HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 8/4/2014 Staff Report and Attachments 1-2FOINUO
Ice
FROM:
Agenda Item i.
August 4, 2014
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
Heather Hines, Planning Manager Ml�
SUBJECT: Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex and
Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance to approve a Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone the property located at 200 Greenbriar Circle from Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to R-4.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached:
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the Addison Ranch Apartment Complex project; and
2. Introduce the attached Ordinance (first reading) approving a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone the property located at 200 Greenbriar Circle from PUD to R-4.
13L�e��1iJ�►f1�
The subject property is an approximately 18 -acre flat site located at 200 Greenbriar Circle, south
of East Washington Creek, east of Maria Drive and north of Park Lane. The project site is
developed with a multi -family apartment complex built in the 1970s. The existing Addison
Ranch complex (formerly Greenbriar Apartments) includes 224 apartment units within 28 two-
story buildings. There are currently 238 uncovered parking stalls, 224 covered carport stalls,
associated parking, landscaping, and common amenities including two swimming pools, a
clubhouse and a laundry facility. The existing Addison Ranch Apartments were recently
remodeled (Administrative SPAR approval in January 23, 2013) to modernize and update the
existing buildings. Alterations included both exterior upgrades and full interior remodel of all
existing apartment units.
The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the site from PUD to R-4,
consistent with the existing Medium Density Residential land use designation (8.1 to 18.0
housing units per acre), in order to expand the existing apartment complex. Additionally, the
applicant has applied for Site Plan and Architectural Review to add 98 additional apartment units
in 22 new buildings and associated modifications to the existing parking, landscaping and
common recreational facilities.
Agenda Review
City Attorney �%� ^ Finance Director City Manager vC%/�
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, preliminary SPAR
review and the associated environmental document for the Addison Ranch project at a duly
noticed public hearing on June 17, 2014. The Commission unanimously approved resolutions
recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Declaration and adopt an Ordinance
approving the Zoning Map Amendment (Attachments 4 and 5). The Commission was supportive
of the rezone for consistency with the underlining General Plan designation and the general
design proposal for the overall project. The Commission's primary concerns related to the
mmnber of additional units and potential traffic impacts. Reference to the specific number of
new units was eliminated from the Zoning Map Amendment resolution to allow the Commission
discretion to look at the appropriate number of units through the SPAR process. Additionally,
the Commission provided feedback on a range of SPAR related items and requests for
clarifications and refinements prior to final SPAR review as discussed below.
Density
The project presented at the Planning Commission hearing proposed the addition of 98 new units
to the existing multi -family development (17 new two-story 4-plex buildings and 5 new two-
story 6-plex buildings). Several Comnnissioners expressed concern regarding the proposed
increase in density and more specifically regarding related traffic impacts as a result of the
additional density. The Commission asked the applicant to consider scaling back the number of
units, and to present a modified project at the subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review
hearing. Although a majority of the Commissioners asked for a reduction in the proposed
maximum density, the Commission supported the Zoning Map Amendment. The Commission
removed specific references to the 98 proposed units in the Zoning Map Amendment resolution
prior to approval.
Through follow up discussion with the applicant, staff determined that the net acreage used by
the applicant to calculate density incorrectly included property owned by the City that runs along
the northern property line, adjacent to the Sonoma County Water Agency property. As
corrected, actual net acreage for the project site is reduced from 17.92 acres to 17.42 acres.
Using the corrected acreage, the allowable density for the project site under the existing Medium
Density Residential designation ranges from 141 to 313 units (8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre),
which reduces the maximum allowable units that could be added to the existing 224 units to 89
units. The applicant is working on revisions to the plan to reduce the proposed density and
respond to the Planning Commission's comments prior to returning for consideration of Site Plan
and Architectural Review.
Traffic Concerns
In addition to the density discussion, the Commission had several questions about the statistical
data and standards used to establish traffic impacts for the project as found in the Traffic Impact
Study and referenced in the associated Initial Study. Several Commissioners felt that the increase
in trip generation and resulting impact to existing level of service at nearby intersections was
underestimated by the studies and that the project would result in a major change to the traffic
patterns in the area. The City Engineer clarified that methodology used in generating the traffic
analysis used typical industry standards and resulting analysis demonstrated that the additional
units would not have a significant impact on traffic volumes or intersection wait times. Although
some Commissioners questioned the use of national standards used in the traffic study, the
Commission recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Design
Staff is working with the applicant on design revisions before the project returns to the Planning
Commission for Site Plan and Architectural Review in order to adequately respond to the
direction of the Commission.
More specifically, the Comraission was particularly concerned about the design and location of
perimeter fencing proposed. The Commissioners wanted to better understand the need for
locations and design of the fence as well as transitions between the CMU wall and the wrought -
iron fence. The Commissioners felt that the perimeter fencing was not in keeping with the intent
of the General Plan, and that the CMU wall and gates created a closed off, exclusive community.
Other revisions requested by the Commission included:
• Greater clarity in the entire design package, including larger scaled plans and legends.
• Improved legibility in the photometric plan and details for light fixtures.
• Replacement of the existing chain link fence along the eastern border of the property with
more appropriate fencing material.
• Inclusion of appropriate green building features to increase energy efficiency.
• Greater clarity in the tree protection and landscape plan sheets, increased tree planting,
the use of drought resistant plantings, and reduction in lawn areas.
• Provision of a detailed view of the main entrance to the apartment complex.
• Use of a separate exhibit to clarify bicycle parking locations and design of bicycle storage
facilities.
• Use of photographs of the recent remodel for design context in the design package.
The applicant is in the process of responding to these concerns. As of the date of this report, the
applicant has proposed to eliminate all security gates and CMU block walls proposed as part of
the perimeter fencing and eliminate the existing chain link fence along the eastern border of the
property.
Public Comment
Staff from the Planning Division, Environmental Review and Public Works met with Kathleen
Garvey, representative from the Eastside Petaluma Neighborhood Coalition in April 2014, to
discuss traffic concerns associated with the proposed project.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the clubhouse on the Addison Ranch property on
May 12, 2014. A 500 -foot radius list was used to notify all surrounding neighborhoods of the
neighborhood meeting as well as neighborhood groups. Approximately 13 community members,
including members of the Eastside Petaluma Neighborhood Coalition, attended the meeting. The
community asked questions about landscaping, fencing, security gates, traffic, and access points
for the project. As a result of the meeting, modifications were made to the Park Lane access at
the southwest comer of the property to limit use to resident only.
Officer Aaron Lindh from the Petaluma Police Department also attended the neighborhood
meeting. Officer Lindh indicated that the former Greenbriar Apartments was a nuisance properly
and stated that the number of police calls to the property have generally decreased in the past
year. Staff obtained a police log of calls placed between June 2011 and June 2014 which
indicates that police calls of a serious nature have dropped by approximately 70% during this
time. Addison Ranch gained ownership of the property in January 2012.
There was no public testimony at the Planning Cormmission hearing of June 17, 2014. A letter
was received two days prior to the hearing from a McGregor Avenue neighbor expressing
concerns related to: (1) the stability of their property during construction, (2) the replacement of
fencing, (3) the location of Building 7 and resulting privacy impacts, and (4) the number of
proposed parking spaces near the property line (and associated noise and pollution). The City
Engineer responded to the neighbor prior to the hearing indicating that final construction
drawings would detail the type of work needed to stabilize the existing berm for the homes on
McGregor. The project engineer and City Engineer discussed using a combination of grading
and retaining walls with fencing (with weep holes for drainage) in the area. The grading and
wall work would be entirely on the Addison property. The applicant also responded to these
concerns at the Planning Commission hearing by indicating that the neighbors will be noticed
prior to construction of any retaining wall or fencing and clarifying that the location of Building
7 is 63 feet from the property line.
Numerous public comments received by the Planning Division regarding the Maria Drive
Apartments and Safeway Fuel projects mention the Addison Ranch Development. Comments
generally discuss cumulative traffic concerns from all three projects, past safety and vandalism
issues in the area, and overpopulation and quality of life impacts to the neighborhood. Most
continents were received in July and August of 2013.
DISCUSSION
Zoning Map An:endinent
The requested Zoning Map Amendment is to rezone the property from the current PUD
(Greenbriar) to R-4 and complies with Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050.B, which
requires that the Planning Commission make a finding that the public necessity, convenience and
general welfare will be furthered by the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission
determined that this finding could be made for the following reasons:
The R-4 zoning designation will result in a use that is appropriate and compatible with
existing surrounding uses. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the General Plan
designation for the site of Medium Density Residential (8.1 to 18 dwelling units per acre)
and will facilitate development within this density range. A mix of residential
development from low density to high density residential surrounds the site. The project
is consistent with the established character of the surrounding neighborhoods and the
character within the South East Planning Subarea of the General Plan.
® The R-4 zoning designation will allow for infill housing development on land within the
Urban Growth Boundary. The General Plan proposes development of approximately
6,000 additional residential units and a build out population of approximately 72,700.
This represents an annual growth of rate of nearly 1.2% per year.
Approval of the requested zoning map amendment facilitates implementation of the
General Plan 2025, provides compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and
provides housing development consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element. The
zoning amendment serves the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare by
implementing zoning consistent with adopted plans, policies, and zoning code
regulations.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared for this project. The potential for
significant impacts was identified in the following 10 categories: Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology,
Land Use, Noise and Transportation and Circulation. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and circulated for public review for thirty days.
There has been no public comment on the MND. The MND and its supporting Initial Study
proposed mitigation measures which have been agreed to by the applicant and will reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels. There is no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record that the project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration with its supporting Initial Study, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, are included as attachments.
[�Q►11�[�7 /•f i�u l 7s�.�
The project is subject to cost recovery with all expenses paid by the applicant. The applicant has
paid $27,899.61 in cost recovery fees to date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution -- Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Ordinance -- Zoning Map Amendment from PUD to R-4
3. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014--13 recommending approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration
5. Planning Cominission Resolution No. 2014--14 recommending approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment from PUD to R-4
6. Planning Commission Staff Report
7. Project Plans
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
ADDISON RANCH APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 200 GREENBRIAR CIRCLE
APN 007-610-001 THROUGH 032
FILE NO. 13 -SPC -0122
WHEREAS, Gary Whitesides, with GALA Construction, submitted an application (13 -SPC -
0122) to the City of Petaluma for a Zoning Map Amendment and Site Plan and Architectural Review for
the property located at 200 Greenbriar Circle, APN 007-610-001 through 032 ("the Project" or the
"proposed Project"); and
WHEREAS, the project is subject to the Petaluma General Plan 2025, adopted by the City on
May 19, 2008; and
WHEREAS, in evaluating certain potential environmental effects of the Project in the Initial
Study, the City relied on the prograrn EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified on April
7, 2008 (General Plan EIR) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., which is incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures and the City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
significant impacts that could not be avoided; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was
required in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the
Project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration providing a thirty
(3 0) day public comment period commencing May 22, 2014 and ending June 23, 2014, and a Notice of
Public Hearing to be held on June 17, 2014, before the City of Petaluma Planing Commission, was
published and mailed to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Project, as well as all
persons having requested special notice of said proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17, 2014, during which the
Commission considered the MND, its Initial Study and supporting documentation referenced in the
Initial Study, the Project, and staff report dated June 17, 2014 and received and considered all written
and oral public comments on environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the
time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014 the Planning Commission completed its review of the Project, the
MND, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommended adoption of the MND
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2014, during
which the Council considered the Project, the Initial Study/MND and supporting documentation
referenced in the Initial Study, and received and considered all written and oral public continents on the
environmental effects of the Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for
environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, the MND, Initial Study and related project and environmental documents,
including the General Plan 2025 EIR and all documents incorporated herein by reference, are available
for review in the City of Petaluma Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during
normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record
of proceedings for the proposed project, Pile, No. 13 -SPC -0122, is the City of Petaluma Community
Development Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, attn: Elizabeth Jonelcheer, Senior
Planner.
NOW THE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the MND, its Initial Study, all supporting,
referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received, the City Council hereby, finds
that there is no substantial evidence that the Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the
enviromrrent, that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the
MND, Initial Study and supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts of the
Project and comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma
Environmental Guidelines.
2
EXHIBIT A
City of Petaluma, California
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Project Name: ADDISON RANCH APARTMENT COMPLEX
File Number: 13 -SPC -0122
Address/Location: 200 Greenbriar Circle. Petaluma. CA 94952
APN: 007-610-001 through 032
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been
developed to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and proper and adequate monitoring/reporting of such
implementation. This MMRP shall be adopted in conjunction with project approval, which relies upon a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
It is the intent of this MMRP to: (1) document implementation of required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting
responsibility, be it the lead agency (City of Petaluma), other agency (responsible or trustee agency), or a private entity
(applicant, contractor, or project manager): (3) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring/reporting; (4) provide a
record of the monitoring/reporting; and (5) ensure compliance. The City of Petaluma's Planning Commission has adopted
those mitigation measures within its responsibility to implement as binding conditions of approval.
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the
implementation action, timeframe to which the measure applies, the monitoring/reporting responsibility, reporting
requirements, and the status of compliance with the mitigation measure.
Implementation
The responsibilities of implementation include review and approval by City staff including the engineering, planning, and
building divisions. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The applicant shall obtain all required surveys and studies and provide a copy to the City prior to issuance of grading
permits or approvals of improvements plans.
2. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable code provisions and required mitigation measures and conditions into the
design and improvements plans and specifications for the project.
3. The applicant shall notify all employees, contractors, subcontractor, and agents involved in the project implementation
of mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project and shall ensure compliance with such measures and
conditions.
4. The applicant shall provide for the cost of monitoring of any condition or mitigation measure that involves on-going
operations on the site or long-range improvements.
5. The applicant shall designate a project manager with authority to implement all mitigation measures and conditions of
approval and provide name, address, and phone numbers to the City prior to issuance of any grading permits and
signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
6. Mitigation measures required during construction shall be listed as conditions on the building or grading permits and
signed by the contractor responsible for construction.
If deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall arrange a pre -construction conference with the construction
contractor, City staff and responsible agencies to review the mitigation measures and conditions of approval prior to
the issuance of grading and building permits.
Monitoring and Reporting
The responsibilities of monitoring and reporting include the engineering, planning, and building divisions, as well as the fire
department. Responsibilities include the following:
1. The Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Fire Department shall review the improvement and
construction plans for conformance with the approved project description and all applicable codes, conditions,
mitigation measures, and permit requirements prior to approval of a site design review, improvement plans, grading
plans, or building permits.
2. The Planning Division shall ensure that the applicant has obtained applicable required permits from all responsible
agencies and that the plans and specifications conform to the permit requirements prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits.
3. Prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be subject to
inspection by City staff for compliance with the project description, permit conditions, and approved development or
improvement plans.
4. City inspectors shall ensure that construction activities occur in a manner that is consistent with the approved plans and
conditions of approval.
MMRP Checklist
The following table lists each of the mitigation measures adopted by the City in connection with project approval, the
timeframe to which the measure applies the person/agency/permit responsible for implementing the measure, and the status
of compliance with the mitigation measure.
I -A
a.
n
b
G
� � U
O
H
(? O v
b U
q O O
mvc-
q 0 v w
s
b �'� � d O� n 00 aG➢ � O
9
U _nil � � N .On cG p C '- � G ••n
H t5 t5 G 61 N
'a � 0 ^O C R 'O O Y i 0 U •-a. U ^O %3 G .IIJ-.
,n U
� �'". U O R •m ^Ci � tYJ ia 'O .0 U .n `� G ei
U v } O 'U6 � U �'7 O �U � � :.T •En N �
Ln 0
� o
*;
CI
CS r
p U y
o •a
U,o v�
pp
U G
O �
_
D G
o G R
R
N U G
•t7 U R G
R CJ' ,n a."S U b O i
vs vyi
45T
N
'V
*;
CI
m o o U d o
T 9 O v O ii n! O G'N
•� � J J o t � �' @ G d N y y �� evi N
Q s @ G r r
n J
n
t�k ".S J N ii it J G y o G J .• 'O N J
ct
N
9
�,..• V N !�� G � i J N� r G ' i i G` y i r� �y "! .n
✓ F% N U T J r w O` . N i y i+ O Q, U@ G
CD y
.'a N N I .�+ 'a O Y� .y d � O N a N t5 �j % Jt'S 0 �j ✓
N
pJj 0 a ct1 ''n G'p 1 d 6 0 W"�✓ G 9 ✓! d < °� G i J G>
v� 'ir N N '.G"p � V U G .fl ,,. ti N ✓' 3 Gd i t 'O J i N d@ % q
ca
N i J r rA i✓ � O• � d O 7 G N N J J U O O O Y O 4 y O
f 9 N �' r N O N N S%' V d1 .✓ G '4 G U J ^}' �n f1 G
.p •- J � �, N � V � � U � @ A � � `!t' NO �n W ✓ � �y�/OY Y �N.
d n Ki .9 +n o n P• •G '.'n 'N i c* d Y Sy .G ¢� '�• p on,
CD
G vOB
G ✓ O �s o A q '' a ✓G C
G ,Ji °� N O ♦ N N G, t.. T N r� G N T
ch
•o m Ov �. o i CD
.y O ?'.6 N N :p d O N U G O^ oRy Y✓ M �/'�.,
70
�in
G
f y
O c'
` I
Z
U
p
0.
N
n. p
L
n
v
p c
0. v
p
� 0.•C � O O � G rs � � �,.: � � u � r v
w
In
U Cl '_ in 6 u N p a 0 N Gp 0 U G Y rC1 C! p qNj
Epp
y O Q is
00
CS G O° u G J u v V
M -Oj U� y
Cl a M U n
C7
M
G
o o
a o
n
v u
O
N
O h
H U
•hII � C
C O
N
G
°
N Y c3 G iy
G cS
a
c E�•1•a E
7� L O H
qi N O
L
N v n
•"
OvGi 'w n^ U
=� v'�
r
F
tn
.� •� �
U � :i
� h. CJ
4p+
ti) 0 ;a O
�+ w
X4_'"0 "� oo
"❑o
� 0.•C � O O � G rs � � �,.: � � u � r v
w
In
U Cl '_ in 6 u N p a 0 N Gp 0 U G Y rC1 C! p qNj
Epp
y O Q is
00
CS G O° u G J u v V
M -Oj U� y
Cl a M U n
C7
M
O v
O �
N
O h
H U
•hII � C
C O
N
G
°
N Y c3 G iy
G cS
c E�•1•a E
� "' � •ti U
N v n
� 0.•C � O O � G rs � � �,.: � � u � r v
w
In
U Cl '_ in 6 u N p a 0 N Gp 0 U G Y rC1 C! p qNj
Epp
y O Q is
00
CS G O° u G J u v V
M -Oj U� y
Cl a M U n
C7
M
Z ^3 U OJ J
U o
V` ,� V� N Y d G 6•es u� p N
U` � cyi � rs � N � J i G � � • % O 1
Z ,D G `�' O N i arii O �d O i fi G i N. ,•
tia O G GS O O Cl n N G .r N -JO N c*, c5 d V N
� � U DO ^� C CS :3 G � '. N G ✓ i ✓+ 0 �•� J � v Cnl � i U GO
G e o "O � v G m N v c3 d D a� 6 i n") o N P `� rrs u.•
1111 d1 Y ,U GM13 � Y. G G•y- O L�'•iJ Y �'f' U i � JW � G N
G G• r�� .i G Pd F N J J 4 `!. J Y ca v� J i ri� G ,� G Y
.G ¢• O r J '� G'r% O G N. GQ v0,.0 D W C@ O» N N G V G
Uri D-'oo•�v.'arJ" G�U Da�p.•�m'"'° ����„a�"J
p p. � G y oA O• � A o q � on � O o6 � d �. i Q' Jrs � � �o '`
°� CAJ c"ry, i G W tJ'W N G w p Or d
O .j .•} d 'c-,. i Q `n 13 �� G 61 0 y� v G L cs •QQr N C a r✓ n O
s W • y U 'D O. N r D 4'a• G Sil f� N ri s ..-, t1 U N I� J N 4-, `,
i Gcd o °' m� d� •� � r� U '� 0 1 9 os, o oa � d ri rt %� G a �,
•9q .E��U�N�� :d'ry 9��-�N°Os �'oDoer.�nQ�' �
O � G• � � �j .I.-• v C v v v 4 ri^s � � " n ¢i G' � ✓ Q � p �G � O V U �
Cn y G W .y YNi U .p N O 7 G•.y '^ V d U P � GvGG y '' ^'
.oD � an U o,��^ G � C fr' r Q' � �C • or d Or � � ? � ✓ � G � � "'
'G �' o m Q j � � GO = °' On J i m U.1 G " 9 "n �'� N •'� �'� m % O✓'ci,
•4 ✓ � U � ri J G J O U N GO q •J'J � i V � O r- .Ji C+ ." � n"� N GS �y YG ;n
-6 • Y s n
Y O'✓ O v+KS O � `J Q � n F`'rs Gi .6' ^'� b OJ w � OJ C�Y
N r D os Go -n N V r+.�o W D�J
e3 G Q O J S31 ✓
O W � C1 yw �"O e5 � ¢•~
N
•o p. v O �� NyY.l "N
F
c�
Y
VIA
ta
a o
N ? v u
d .1 �' � Gr1 G G O 1 d C ✓ N d� ✓ °3 v+ �a
G U 7 .« r f U v O C^ ✓ '✓ O J c1 p p y 4J ' T
.3C4 N p a .o n. 1� m o: d o g $ N �✓ J N� "' � G G t.+- ° F
��px'• oJ'�m Y.:: b •poNd$o ��oJ a.Q,.y �G•a
O O D V O {L .% i2 G % P ••6 d i5 .'% On 4.'i"' h V
i 0 P• ... 9 bU O ca U F^ e3 �.r. � J ✓ U G '' 'Y O G O N p ". N �" W
`C- CP � 'rt a w...,. ?? w W r O i� i y G U 6✓ U} .� �. p p O� y�'w o
� O O N O p fy'J' 4 '`J' 'n C V OY in J .°+ z ;., � y �, v+ p, C � c' G r3 ✓
•i
G U N U YS C rl pp.G 6 W '^ CS O ,� ,+ ry L- � C i � .G P..p U 'x � Q rc3 •✓
•4 N G p..l N 4 J W O r1 O i J i b11 r G N O U t'" ✓u^ � �, O � J
an � inn o.. • 6 � o � o "� G � 3 G � � G �, �.. � F n -'a ? � cs n
-j p N WO
G � 4 F ct� "',��' T � � C'- o .i c 'o � G°. � ✓ f� i ° � y G fa �,
? °� V "� " 9 m j •d,- u- „+n a• � p, W 6 N ° ✓ i ? on T'O C � 'i U m N
v G C rC G U aCi ci m G• G O 9 c+.i A G °) m p., F u '.p bn ..- r% n ..
✓ ,.+ ^J �N. G r r5 rs � •Y i .?r- G C T C� G V � O° R T ,n O d� C
_ V� ¢,✓r0' d m �y, v i ? O'°'J N.p G[3 G
v G
YG,•'' 4 N .J+ on
0 0 J c1 W N 'T ✓Q G C 7 .G Ti(� a 5 J ty'3 f3 d J G
'es
U1 ,a w a JS %"YY• V n ? 9 u' G> c u' c01i�, .% o`�i O o U 9 p O pt ^� o
J J N SY G✓ G G G N N G. 6 CS N 1 'n Y .� °N �]. C J O N O d Y
0 p n a o J J ..� y� Y •7 aIt,
CA'
G
In
010
V 6
. f
a� 'm J .p c n 3 p.- r �• o Y y, G• G m a o �' O o
.r t. J ?o 'cs . 7„ m 7�. Cfl °' N o °' ly., N G• V G v J ✓ G O'�,,I .G -�
N °� �' ..C- i ✓ r o '° G � V O ✓ cs ' � J � bn ✓, G' P . N
!y • o A ba O' 7 J [!� N N s Y. C T N N y d T .. J? G °> m �' •-�. T A nY
7 p, ?a� a� G c> %' �n �,,. .D ° n °� '.✓"is D .i '� �n
7 ? .t- M `� C O � `C W Y.+ J i -. � 7' J•
m r d °.'• � Cs "� .?+ G � aGi �; n ° o ° J � o • � d cCa e?i � � " .•- �,.r-'-`
e1 G .-' h .-• N G r O r� � N� "� C= J m a� G m
w
G � �
i
O y
u no
n V
A r a
p d
_ O G C •O u
u O
C C ¢?
i -
F d O [T� U a6 •ice- O s. � E '� N� a G U N U� b c..
n d
5 E
O •vi "' Ny O. U n O G U w G U ?4'.�- 'O c
a v' � O � U .✓ bA C G � C• a�R dUC _.. O r O•: u
cv v •4 i4 a C � E aai �n .'" � � "y� � '�- N �' 'i5' ,d �
Eo uG
cpcnm Eo �pv v �Eo coo oE� NP" +-
c � °' � o �, ' � � � rci N � • c °' a? y m w .n o c � -o m '!_.`
> E
� v F c cs cy n aci C n
u a G > E p o v � b � c � a.� •E d ,� > F � -� � � -� ca.,r'v v
O
i--tO
T
1;5
N
a
�
u o
C
� u a
v
C
�N
U
P. it
y
vGi
�'O =•O
G
C
� w
4
O N
Y Z
O
n �
O
cs C G rLj
C
CS C O C ^J
G
n
o
N
M
O
:>
c
°
o o L �.
U
}.
w `o r w
,oy
? to
N
C C
Y
C C N
O
�
❑
_.
N �
.D
o
Y
S
°
i
G
CJ
l3
C
C�
�
b C-
h
o
N
�
v
C
O
G al
c o.n
N
V
O
C
�
c 'o'n
a
M
C ai
i
p n n
�
�
r
�
w
—
N
N
•y
o
tt
`°
L
U
cn
�
.j
D C O
•E
°�
_ C
E
❑
�
�
� v
L
v
u
�
?
Q. N
app
N
M
L �
O^
U y
b
m
w
b
U
T
vNi
L
O
i
L
O y
u o
� u a
v
C
L �'O
U
P. it
vGi
�'O =•O
G
C
� w
O N
Y Z
� N E LE
n �
cs C G rLj
C
CS C O C ^J
G
C
N
aU:
O
°
o o L �.
w `o r w
,oy
? to
E o
C C
in vGi 'E of U�
C C N
G
N CO G `� O
❑
_.
N �
.D
o
C�
N p. •p E �
b C-
v
F
G al
c o.n
C
C
c 'o'n
o—=
C ai
U � :,• o y
p n n
.Nn
r
tt
P3
L
cn
.j
D C O
afl t0.J"c LG
_ C
cL
laic �.` o
•°,w
� v
°
v
16
?
Q. N
app
`
u o
N— o v
v
o ••'
L �'O
U
v
vGi
�'O =•O
G
C
� w
cs C G rLj
C
—
aU:
O
N
C
C
F
U
v v
r
tt
P3
cn
.j
afl t0.J"c LG
cL
laic �.` o
•°,w
� v
�
app
c6 E
L �
=off
U y
V�uw
Col? o m �n
I
W
a w
a a
'Y U1
a.
C7
V 6
G
a
G
�N
z,
u
YT.L G "
"
y ✓a
G. N
U
° 1 .^' O Ii
�
n
i V
�✓' p T
.moi
O
v� cC
C1
� -�Z
V 6
G
�N
YT.L G "
"
y ✓a
G. N
U
° 1 .^' O Ii
IS
.moi
J 'p
p Nom` h
X
N
�
� p✓
�
F+ �Y.^S
.N"-
.N-' 41
7�5�Ua'3
� -�Z
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP CONTAINED IN THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE,
ORDINANCE NO. 2300 N.C. S., TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 200 GRE ENBRIAR CIRCLE FROM
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO R-4
APN 007-610-001 THROUGH 032
FILE NO. 13 -SPC -0122
WHEREAS, Gary Whitesides, with GALA Construction, submitted an application (13 -
SPC -0122) to the City of Petaluma for a Zoning Map Amendment and Site Plan and
Architectural Review for the property located at 200 Greenbriar Circle, APN 007-61-001
through 032 ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"), and
WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed Implementing Zoning Ordinance amendment on June 17, 2014 and
adopted Resolution No. 2014-014; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed Zoning Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, the City Council reviewed the CEQA evaluation for the
Project and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, based on the City Council's review and consideration of the entire record
concerning the proposed zoning map amendment for the property located at 200 Greenbriar
Circle (APN 007-061-001 through -032), City council finds as follows:
The R-4 zoning designation will result in a use that is appropriate and compatible with
surromiding uses. The R-4 zoning district is consistent with the existing General Plan
designation for the site of Medium Density Residential (8.1 to 18 dwelling units per acre) and
will facilitate development within this density range. A mix of residential development from
low density to high density residential surrounds the site. The project is consistent with the
established character of the surrounding neighborhoods and the character within the South
East Planning Subarea of the General Plan.
2. The R-4 zoning designation will allow for the development of infill housing on land within
the Urban Growth Boundary. The General Plan proposes development of approximately
6,000 additional residential units and a build out population of approximately 73,700. This
represents an annual growth of rate of nearly 1.2% per year.
--1
3. Approval of the requested zoning map amendment facilitates implementation of the General
Plan 2025, provides compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and provides housing
development consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element. The zoning amendment
serves the public convenience, necessity. and general welfare by implementing zoning
consistent with adopted plans, policies, and zoning code regulations. The proposed project
would also require Site Plan and Architectural Review approval by the Planning Commission
for the proposed development.
4. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied
through the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Mitigation
measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential
impacts to less than significant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan for this project has been prepared, circulated and adopted by the City Council in
accordance with State Law.
Section 2. The Zoning Map contained in the hnplementing Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended to modify the zoning district of the property located at 200 Greenbriar Cirlce (APN
007-61-001 through 03 )2) R-4.
Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held
unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its
adoption by the Petaluma City Council.
Section 5. Posting/Publishing of Notice. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or
publish this ordinance or a synopsis of it for the period and in the manner required by the City
Charter.
INTRODUCED and ordered posted/publislied this 4th day of August. 2014.
ADOPTED this day of , 2014 by the following vote:
J — 2