proposed projeet site plan to refer to lot numbers for purposes of the mitigation measures and the project description, which has not changed, for information about the proposed project prior to application of the mitigation measures. I am not in the office this morning but did alsoireceive your requesffor the alternatives maps that were shown . I am working on getting those to you if you have not already received them. From: Gregory L. Colvin [colvin @adlercolvincom] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:22 PM To 'jenpierrepetaluma@ yahoo:com 'dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com'; 'Melissa Abercrombie', 'akherries @comcast.net', 'rayvs @pacbell.net; 'wolpert@ sonic.net'; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.coni'; Hines, Heather; Giudice, Alicia Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR- redo to eliminate confusion And the maps,too, showing the new numbers and lot locations, need to be re-issued. People making comments are referring to specific lots they think should be eliminated ormoved, which will be misdirected if the existing DEIR maps are wrong. Aren't we entitled to:a`"stable,finite project description" in the DEIR under CEQA? Greg From: Gregory L. Colvin Sent: Wednesday,'March„13, 2013-7:06'AM To 'jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com 'dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com "Melissa Abercrombie'; 'akherries @comcast:net', 'rayvs @pacbell.net, 'wolpert@ sonic.net'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail,com'; 'Hines, Heather'; 'agiud ice @ci.petaluma.ca.us' Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR 36 5-So Just a;brief note,to say: I don!:t.know howthe public comment period can continue:based.on the.DEIR`released on Feb.14th'.if th&number of houses.in the proposal and its principal alternatives has changed. Aside from those who attended the Commission hearing last night,the public willlview the DEIR,and respond to it based on incorrect information stated in it. And those of us;who"did attend are left confused by the various numbers thrown around. I:see no alternative but for this DEIReto be'revisedso it shows the correct.numbers and be released again, with new notices and a new comment period. Thank you. Greg Colvin 111 Dublin Ct Gregory L. Colvin Adler& Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) colvin @ad lercolvin.com<mailto:colvin @adlercolvi n:com> 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 e-mail the sender at colvin @adlercolvin.com, and delete all copies of this message and its attachments,if any. Thank you. 37 5-51 Giudice; Alicia horn • Gregory L. Colvin <colvin @adlercolvin.corn> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:15 PM To: Giudice; Alicia Cc: Hines, Heather Subject: Updated Davidon EIR information Alicia, based on your presentation to the Planning Commission on Tue Mar:12 it seems that you have new information, that:the numbers of houses and lotsto be developed'uhdereach of the Alternatives, and the main proposal, has changed from the.DEIR numbers. Also, you have new'maps showing the proposal and alternate plans. I would like to come by your office Mon;Mar'18, between 9 and 10 am, and get copies of that new info, in whatever form you may have it, so that we can.respond'to the'new, accurate information instead of what is in'the,DEIR. Please let me know if this will work for you: Greg Colvin Political Director • Petalumans for Responsible Planning 38 6-5z Giudice„Alicia From: Pat tS}<adepasl @comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March'15,,2013 6:56 PM To: jenpierrepetaluma@ yahoo.com; d'ennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:com; akherries @comcast:net; rayvs@)pacbell net Bill Wolpet; kathleencmilleroffice @grhail.com; Giudice, Alicia;terry@kozyhomes.com; joenoriel @gmail.com i Cc: 'Dave Glass';"councilman:albertson @gmail.com;,teresa4petaluma @comcast:net; mike4pet 0aol;com; mthealy @sbcglobal:net; councilmemberkearney @me:com; - City Clerk; 'Petalumans`for Responsible Planning, trevor.pitts @pobox.com; 'cathy edmondson',;FUTURE2QUEST @gmail:com; 'Knudson, Thorn'; bbredo @sonoma- county.org;Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-countyorg; Bates, Curtis; norquistl0 @comcast.net; vence1903 @yahoo.com; ',Petalumans foriResponsible'Planning' Subject Comments on DEIR.- H Putnam Park and Davidon & Home Association I did not see the Draft EIR address the needier homeowners association.And'yes,'this seems to me to be related to the environment. There are likely many reasons this is of concern. At a minimum there are at least+5 reasons - beyond the usual need for one. These include to have representatives to. -establish/maintain a relationship with`the park -deal with inevitable water issues - "actively" maintain the pond(s) for handling water runoff, - interact with the Victoria Associations - be responsible on a daily basis for&to maintain the Red Barns. • Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 39 5-53 Giudice, Alicia From: Pat;S<adepasl @comcast.net> Sent:. Friday; March 15, 2013 6:52 PM To: Jenpieriepetaluina @yahoo.com .dennis:elias @cbnorcal:com'; 'oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.com'; akherries @comcast.net; 'rayvs @pacbell.net; 'wolpert@ sonic.net'; kathleencmilleroffice@ gmail.com';r'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us'; terry@kozyhomes:com;joenoriel@ gmail.com;.jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis'elias @cbnorcal.con; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:com; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs@pacbell:net; 'Bill Wolpert; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;Giudice, Alicia Cc: 'daveglass @comcast.net';'councilman.albertson @gmail.com'; 'teresa4'petaluma @comcast.net'; 'mike4pet @aol.com'; 'mthealy @sbcglobal.net; 'councilmemberkearney @me.com!; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; 'cityclerk @ci:petaluma.ca.'us'; 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning'; trevorpitts @pobox.com;'cathy edmondson'; FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.com; 'Knudson, Thom.; bbredo @sonoma county,org;Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county.org; 'Dave Glass'; councilman.albertson @gtnail.com teresa4petaliima @coincast.net; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me:com; - City Clerk; Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Bates, Curtis;norquist10 @comcast.net; vence1903 @yahoo-corn;'Petaluman's for Responsible;:Planning';trevor.pitts @pobox.com; 'cathy edmondson';:FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.com; Knudson, Thom; bbredo @sonoma- county.org; Bates, Curtis;norquist10 @eomcast.net; vence1903 @yahoo.corri Subject: Comments on DEIR - H Putnam Park and Davidon& Home Association I.did not seethe Draft ER address the need for a homeowners association. And yes, this seems to me to be related to the environment. There are likely many reasons this is of concern. At minimum there are at least•5 reasons -beyond the usual need for one. These include to have representatives to: -establish /maintain a relationship with the park -deal with inevitable water issues - "actively" maintain the pond(s) for handling water runoff, - interact with the Victoria Associations - be responsible on a daily basis for&to maintain the Red Barns. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 140 5-54. Giudice,,Alicia From W.T. Knudson <wtknudsl n @BNKLaw;net> Sent: Friday, March.'15,.2013 4:09 PM To: Pat S;jenpierrepetaluma@yahoo com;.dennis elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo}com; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; 'Bill Wolpert'; kathleencmilleroffice @grnail.com;Giudice, Alicia;joenoriel @gmail.com; terry @kozyhomes.com Cc: 'Dave Glass; councilman,)Ibertson @gmail com;teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; Jeff:Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Bates, Curtis;,norquist10 @comcast.net; vence1903 @yahoo:com;°'Petalumans for Responsible Planning'; trevor.pitts @pobox:com; 'cathy edmondson'; FUTURE2QUEST @grnail.com;'bbredo @sonoma-county.org Subject: RE: Comments on DEIR - H Putnam Park:andDavidon... and the creek I would like to clarify a couple of points;which Pat made regarding Putnam Parkand the parking issue. First, I am not opposed to seeing some development by Davidon ori:the subject property. However, Pat stated that Putnam Park is;a "pay-for" park. That is not exactly the case: The county is prohibited from charging fees for county parks by prior county ordinance. Because the general',fund does not provide enough for park maintenance, they have always charged fees for-parking, a`s that is not prohibited by the ordinance. In fact the parking fees account for more than half of the total parks budget. The walking path/fire road was originally built with the combined agreement of County Parks, City of Petaluma &the Victoria developer. At that it was[clearlydesignated only for bicycle and pedestrian access, and that the residential streets of Victoria would not be used by park visitors for parking. It was understood that if people were allowed to park there, it would undercut the parks budget. In addition, Oxford Court was not required to be configured for that kind of parking volume. Therefore, as a.mitigatibn,the DEIR for Victoria stated clearly thatthe residential streets would not be used as parking for park visitors. That DEIR by both the planning commission and city council. Despite requests from the residents and from the Director of County Parks, the City has not responded to the.situation. For many years, it was not an issue because use Of the park was very light Butthe,popularity of Putnam understandably continues to grow. Due to publication in the newspaper and on the internet,`we began to see 150 to 200 cars a day coming to the park, and I am sure that the number is now greater. In the last three years alone, the Oxford Ct street has degraded to the point of needing resurfacing. As faras I;can tell,the Davidon DEIR does not include Victoria in its cumulative traffic figures, and perhaps not Pinnacles either. Certainly,there is no figure included for the existing or future increasein Putnam Park traffic. While I welcome the;possibility that Davidon might build a new, convenient parking lot off D Street, experience dictates that the lot will remain-empty. Visitors:will,avoid the parking fees by using residential'streets if available. Even-frequent visitors who would be paying,the equivalent of 25 to 50 cents per visit with an annual pass.currently'avoid purchasing the pass. The only possible mitigation is restricted residential only parking in the new Davidon development as well as Victoria. - It is surprising that the.Davidori DEIR does not discuss the impact of park visitors, even though it was anticipated 20 years ago in the Victoria EIR"and:is now readily-apparent. ' 141 5-55 Warren Thom Knudson Behrens,`Nelsmr& Knudson 36'Fifth Street Petaluma,CA 94952 (707)763-1911 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS,PRIVILEGED AND CON EIDEN"II AL;AND nYS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.NAMED ABOVE AND U HERS WHO HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED"TO RECEIVE TT.IF YOU ARE NOT DIE IN TENDED REC'IPIEN'T ANY DISSEMSNA HON, DISTRIBUTION.USE OR COPYING OF I HIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED 1 IIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, ('LEASE CONTACT THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY . From: Pat 5 [mailto:adepasl @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:09 PM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.corn, dennis.elias @cbnorcal:cor ; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:corn, akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; 'Bill Wolpert'; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; agiudice @ti.petaluma.ca.us; joenoriel @gmail.com; terry@kozyhomes.com Cc: 'Dave Glass'; councilman.albertson@grnail.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast,,net;mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.corn; cityclerk @ci:petaluma.cagus, Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county.org; cbates @ci.petaluma.ca.us; norquist10 @comcast.net; vence1903 @yahoo:com; 'Petalurnans for Responsible Planning'; trevor.pitts @pobox.com;'cathy edmondson';FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.com; W. T.Kriudson;bbredo @sonoma-county.org Subject: Comments on DEIR - H Putnam'Park<and Davidon... and the creek Resending - not all rec'd the first time -today. Sorry if this is a repeat for you. Pat From: Pat S fmailto:adeoasl@comcast":nett Sent Friday; March 15, 2013 12:22 PM • To: 'jenpierrepetaluma@ yahoo.com';,'dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com'; 'oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.com'; 'akherries@ comcast.net'; 'rayvs @pacbell.net';'w olpert@ sonic.net'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com'; 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us' Cc: 'daveglass @comcast.net;'councilman:albertson @gmail.com'; 'teresa4petaluma @comcast.net'; 'mike4pet @aol.com; 'mthealy @sbcglobal.net,'councilmemberkearney @me.corn'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.corn', 'cityclerk @ci.petaluma.ca.us', 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning'; 'trevor.pitts @pobox.com', 'cathy edmondson', 'FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.corn', 'Knudson,Thom'; 'bbredo @sonoma-county:org'; Jeff:Taylor @sonoma-county.org'; 'cbates @ci.petaluma.ca.us'; 'norquist10@ comcast:net; 'vente1903 @yahoo.com'; 'bwhitake @sonoma-county.org' Subject: RE: Comments on DEIR:= H Putnam Park and Davidon... and the creek I saw nothing in the DEIR about H Putnam Park being a for-pay park. There are plans for a publicwalking connection from somewhere on this property up to the park..From.an Oxford Ct perspective -actuallywe live directly across from the entrance to the'fireroad'[free entrance];to,HPP - is our observationthat,people like the park, but don't want to pay for it. When we moved here 7yearsago-this was a'pretty peaceful situation and we,were happy'to sharethe park..However two things have changed all that. One was an articl •ih the,Arqus,about how this was a great way to get excercise;etc. for free-to park on Oxford Ct. and.enter-via ahe,fre road. -The other is the Viral natufe:of.themet, Facebook, etc. I regularly see;groups of people:meetinadp, introducing themselves.and going forhikes/walks/runs. Gyrtis'use it for,activitiesj other organizations meet'here too. An on line search of HPP a fewrmonths ago showed,a,:full page of references'to Oxford Ct. It Was not Until you got on other pages%that you could seethe official entrance;is on Cheleno Valley Road. 'I ll This entrance is on a blind curve; on a hill, with:driveways and children playing on the sidewalk:.There is no sidewalk on the park side. So after people drive fast up the hill and parkdthey unload buggies, dogs, children and then walk in the 42 cc T middle of the'street'to gettotthe;park. This is a dead end street and it is oftafccro'iided'..It's not a,safe situation. I recently saw a woman at he top of the hill, in'the middleof.the.street with a dog,straining;on:'its leash.aimingfor the park; a child in the.same hand as the leash; and the motherstraining to reach across the road to a smaller child who was wandering away from her. A few minutes later shehadthe little one's breeches pulled down so'theycould pee in the weeds near the water fountain. There is a rest room at the Cheleno Valley entrance. When the Davidon rep addressed the Victoria group last Nov he showed a parking lot'off D St south of the barn. The idea was that people could park there and walk along the creek up to thejpark. That is nowhere to be seen in the DEIR, So I finish with concern about the parklosing out on needed resources and people playing dangerously in front of our home. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. ps Has anyone assessed how Kelly Creek+would fare if it were opernto the public?'It.seems to.me the banks are subject to erosion? I realize it appears the'cows have^had access, but people are pretty determined to have adventures these days. I have had to holler often at people riding bikes straight down the hill in front ofour home[no, not on the paved path]. The park recenty moved the sign'saying'this isisentive habitat into the middle of the "path" that has been worn thru by adventure seekers. Some limited, supervised:access to the creek[say of classes with teachers]might be great. '43 6-51 • Giudice, Alicia From: Pat$ <adepasl @comcast.net> Sent: Friday„March 15, 2013 3:09 PM To: jeripierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis:elia"s@cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo con; akherries@ comcast.net;'rayvs @pacbell.net; 'Bill Wolper; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia;joenoriel @gmail.com; terry@kozyhomes.com Cc 'Dave Glass"councilman:albertson @gmail.com, teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; 'City Clerk; Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county.org; Bates,:Curtis; norduist10 @comcast.net;vence1903 @yahoo.corn; 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning';trevor.pitts @pobox.com; 'cathy edmondson';FUTURE2QUEST @grnail.com;'Knudson,Thom'; bbredo @sonoma- county.org Subject: Comments on DEIR- H Putnam Park and.Davidon::. and the creek Resending - not all rec'd the first time-•today. Sorry if this is a repeat for you. Pat From: Pat S [mailto:adepasl @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:22 PM To 'jenpierrepetaluma@yahoo.corn', 'dennis.elias @cbnorcai.corn', `oldeastpetaluma @yahoo:com'; 'akherries @comcast.net; 'rayvs @pacbelf.net;.'wolpert@sonic.net'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com'; 'agiudice @ci.petaluma.ca.us' Cc: 'daveglass @comcast.net; 'councilman.albertson @gmail com'; 'teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; 'mike4pet @aol.com'; 'mthealy @sbcglobal.net'; 'councilmehiberkearney @me.com'; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com'; 'cityclerk@ci.petaluma.ca.us', 'Petalumans for Responsible Planning''trevor:pitts @pobox.corn', 'cathy edmondson'; 'FUTURE2QUEST @gmail.com'; 'Knudson,'Thom';'bbredo @sonoma-county.org'; 'Jeff.Taylor @sonoma-county:org'; 'cbates@ci.petaluma.ca.us, 'norquistl0 @comcast:net'', 'vence1903 @yahoo.corn'; 'bwhitake @sonoma-county.org Subject: RE: Comments on DEIR - H Putnam Park and.Davidon... and the creek I saw nothing in the DEIR about H PutnamiPark'being a for-pay park. There;are:planS fora public walking connection from somewhere on this property up to•the'park. From an Oxford Ct perspective!-actually we live directly across from the entrance to the fire road [free entrance];to'HPP -it is our observation that people,like the park, but don't want to pay for it Whenwe moved here 7 years ago this°was'a{pretty peaceful situation and we were happy to share the park. However two things have changed all that. One was an article in the,Argus about how;thiswas a great way to get excercise etc."for free-to park on Oxford Ct. and enter via,the fire road. -The other is the'viral nature ofthenet, Facebook, etc. I regularly see;groups of people meeting up, introducing themselves and going for hikes/walks/runs: Gyms use it for activities; other organizations meet here too. An on line search of HPP a'.few months ago;showed a full page of references to Oxford Ct. It was not until;you got on other pages that you could see the official entrance is on Cheleno:Valley Road. This entrance is on•a blind curve; on a hill, with driveways and children playing on the sidewalk: There is no sidewalk on the,park side So after'people drive fast.up;;the hill and park, they unload buggies, dogs, childrenand,then walk in the. middle ofthe street to getto,thepark'This°is a dead end street and it is often crowded. It is not a safe situation. l recently saw a,woman atthettop of the hill in the:middle:of the street with a dog straining,on its leash aiming for the park; a child in the,same hand as the leash;and'the motherstraining"to reach across the road`to`a smaller child who was wandering away fromher. Mew minutes later shed had the little one's breechespulled down so they could pee in the-weeds near the waterfountain. There"is•a•rest room at the Cheleno Valley entrance 44 5-5% When the Davidon rep addressed the Victoria,group last Nov he showed a:parking..lot off D St south of the barn. The idea wasthatpeople could park there,and walk atong`the creek up to the„park. That is fnoWnere-to,be seen in the DER.So I finish with concern about the park-losing out on needed resources and people playing dangerously in front of our home. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33'Oxford Ct. p's Has anyone assessed how'Kelly Creek.would'fare if it were open”"-to the public? Itseems to me the banks are subject to erosion? I realize it appears the cows have had access, but people are pretty determined to have adventures these days. I have hadto holler often at people riding',bikesstraight down the hill in frontofour:home [no, not on the paved path]. The park recenty moved the sign saying'this is sentive habitatinto the middle of the "path"that has been worn thru by adventure seekers. Some limited, supervised access to the creek[say of classes with teachers] might be great. • (45 Giudice; Alicia From: Kpiro <kpiro @aol.com> Sent Friday,,March 15, 2013 11:02 AM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.corn; dennis;elias @cbnorcal.corn oldeastpetalurna @yahoo!com; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbeltnet; wolpert @sonic.net; kathleencmilleroffice @ginail.com; Giudice, Alicia; councilman.albertson @grnail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; PetRP @corncast;net; kpiro @aol.com; rolertpiro @aol.com; Jeff.Taylor@sonoma- county.org; Bates, Curtis Brandon.bredo @sonoma-county.org; bwhitake@sonoma- county.org; tpitts @pobox.com; bsumner@sonicnet; edmondson.cathy @gmail.com; norquist10 @comcast.net.vence1903 @yanoo.coin Subject: re: Davidon Draft EIR Dear Members of the Planning Commission.and City Council: According to the'Davidon DEIR Page 2-2: The Kelly Creek open space corridor would be 200 feet wide and would include a meandering public pedestrian/bike path to connect the various project neighborhoods, Windsor Drive and D Street through the creek area with a pedestrian bridge connecting the southern and:northern+neighborhoods or parcels. Off-street public parking is proposed as part of the open space along Windsor Drive to provide public access to the area This pedestrian/bike path would provide for future connection to the Helen Putnam Regional Park trail system at the western edge of the project site. The only map showing this off-streetrpublicparking was Davidon's 66 lot'proposal;Fig 6-1. It proposed approximately 6 parking spaces!!! This will not handle the crowds of cars that will be coming to that:"free" (?) entrance to the park. Oxford Court has been severely impacted with park-visitors who are trying to avoid the countys parking fees at the;official park entrance on Chileno Valley Road. The trafficconditions now on Oxford Court's cul-de-sac have made it terribly unsafe for the park users as well as the homeowners. For the safety of:all, we would strongly.suggest that you implement a "resident-only-parking" in both Davidon and on Oxford Court, and that the city work with Davidon to enlarge that proposed parking lot and work with the county parks to install parking fees at that location to generate much needed funds that maintain the park those visitors are using. Thank you, Kathleen and Robert Piro 37 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA 94952 146 5-Q0 Giudice,,Alicia. From: DavidiPowers'<powers.davidf @gmail.com> Sent: Friday,;Marth.15,.2013 10:58 AM To: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com Cc: kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;'wolpert@sonic:net; rayvs @pacbell.net; akherries @comcast:net; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo com"dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; mike4pet @aol.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; Hines; Heather; Teresa Barrett David Glass;,Giudice, Alicia Subject: Planning Commission, Davidon DEIR To the members of the Planning Commission: I was a member of the audience on Tue-sday night. I was proud to be parrot this community on that evening. While I have grave reservations about the wisdonfofithe Davidon Project on the Scott Ranch site, especially as described in the DEIR as I read it;,l have had even more serious doubts about the ability of our government to respond effectively to proposals like this DEIR. Its complex :contradictory, and burdensomely long. Members of the audience I spoke with expressed dismay and frustration with how difficult it was to wade through it, and, most didn't. But, it was clear that the commission took their responsibility to heart. I was gratified;by the energy and focus of the questions raised by the commission during the comment period. I was even moreimpressedwith.what I felt to be the commission's strong commitment to:fulfilling its role in helping guide the future of Petaluma. Thank you all for hanging in,there for what seemed like an epic session. I am hopeful that when you consider the FEIR that you will bring the same wide-ranging, broad based perspective to'your final analysis. Petaluma is indeed a special place, and your care for its future character is important to everyone in the community. Sincerely, David Powers 47 5-G01 Giu dice,;Alicia From: Chey Moore <cmoe6 @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:53 PM To Giudice, Alicia; akherries @comcast net;wolpert@sonic:net;dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com;,kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoolcom; rayvs @pacbell.net Subject Davidon DEIER Hello Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your attention to the comments and concerns from the public regarding the Davidon DEIR and development. We hope our comments and concerns were clear, on topic,and concise. On the contrary, Davidon's proposed development was completely;unclear, incomplete, and confusing. As I think you all said, the DEIR was not specific to his current proposed project, immensely inadequate, confusing, leaving us with many, many questions. The purposed of the DEIR is to inform the generahpublic, community, state and,federal:agencies of the proposed project and the environmental consequences of approving the proposed project. How can all of the above be informed when he didn't even propose a clear project?` And the number of homes he proposed, whatever it was, was not one of the alternatives in the DEIR. How can we become informed? What are the next steps of the process? I'm unclear why this mess would go before the City Council. Thank you, Chey Moore 52 Oxford Ct 48 ��(0 Giudice, Alicia From: RobertPiro@aol.com Sent Thursday; March 14, 2013 6:01 PM To: jenpierrepetal"uma@ yahoo.com;,dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo,corn; akherries@COmcast net rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert@sonic.net; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice,;Alicia; councilmanialbertson @gmail.com;teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; - City Clerk; daveglass @comcast.net; PetRP @comcast:net Cc: kpiro @aol.com; robertpirb @aol.com Subject: Re: Davidensdevelopment Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear City Planners and Council Members, We would like to;comment that the,Davidon Representatives have stated that they plan to:add another pedestrian entrance to Helen Putnam County Park somewhere:in the project starting near"D" Street Davidon only submitted one map in its EIR (Fig 6-1) The Alternative t3(66 lots) Site Plan"which shows a very,small parking lot for about 6 cars. This does not provide adequate parking spaces for the amount of people that will be using`,that entrance to the park. This needs to be expanded, otherwise park users will be parking;;on "D" Street-'an extraordinary unsafe situation for the citizens of Petaluma. Thank you for your consideration, Robert and Kathleen Piro 37 Oxford Court Petaluma 49 • 5-103 Giudice, Alicia From Camille,Bossenberry <camilleboz @yahoo:com> Sent Thursday; March 14, 2013 10:10 AM To Hiries,.Heather Cc: 'petrp @comcast.net;jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com;;dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma @yahoo com; akherries@ comcast,net;--rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert@sonieihet;.Giudice, Alicia Subject: Proposed development at D Streei and.Windsor Dear Heather, I am a resident of Petaluma and I live on D Street Extension. The Davidson Development directly effects my property and I'd like to voice a concern�I have regarding this project. The draft EIR for Davidon's proposed development at D Street and Windsor Street proposes a mitigation measure for pedestrian safety of extending the sidewalk on thedeast side of D Street from 1315 D Street all the way to the intersection of Windsor,whereit would meet up with a new pedestrian crossing at a roundabout. What is unclear is why the sidewalk would not be extended on;the West side of the street, since that would allow pedestrians from the new development.access to the downtown area without crossing,D Street. Currently the sidewalk ends significantly shorttof Windsor St.,just south of the'intersection of El Rose/ Sunnyslope. The City should require this additional mitigation measure before approving any development on the Scott Ranch site. • Thank you for your consideration. I think,it is important to analyze all impacts this project will have on the neighborhood, community and the environment. Sincerely, CamilleBossenberry 1310 D Street 707-658-2871 50 Giudice, Alicia From Gregory L Colvin <colvin @adlercolvin:com> 'Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:23 PM To: jenpiemepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis.elias@ cbnorcal,com'; 'MelissaAbercrombie'; 'akherries @comcast.net;''rayvs @pacbell:net; 'wolpert@sonic:net; 'kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.corn Hines;;Heather; Giudice, Alicia Subject: • RE: Davidon DEIR.- redo to eliminate confusion And the maps, too, showing the new numbers and lot locations, need to be re-issued. People making comments are referring to specific lots they think should be eliminated or moved, which will be:misdirected if the existing DEIR maps are wrong. Aren't we entitled to a "stable, finite project description' in the DEIR underGEQA? Greg From: Gregory L. Colvin Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013;7:06 AM To: 'jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com .,'dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com';,.'Melissa Abercrombie''; 'akherries @comcast.net'; 'rayvs @pacbell.net, wolpert@sonic net', 'kathleencrnilleroffice©gmail corn', 'Hines, Heather 'agiudice@ci.petaluma.ca.us' Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR Just a brief note to say: I don't know..how the publiocomment period1can continue based on.the.DEIR,released on Feb.14th if the number of houses:in the proposal and its principal alternatives haS,changed. Aside from those who attended the Commission hearing last.night; the public will view the DEIRand.respond to it based on incorrect.information stated in it. And:those of us who did attend are left confused by the various numbers thrown around. I see no alternative but for this DEIR to be revised so it shows the correct numbers and be-released again, with new notices and a new comment period. Thank you. . Greg Colvin 111 Dublin Ct Gregory L. Colvin Adlei& Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220' San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555(phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) colvin a(�adlercolvin:com The information in this:e-mail message and any attachments may be,privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are notthe intended recipient any use dissemination„distribution, or copying of this,transmission is strictly,prohibited. If you think,that you..have received this a=mail message in error, please e-maitthe sender at colvin @adlercolvin:com, and delete.all copies of this message and its attachments, if any. Thank you. si • 5- l'5 Giudice; Alicia From: Gregory L.Colvin.<colvin @adlercolvin:com> ,Sent:_ Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:06 AM To jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com, 'dennis elias @cbnorcal.com'; 'Melissa Abercrombie'; akherries@ comcast.net;'rayvs @pacbell.net; .wolpert @sonic.nee; kathleencmilleroffice @grnail.com'; Hines,Heather; Giudice, Alicia 'Subject: RE: Davidon DEIR Just a brief note to say: I don't know how the public comment period cantontinue;based on the DEIR released on Feb.14th if the number of houses in the proposal and its principal alternatives has;changed. Aside from those who attached the Commission hearing last night, the public will view the DEIR and respond to it based on incorrect information stated in it. And those of us who did attend are left confused by the various numbers'thrown around. I see no alternative but for this DEIR to be revised so it shows the correct numbers and be released again, with new notices and a new comment period Thank you. Greg Colvin 111 Dublin Ct Gregory L. Colvin Adler& Colvin 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220 San Francisco, CA 94104 415/421-7555 (phone) 415/421-0712 (fax) colvin@adlercolvin.com The information in this e-mail message and any attachments maybe,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 e-mail the sender at colvin @adlercolvin .com, and delete all copies,of this message and its attachments; if any. Thank you. I 1 52 rJ'�(0 "Giudice, Alicia • From: ,Donna'Emerson <donnaemersonos @gmail:corn> Sent: ,Friday, March 22, 2013 1034 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: jenpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; Kathleen Miller; oldeastpetalurna @yahoo.com; Petalumans for"Responsible Planning Ray Johnson; Teresa"Barrett; wol pe rt@ so n ic.net;}d aveg lass @co mcast.net; councilman.albertson@ gmail.com;.mike4petaluma @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilrnemberkearney @ine.com , Subject: Increased concerns re: developer Davidon's confused EIR Attachments: Dear Planning Comm'rs.doc Dear Planning Commissioners and Petaluma City Council Members: • After reading the DEIR and speaking at the Planning Commission meeting with 34 other concerned Petalumans, from all over the West side on March 12, the attached letter addresses my deepening concern that we have an inadequate EIR and a confusing list of changes that has no current map from Davidon. You planning commissioners agreed on March 12 that the EIR was deficient.'This is nota.st'able and finite plan. See attached. Sincerely, Donna Emerson(resident of Petaliuna,since 1986) 111 Dublin Court Petaluma, CA, 94952 • 1 5-(el Dear Planning Commissioners: I appreie your attentive ling te community's concerns about the Davidon E1R. We ca flawed document, h cos su erficial treatment of landslides, run-off water and Kelly Creek in general. We remain concerned about the greenhouse gas emissions expected from the proposed development, far above the threshold for normal, even with mitigations. We were perturbed, as you were;,about the inadequate management of Davidon's last minute changes: The confusion that started the meeting with reduced houses and a map that didn't show a finite project upset all the people around me. We don't even know what the proposal really is Clearly,1Davidon is not advancingits2004 proposal to build 93 homes. That is just a pretext to claim that its application was "complete" nine years ago in order to evade the terms of the.new General;Plan. You must pin Davidon down as to the real number of homes it now proposes, and where they would be located. We hope you will insist on a new document and a clear, mapped proposal. We are entitled to a'"finite;stable plan." From all I heard, and'I made notes on each speaker as well as my own reading of the draft EIR, these are my strong recommendations: 1. The public has a right to see a'_new:and finished document with a clear map as to where houses are now being proposed by Davidon. It needs to address all my^concerns in the paragraph above. 2. Do not let Davidon change the zoning,code so as to build more dense, multiple small houses. Larger RI plots will create fewer houses and fewer of the environmental issues for us. We want to retain our rural identity, not become like Rolmert'Park or Marin; 3. Most of us want no development. At least consider the smallest number: 21 or 24 houses maximum. Please keep the south side of Windsor open with the red barn intact and the creek flowing'.freely. The EIR talk of extirpating the red-legged frogs is short-sighted. Only build across Windsor, on the north side, and away from the creek where the beauty is more ordinary. I am not against development, was in favor of the Target complex, but downtown and near the freeway is where,density fits. The West Haven developer left'the entire south side of Windsor to the Sonoma County Regional Parks. CouIdb't:DavidOit do the same? Thank you for your time and attention, Donna L. Emerson 5- n Giudice, Alicia _ From Katherine 1 Rinehart <KJRinehart@Comcast:net> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:55 AM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc:. Hines„,Heather; Melissa Abercrombie;Jennifer Pierre; dennis:elias @cbnorcal:com; Alicia Kae Herries; rayvs @pacbell.net; Bill Wolpert; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail:com;.David Glass; Chris Albertson; Michael Healy;Teresa Barrett Mike Harris; Gabe Kearney; Cooper, Claire; Brown; John; Petalumans for Responsible Planning;Terry Kosewic; Petaluma Museum; Leslie Thomsen; Subject: Re: Question about Davidon Draft EIR review Dear Alicia: Thank you for your response. I'm not sure.lifollow the logic:You,state that the two historic representatives are members of the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee, not the Planning Commission. Is this to say that the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee consists•of only two people? With the elimination of SPARC and Historic SPARC that leaves only the Planning`Commission as the "place” for these representatives to share the opinions.in(an official capacity. As I understand it, at the March 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting in which"the Draft EIR for the Davidon project was reviewed the Planning Commissioners'were;asked to provide comments as to the adequacy of the document. Since the project involves potentially historic resources wouldn't we want the "historic representatives" to weigh in earlier rather than later? Katherine J. Rinehart, MA Historian P O Box 163 • Petaluma,CA 94953 (707) 766-9462 Original Message From: "Giudice,Alicia"<AGIUDICE @ci.petaluma.ca.us> To: "Katherine J.Rinehart"<KJRinehart@Comcast.net> Cc: "Hines, Heather <HHINES @ci petaluma.ca.us>; "Melissa Abercrombie" <oldeastpetaluma @yahoo.com>; Jerfnifer Pierre" <jenpierrepetaluma@ yahoo.com>;'<denriiselias @cbnorcal.com>; 'IAlicia Kae, Herries" <akherries @comcast.net>; <rayvs @pacbell,net>; ''Bill Wolpert" 1 5-mil <wolpert @sonic.net>; <kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com>; "David Glass <daveglass@comcast.net>;"Chris Albertson" <councilman.albertson @gmail.coin>; "Michael:Healy" <inthealy @sbcglobal net>;"Teresa Barrett" <Teresa4Petaluma @comcast.net>, Mike;Harris"`<mike4pet @aol:corn>;:"Gabe Kearney"`<councilmemberkearney @meicom>; "Cooper, Cl ire" P <ccooperpci.petaluma:ca.us>; "Brown,John"'<JBROWN @ei.petalurna:ca.us>; "Petalumans forSResponsible Planning" <PetRP @comcast.net>; "Terry Kosewic" <terry@kozyhornes.corn>; "Petaluma Museum"`<joenoriel @gmail.com>;;"Leslie . Thomsen" <Ithomsen@meyersnave.com> Sent:,Wednesday, March 20, 20133:50'PM Subject: Re: Question about Davidon Draft EIR review Hi Katherine, The City's Environmental Guidelines.provide'that;hearings on a draft EIR shall be at the Planning Commission and City Council. Municipal Code section.2.08:010 provides that the Commission. consists of 7 members. Per Council resolution and Municipal Code section 230.010, the two historic representatives are members of'the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee, not.the,Planning Cormission, and have input on SPAR review only. The HCPC members who are not planning commissioners are welcome to submit comments as members of the public before or at Commission or Council hearings on the EIR. At a future time if the projectiproceeds to SPAR,they will attend and participate in any SPAR hearings: Please let me know if I can answer any other questions. Alicia Giudice Senior Planner City of Petaluma 707-778-4401 On Mar 19, 2013, at 7:52 PM, "Katherine 1 Rinehart" <KJRinehart @Comcast.net<niailto:KiRinehart @Corncast.net» wrote: Hello: Since the red barns are of'historic value at the local level (at the very least), why,weren'tthe historic"'reps to the.Planning Commission (Terry KosewicandJoe No"riel)`presentiat last:Tuesday's,Planning'Commission meeting in which Davidon's Draft EIR for the Scott Ranch was discussed? Also; it seems as though Davidonissurprised by the community's reaction..I find this:puzzling:inthat,they.'ve known since at least 2007 that there were .some major issues of concern-including,presevation of the red barns. 2 5-90 We;may,have some new/different•council and planning commission Members, but this`,is not anew proposal. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Katherine J. Rinehart, MA Historian PO Box 163 Petaluma, CA 94953 (707) 766-9462 ' 3 6-1 Giu dice,.Alicia From Katherine J Rinehart <KJRinehart@Comcastinet> Sent: Wednesday; March 27, 2013 9:00 AM To: Giudice„Alicia Cc: Hines, Heather; Melissa Abercrombie;Jennifer Pierre;.dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; Alicia Kae Herries,,rayvs @pacbell.net; Bill Wolperti°kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; David Glass; Chris,Albertson; Michael Healy; Teresa Barrett; Mike Harris; Gabe Kearney; Cooper, Claire; Brown;,John; Petalumans for Responsible Planning Terry Kosewic; Petaluma 'Museum ,Leslie Thomsen: Subject: Comments on the Davidon Homes Draft EIR Attachments: page 7,of WSA Aug 20, 2003 assessment.pdf Dear Alicia: The following are my Comments/questiohs;on Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Submitted by Katherine J. Rinehart via email on 3/27/13 In the Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources section (4.5) a study prepared by the Anthropological Studies Center(5/13/03), an assessment prepared by.Will Self Associates (8/20/03)and an evaluation by Gouvis Engineering Group (5/21/08) are referenced.'Whilekthe.Gou'vis Engineering Group structural evaluation is included as Appendix J, the other two are not. Language from the William Self Associates:assessment of August 20, 2003, that did not make it into the.Draft EIR states that"If the proposed undertaking moves into the planning stages,,it will be necessary for an architectural,historian to fully record.and:evaluate the historic significance of these buildings." This statement is made on:page 7 of the assessment Which is a attached. I do not see evidence in the Draft.EIR that this was done. Gouvis Engineering provided a structural evaluation, not historic evaluation. Archaeological Resources Services(ARS) is mentioned as doing a per review, but this appears to address potential archaeological sensitivity specifically. 1 5-12 i A`,formal historic and architectural evaluation'needs to be conducted before this project proceeds any further. The DrafVElR states that that Sonoma County Historical Society was contacted (page 4.5-2)-about this project.Given that the property is in Petaluma,the Petaluma Historical Library and Museum andtHeritage Homes of Petaluma should'also have been contacted. On page 4.5-22 of the Draft EIR William Self Associates states that structures on the Scott property that although good examples of rural farming and ranching architecture,they are.notunique because other examples exist within Sonoma County=what-examples does William Self Associates reference? What'.aboutwithirrthe Petaluma city limits where the structures are located? On page 4.5-27 of the Draft EIR under Impacts Under 2025'General plan it states that"under the 2025 General Plan demolition.of the;red barn structures would be a significant:imjiact and additional mitigation measures would be required to address the impact. However, Mitigation Measure AES-lb would reduce this impact to less than significant." ■ This is incorrect.;The 2025 General Plan says preserving the red barns in. place,so the mitigation measure (page 4.2-30)that says"The barn structures may be relocated and rehabilitated elsewhere on the property..." does not apply. Katherine.J. Rinehart, MA Historian P 0 Box 163 Petaluma, CA 94953 (707) 766-9462 2 5-13 chimney. . • Well with ConcietettVerst This bell is located north_7 of the ham -cornplex 'near the intersection of Windsor Dave'and D Street It consists of a diit mound svi h'a wooden cover, - a . which is enclosed in a 9'X 9 ft.'"area ese :ted-by barbed-wire fencing. _Beginning'at the northeast corner of the fence is a row of 3 concrete Piers running east at 3-ft. 'intervals. Another row of concrete piers begins atthe southeast corner, paralleling the_first row of piers. `There is another concrete pier located within the fenced area in:betyeen the two rows of piers. Theses piers may have served as the foundation to a':pitinp house "dik cursei earthen berm 1s located 'east of tie piers, and may-have been:used tore=direct water flow. . It is approximately 40 ft: long and 2 ft. high. • Brick Well The brick well'is,appr`okiinately 150 ft..:west of the barn complex, located on the south bank of Kelly=Creek, ii[' its junction With'another small drainage. The well was constructed of brick and mortar, is:about 4'ft. in diarnefer stands l'8 inches above the ground; the visible depth is about 10 feet.. ' Reservoir and Danz'icicated near the southern limits or the property is a water reservoir. It-utili2es a.natural drainage and steep topography to well its uh earthen"dam at its northern side, to catch and hold water. It'is appi6ktir-uiteGi 100 fr long>x 50 ft , tide. , Historic-Period Artifacts. `Located 25 ft east of the brick well; at the junction of Kelly Creek and a small drainage are pidctes of a historic-period stove. a, There! are =at least 10 miscellaneous pieces noted-within the' econdary drainage, two of which"are ornately decorated and may be,temporally diagnostic. t' Refuse Deposit. Located approximately 25 ft. west from the g sagelstorage-barn is a pile of dirt about 3 ft high and;-8 ft acros`sl Vvithin%this dirt pile-are Hoick fragments, metal frag ne.ht§, and window glass. It is not known where theanaterials originated". Unknown Structure." There is'an unknown structure located near the soittiera portion Of the property, east of.the feservoir t'it'rnay be a ioot4cellar or storage,facility.s It consists of two semi-subterranean, adjoining concrete aggregate walls (the othertwoercolliapsed ,in.on it)- dug partially into the adjacentthillside The remaining' walls stand 3;ft hove the sloping!ground surface and cut into the-hillside to a depth of38 f . The,.ttiao;remaiaing;walls measure 10,ft. long x 8'ft. high. : . . -. RECOMMEND. TIONS''' • The complex of buildings i,oted in the snidy area h h been prelitninarily recorded on State trn h c �' a UY 3 vl i ,?d �l to f=X?Al iii of California for ms If the proposed undertaking mo esrinto the planning stages itill be ectu l st tie llyiptt B'artiN `� ' the i' to w i s ' c otrpt necessary furiaar iteetu l istoria` to fuliyreeordland{ovaluateatl nhtstonc,sigruFeanceof these buildings l th pro�ec ias,subl alyato C%v It Verne-,?:- he ahfomui 'Reg sCer ;f - I istoricchltiR sources should besapplied to determine. the b ildings significance =Aufederall y 7 5-1tJ Giudice;,Alca From Katherine J Rinehart <KJRinehart @Comcastnet>; Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:06 AM To: Giudice,.Alicia Cc: Hines, Heather; Melissa Abercrornbie;,Jennifer Pierre; dennis.elias @cbnorcal.com; Alicia Kae Herries; rayvs @pacbell.net; Bill Wolpert:kathleencinilleroffice @gmail.com; David Glass:Chris Albertson; Michael Healy;Teresa Barrett Mike Harris; Gabe Kearney; Cooper, Claire; Brown,John; Petalumans for Responsible Planning; Terry Kosewic; Petaluma Museum; Leslie Thomsen Subject: Re Questiiinrabbut Davidon Draft,ElR and Library Services Attachments: Library Services and Davidon DEIRpdf.pdf Dear Alicia: Please see the attached pages from the Public Services section of the Davidon Draft'EIR. It's my impression that library does not actually receive development impact:fees. Could you verify this? Thank you, Katherine J. Rinehart, MA Historian, PO Box 163 Petaluma, CA 94953 (707) 766-9462 • 1 5-�5 City of Petaluma February 2013 The project applicant would be.,required to pay developer fees to offset;any impacts the project would have on the school districts,serving the site Under California Government CodeSection 65996, these fees are the exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur or might occur as a result of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, by any state or local agency involving,but not limited to the planning, use or development of real property or any change of governmental organization or reorganization": Therefore, payment of the required developer fees would ensure that the proposed project's impacts on school services would be less thansignificant. Because no significant impacts on school services have been identified;.no mitigation measures are required. Library Services Implementation of the:proposed project would increase the demand for library services in the project area The project would include 93 single-family homes, which would generate demand for library services provided by the•Sonoma County Library. The proposed project would result in a permanent population of approximately 242 persons. As such, 'the demand for library services generated by the proposed project site would increase. However, implementation of the proposed project would not,increase demand for library services to the extent that,Sonoma County Library would have to construct new facilities or expand existing facilities to accommodate increased demand for library services. The Sonoma, County Library does not plan to develop any new librarieslor expand existing libraries in the service area of the proposed project 39 Implementation of the proposed project would not require the Sonoma County Library to construct new facilities dr expand existing facilities to accommodate increased demand for library services. hFu ermore�Rthe %ect applicant wouldbe requre tockpaydey opment t impact feeswhicwould reduce-the project's impactgrelated to librarytse vices a rt Therefore„ impacts associated with library services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS School'Services. Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the related 'projects listed in Subsection 3.2, Related Projects of Section 3, Project Description'of this Draft EIR (see Table 3- _ 1, Related Projects) would further increase the number'of school age children in Petaluma, and 39 E-mail"correspondence With Doug Cisney, Petaluma Branch Manager, Sonoma County Library, on August 1b„2009. David on Homes'Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project 4...11 Public Services Drat Environmental Impact Report Page 4.11-29 SCH it 2004072137 City of PetàlthrfA February,2013 therefore increase the_need for school facilities in the City:. The applicaht of the proposed project as well as applicants.of the related projects!:would be required to pay'developer fees. As noted%above, under Government Code Section'65996,.this fee is considered to be the_exclusive method of mitigating impacts;to public schools-in the.State.,Additionally, it is not anticipated that currently proposed or under construction residential projects, including'the proposed project will result in an increase. in .class sizes that violate standards set by Education.Code Sections 41376-41378 "requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts 'on school, services would be less than significant. Library Services Implementation of the project in combination with the related projects listed in Subsection 3.2, Related Projects of Section 3, Project Description, of%this. Draft EIR (see Table 3-1, Related Projects) would further increase the demand for library services. Specifically, there would be increased demands for additional Sonoma County Library and Petaluma Regional Library staffing, materials, and facilities over time However, implementation of the proposed project and related projects would not, increase demand for library services to the extent that Sonoma County Library would have to construct new facilities or expand existing facilities to. accommodate increased demand, for library services 40 Furthermore ,the project applicant , would bez%re ired^toypay Irbrrary4facitrtr evetopmexnt nmpact eesnwhich;woulddnreduuce4he e. _ ",prblect s'impact relatedrte library,services , ;1 Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with library iserVices would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts Under the 2025 General;Plan School service and library impacts under the 2025 General Plan would bessimilar as those under the 1987 General Plan. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project impacts on school and Library services ;'would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.. 4° E-mail correspondence with Doug Cisney, Petaluma Branch Manager, Sonoma County Library, on August 10, 2009. Davidon Homes Tentative Subditiisidn Map and Rezoning Project 9.11 Public Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 4.11-30 SCH#2004072137 5-11 - Giudice, Alicia From Robert;Bailey=<rhbailey @sonic.net> Sent Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:47 PM To:. dacteglass @comcast.net; councilman:albeitson @grriail.com; teresa4petaluma @comcast:net, mike4pet @aol:corn; mthealy @sbcglobal:net councilmemberkearney @me.com;.kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia; jenpierrepetaluma @yahob.com; dennis:elias @cbnorcal.com; oldeastpetaluma@ yahoo±om; akherries @comcast.net; rayvs @pacbell.net; wolpert @sonic.net; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com Subject Proposed Red Barn Davidon Development Members of Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 Sent by EMail • To whom it concerns: I am writing in regard to the proposed.Dayidon'development on'the "Red Barn" site. As a Petaluma resident and homeowner-at 915 ID Street for 31 years, I have three major concerns about this proposed development. First, considering traffic. Over the past'several years I has e witnessed a substantial increase in traffic on D Street, impacting the quality of our life. f believe the proposed Davidon'development will significantly aggravate the traffic situation, particularly if the development incorporates the proposed 98 homes. On a typical weekday evening during rush hour, the Northbound traffic back-up-at the 8th Street stop'sign can be&1O:or more vehicles. When there are traffic incidentsion Highway 101,,this back-up can reach"several dozen.vehicles,.reaching back to Sunnyslope Avenue. Exiting our driveway onto D'Street-is hazardous and can.take several minutes. Surely, this situation not • meet reasonable standards for a residential street. Second, considering the potential impaction Kelly Creek.This creek flows on the surface at the rear of my property: When we acquired our home in 1982, Kelly Creek was a seasonal creek. Since the.developments South of town, particularly Victoria, we have seen the creek'evolve into a year-round flow. The Summer flow is slimy and fetid. Kelly Creek is defined as a"Private Creek" and we homeowners are responsible for its maintenance (under regulations of State Fish and Wildlife; Federal Environmental rules, and other County and City rules). We are told that we potentially liable for any upstream damage resulting from flooding that might be attributed to a condition on our property. This.applies despite the fact that we have no control over the upstream conditions that impac •run- off and creek flow. Finally, the Environmental Impact report seems to be totally unclear as to the scale of proposed development. The proposers appear to claim the original-proposal for 98 homes was allowed (approved?) following the historical City Plan and evaluated accordingly.,If'so, the overall effect of tins, in my opunon<is untenable and many community impacts are reported to beunmidgatable. If the development is for a different (lesser)number of homes,it seems to me that the environmental impact must,be assessed under the terms of the current City General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. I hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will respect my concerns in their evaluation of the Davidon project. Sincerely ' 1 5-�8' Robert Bailey CC: Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner, Planning Division 2 �/� �/ Dear Petaluma Planning Commission, I am writing for two reason's'. The first is to-protest the new constiuctionplanned for Sunny slope and D Streets. The second is to offer suggestions for the proposed construction_near the downtown Petaluma Depot. And these two plans are related. I am a writer and an artist: have lived-in Sonoma County for 24 years, in downtown Petaluma for the last five. I'm also a native to North-Mann, and have known Petaluma since the 1960s, watched-it change and grow. I have also-lived in New York, Italy, and San Francisco,and have seen Changes,in California;andthe world:and know that planning is everything. Regarding the proposed Davidon development; we've all been to Walnut Creek, (and Rohnert Park) and are sure we don't want Petaluma-to look like,that. I'm afraid that will be the end result of okaying•developments on a piecemeal fashion, especially using developers from Walnut`Creek.No imagination, really! I am amazed how many times, when at parties in San Francisco, I tell'people I live in Petaluma and they say they are thinking of Moving here! Artists, academics, architects, writers . . . And the next thing,they say is "It's really got a heart,a downtown, I like the old feeling, the open space, the community feeling, places°to walk. It would be nice to get a little place there. They don't say they want to move to Walnut Creek because they want a mini-mansion • and shopping centers.. This week I finally looked at the plan for the walkable downtown_area surrounding the Smart Train Depot, and was so appreciative you are planning pedestrian-friendly connections. I also saw that some of the buildings maybes-6 stories, and the population dense in that area. I live on Wilson St., south of D, and although I:like•my quiet neighborhood, I am nevertheless all for building densely in the-downtown area..So many studies support dense inner cities surrounded by open space as a more sustainable way to develop, building better community, better quality of life. So please understand I am not saying don't build in my back-yard. But I wonder if eventual tax revenue from this downtown dense construction can't be,applied to extend park-land and public use on the periphery of town: specifially out D St. Please try to think more imaginatively about this new development! Petaluma has a chance to keep it's,identity as.a unique, charming yet affordable, livable town: it.will attract day visitors and new residents, and keep its uniqueness:•if only the planning commission has a bit more imagination and°vision.•We already have rhonert,park, etc etc. My suggestions are: Stop the Davidon'development: there are plenty of Livermore locations for things like this If the.Davidon development is going,ahead regardless, insist onatopnotch EIR! instead of the shoddy work done solar. Increase density downtown and use tax revenues for park-land on Petaluma's periphery with trails and corridorscomrecting to Helen Putnam,-keeping'the red barn. For now take it more slowly: for,a couple of years, lease the farmland back to existing dairy ranchers to keep Petaluma's historic charm, lease until downtown developments are complete, so you can plan later with,a much'better understanding of what Petaluma needs. The smart train and'interoior construction will change many things. Also, as I urge you, to have a bit more imagination as you finalize plans: here,is a great idea,for the depot area Petaluma is charming„known for it's;charni. The new construction near the movie theater has not met expectations to invite pedestrian traffic,`tourism, etc? Seriously, who goes there unless they have to except kids?Both tourists and residents'prefer the older sections of town. For a reason,charm„history, etc. SO why not scour Sonoma,Napa, Lake counties for historic buildings that can be saved and moved into the depot=section. Maybe three per block: set them in, and fill in new construction around them.-this would create a seamless mixed architectural design to the downtown area, become am attraction for its uniquevision keep all of Petaluma charming, and make people actually want to walk around!.And what a great thing to see when you get off the,train. In downtown San Jose, even with a topnotch Modem museum, the newer parts are so unimaginative, visitors justEdon't go there. and yet, in towns like;San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Larkspur are just nice places to both live and spend the day. Tax revenues, tax revenues, businesses, homes! The historic buildings could be used as restaurants (charming) or offices, or more antique malls to entice train riders`in, or even built into larger complexes the way Berlin has built its few surviving old buildings into the modern city. Please consider using your imaginations and helping Petaluma keep its existing:charm. Thank you Patti Trimble 324 Wilson St. Petaluma, CA 94952 707"360 8189 pmtrim @gmail.com 1 5-.8 I. Giudice;.Alicia From SusanJaderstrom <jaderstrom @comcast:net> Sent: Sunday;;March 3L 2013 7:04-AM To councilman albertson @gmail:com; teresa4petaluma @comcast;net; Mike4Pet @adlcom; mthealy @tbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @griiail.com;Giudice, Alicia Cc: Petalumans for Responsible Planning Subject: Davidon Story Poles If the City decides upon any housing plans for the'Davidon development,ithe City must require Davidon to use story poles for every house.so that Petalumans havean opportunity to see how this housing development will affect Views and impact:open space. Susan Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court. Petaluma CA94952 707-762-5166 • 1 5—$Z • Giudice, Alicia From: Susan Jaderstrom_<ja_derstrom @comcast.net> Sent: 'Sunday,�Marth 31„2013 7:01,AM To council man.albertson @gmail:com; teresa4petaluma @comcast.net,Mike4Pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;•Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon DEIk - Section 3A In Section 3.4 Related Projects of the Davidon DEIR, the following statement is made: Cumulative impacts may be analyzed byconsidenng a list of past; present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts (CEQA'Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)j. 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 Davidon development are obviously missing: Victoria, Pinnacle Heights. The city mustinsist that the cumulative impacts of these"past" housing project be taken into consideration when analyzing tile proposed Davidon project. Susan Jaderstrom 69 Oxford Court Petaluma, CA 94952 2 5-$3 Giudice, Alicia From: Susan J aderstrom:<jaderstrom @comcastinet> Sent: Sunday„March 31, 2013 6:'58 AM To councilman. albertson @gmail.com teresa4petaluma @comcast:net; Mike4Pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmernberkearney @me.com; kathleencmille'roffice @gmail:com; Giudice, Alicia Subject: Davidon':,Draft DEIR - Public Nofication Two letters have been sent about the Davidon development to,residents'who live within 500 feet of the proposed development. If you as;a City Council member 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 Petaluma population, Page 1-4 states: The Draft EIR.will be circulated:for review and comment by the,,publicand other interested parties, agencies, and organizations+for 45`days. During the 45-day review period,"the City Council and Planning Commission will hold public hearings tor 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. Unfortunately, Petalumans have to pool their money to order signs and place them around town to notify the public of the proposed Davidon.development. • Other communities do a much better job of communicating about potential'development: Communities post large signagelon:development property with drawings of the proposed development and notices about the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. I,request thatthe signage be prominently posted.on the land of the proposed Davidon development. The purpose of the signage is to communicate with a wider rang&.ofthe public about the Davidon DEIR. Susan,Jaderstrom 69.Oxford Court, Petaluma 707-762-5166 1 3 11 6-st City Council/Davidon comments,re dr EIR Aesthetics Pat S [adepast @comcastmet]' • Sent:Sunday; April 07; 2013 4:47 PM To councilman.albertson @gmail'.corn;ltere44petaluma @comcast.net, mike4pet @aol.corn, mthealy @sbcglobal.net, councilmemberkearney @me.com; kathleericmilleroffice @gmail.com;Giudice,'Alicia As a local artist I treasure the red barn at D and Windsor-where it is- along with the trees, the meadow in front of it and the creek and trees behind it and the long views into the hills beyond. This is a Petaluma gem. Moving the barn would affect Its standing to be considered as a National Historic Site and it would not be the same for me and other artists. This;farm was run by a woman for 17 years-what an educational opportunity for our children. Artists provide free publicity for our town. Ifthis beautiful oatewav view is at-risk, then does that say to all others they are too?This is about the best spot in town. Also, the developer should abide by the new,:City Plan 2025, - not the old one- they had representation at the meetings for the new one. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. 5-$5 DEIR - Davidon Homes Tentative 'subdiv,ision: Map and Rezoning Project Amelia Mooney [amooney @Igwlawyers.corn] Sent: Monday, April 08,20131:06 PM To: Giudice, Alicia Cc: Kelly Franger [kfranger @Igwiawyers com]; BriarvGaffney [bgaffney @Igwlawyers:corn] Attachments:C002c SENT..Letter regardinN1.pdf(1;MB) Ms. Guidice, Please see.attached correspondenceregarding,'the DEIR — Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision' and'Rezoning Project. Thank you, Amelia Mooney Litigation Secretary LIPPE GAFFNEY WAGNER:LLP 329 Bryant Street,,Suite 3D San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel.: (415) 777-5600 Ext.+201 Fax: (415) 777-9809 Email: amoonev @lawlawvers.com Web: www.lowlawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This and any accompanying pages contain information from LIPPE.GAFFNEY WAGNER LLP which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended to be forthe'sole use of the individual or entity named above. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may..violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sectio n&25102521. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 6-° Reply Reply All Forward City Council/Davidon comments dr EIR - privacy issues Pat S [adepasl @comcast:net] To: councilman,albertson@ gmait.com;;teresa4petaluma @comcast.net; rriike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney @me.coma;•kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com;Giudice, Alicia Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:48 PM For people in homes near the end of B Street, the Davidon plans anticipate changes in the privacy they should be afforded. Victoria, 'tho crowded, was designed with an eye to ensuring privacy as much as possible with thoughtful placement of windows/buildings. The Davidon plan:tosput homes on the crest of the hill between B St and Windsor does not honor this arrangement. Lots 1 - 7sshould:not be built for this reason. • If there must be homes on-those.lots, they Should be single story homes with considerable numbers of large trees between them and the B St properties and placement of the'homesso that their windows do notilook into the homes below- on B St. Thank you for working on this issue. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. • City Council Comments re Davidon draft;EIR -Water/Geology Responsibilities' Pat is [adepasl @comcast:net] Sent:Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:47 PM To councilman.albertson @gmail.com; teresa4petaluma@ comcast:net k niike4pet @aol.corn, rnthealy @sbcglobal.net, councdmemberkearney @me;com; kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.coin;.Giudice, Alicia Cc: Petalumans for Responsible'.Planning [PetRP @comcast.net]' After reading the 660 page draft EIR I have these comments: As a Sonoma Co/Petaluma resident, I am dismayed that water runoff,from Victoria Development is already flooding homes on D Street and Sunnyslope areas with sometimes polluted runoff. This is unconscionable. It appears the mitigation for Victoria was not adequate, which raises concerns about,Davidon's plans. The mitigation "pond" proposed by Davidon is,l'ike the one in West Haven. Testimony by a local biologist to the City when that proposal was made:showed theseporids,fill;in over a short time-:say 5 years- and then no longer function to keep the water from flowing downhill. They area Very temporary and.therefore ineffective"fix." There have already been landslide issues in Victoria, above',some of the planned Davidon homes. And there are water drainage issues in Victoria. This is not a great<combiriation.and!more homesin this fragile area will lead to more of the same. Why put established homes on Oxford Ct and along B street=at<risk Of'more;of these issues? The City put an upper limit on the number of homes along Windsorand only 41 slots are left for homes. That is where the conversation should begin - not at 93. If this beautiful gateway view is at risk, then does that say to all others thevare too?This is one of the prettiest views,in Petaluma. The developer should abide by the new City Plan 2025 [not'the old one they,applied under] - theywhad representation at the meetings for the new one. Thank you for all you do. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. • 5�0 D City Council/Davidon comments on dr EIR - Traffic and, Safety Pat S [adepasl @comcast.net] Sent:Sunday,April 07, 2013 4:47 PM To councilman.albertson @gmail.corn, teresa4petaluma @comcast;net; mike4pet @aol.corn, mthealy @sbcglobal.net, councilmemt5erkearney@ me:com; kathleericmilleroffice @gmail.comgGiudice; Alicia Cc: Anderson, Larry The proposal will add to traffic on Windsor. Thee are only 2,ways out for mostof Victoria's'residents..B St is not an option. In case of fire or some major problem 299:homes would have to vacate the area with only those two;options. Windsor is part of a"beltway" around Petaluma for people a voiding city streets and congestion on Rt 101. Those are additional people to figure in the event of an emergency. That is not to mention the numerous people•visiting Helen Putnam Park and parking on Oxford, a narrow cul-de-sac, with a blind curve on a hill with driveways entering there and children playing and people walking in the street. In case of a fire, these people would need to turn around and exit too. In a smaller emergency on Oxford, fire department-trucks would have difficulty maneuvering. The City long ago said there should only be so many homes along the Windsor corridor. Wrth.299 present the remainder is 41 homes. That is where this conversation should begin, not at 93. Thank you for working on this issue. Pat Spitzig 33 Oxford Ct. • • • 5� O� Giudice Alicia From: Joyce Delano <joydana@me.com> Sent Monday;April 08, 2013 10:19 PM To councilman.albertson @gmail:com; teresa4petaluma @comcast:net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobalnet; councilmemberkearney @me.com;. kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com; Giudice, Alicia Cc comcast:net @mail122.us2,mcsv.net Subject: City Council Comments re Davidon draft EIRE- Water/Geology REsponsibilities If the Davidon company is permitted to:go:ahead with plans to constructs housing community on the former Scott ranch, they should at the very least, be required to address the problems of water runoff and landslide issues in order to protect current homeowners of the area. Davidon, or any company, must not be permitted to choose`the rules and regulations they prefer to follow simply to better their own;bottom line. It is imperative that they be requiredto follow the new City Plan 2025, as it is designed to provide security for all our residents. Thank you all for your hard work in trying,to resolve these problems. Joyce Delano,Artist, Pleinair Painter Cotati, C 707-792-7981 • I � It r9a 'Giudice,Alicia From: edmondson:cathy @gmail.cort Sent: Tuesday,.April 09;2013 12 16 AM To: PatS Cc: <councilman.albertson @gmail.com>; <teresa4petaluma @comcast.net> <mike4pet @aol.com>; <mthealy @sbcglobal.net> ?<councilmemberkearney @me.com>; <kathleencmilleroffice @gmail.com> +,GiudiceAlicia Subject: Re: City Council/Davidon comments dr EIR - privacy issues All, As an owner of a B St. Property that borders Davidon property, I wholeheartedly agree with my neighbor's submission as provided below. Please ilnderstand, my'family and I are not nimby on this issue, but rather, we are strongly for planning that benefits all properties through careful consideration of all aspects. There are HUGE property setbacks,between Victoria and preexisting Petaluma residences. The same is true for Westhaven. Petaluma citizens supported these,setbacks for Victoria, and we in Victoria supported the setbacks for Westhaven, because it works, both for existing residents and for soon-to-be residents. You must apply the same wise minimum setback aceommodations to the Iliavidomplan. A building MINIMUM setback of.50-feet from all existing residence property lines (with single story roof lines for bordering lots) must be required -- in some cases more to adjust for slide, drainage, and angle of repose of soils. If it hasn't been addressed in the EIR format, soils studies including slide, drainage, and proposed removal/excavation must be formally addressed. Now that residents are on record with-these concerns, liability.for the city and the developer, should you neglect these concerns, will attach. Catherine Edmondson and Family 1237 B St. Sent from my iPad On Apr 7,2013, at 4:48 PM, "Pat S" <adepas4nn comcast.net> wrote: For people in homes near the end of :Street, the;Davidon plans anticipate changes in the privacy they should be afforded. Victoria tho crowded was designed with an eye to ensuring privacy as much as possible with thoughtful placement of windows/buildings. The Davidon plan to put homes on the crest of the hill between B St and Windsor does not honor this arrangement. Lots 1 - 7 should not be built for this reason. If there must+be:homes on those lots,they should be.single story homes with considerable numbers of large trees betweenthem and the B Sfproperties and placement of the homes so that their windows do.notlook1nto the homes below-on B St. Thank you,forworking onthis,issue. Pat Spitzig 33.Oxford.ct. y-q !