The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5.A 01/26/2015, Part 3 - Attachments 14-18CITY OF PETALUMA STAFF REPORT Conanunio, Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: petalmnaplmuiing@ci peialwna.ca.us DATE: January 28, 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. #8 TO: Planning Commission Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Corona Road Annexation & Subdivision 470 and 498 Corona Road (with 496, 520, and 522 Corona Road included in the annexation and 0 Riesling being the basin site) Annexation, Pre -Zoning, Landmark Designation, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Authorization of Detention Basin on City Lands File No. 08 -TSM -0344 Staff recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee: ® Recommend the Planning Commission approve a resolution recommending the City Council designate the existing farmhouse at 498 Corona Road as a local historic landmark. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: • Resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision project (Attachment A and Exhibit 1), • Resolution supporting the Annexation of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road into the City (Attachment B), • Resolution recommending approval of Pre -Zoning of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road to RI and R2 (Attachment C), • Resolution recommending designation of die farmhouse located at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark (Attachment D), Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision IA — Pa2e 1 • Resolution recommending approval of a 31 -lot residential Tentative Subdivision Map of 10.1 acres located at 470 and 498 Corona Road (Attachment E), and ® Resolution recommending construction of a Detention Basin on City Urban Separator Lands east of Riesling Road between Corona Creek School and Kenilworth School (Attachment F), PROJECT SUMMARY Project: CORONA ROAD ANNEXATION AND SUBDIVISION 470 and 498 Corona Road, APN: 137-061-009 and 011 Included in Annexation: - 496, 520, and 522 Corona Road APN: 137-061-007, 008, and 010 Detention Basin: 0 Riesling Road (lands of City of Petaluma) APN: 137-070-049 Project File No: 9 -TSM -0344 Project Planner: Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner Project Applicants: Corona Road Associates, L.C.C. Property Owner: Subdivision Area: Corona Road Associates, L.C.C. Annexation and Pre -Zoning Area: 496 Corona Rd - Dana & Dawn Vallimont 520 Corona Rd - David Oshea, Custodian 522 Corona Rd - Trevor Smith Et al. Detention Basin: City of Petaluma Cross Street: Monica Way at Andover Way Property Size: Subdivision Area: =10.1 acres (470 and 498 Corona Road) Annexation and Pre -Zoning Area: A 1.6 acres (470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road) Detention Basin: -4.6 acres (0 Riesling Road) (Total Area of involved lands: ±16.2 acres) Site Character: The 10.1 acre subdivision area consists of two parcels that both front on Corona Road. Each parcel was used as a small chicken farm some decades ago. All structures except for the 1900 -era house at 498 Corona Road, which the applicant intends to retain, were removed prior to 2005. The site is bounded by existing residential development (designated Low Density Residential) to the east and south, within the City of Petaluma. Across Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision I � — Page 2 Corona Road (to the west and north) is county land primarily in rural residential use. The project area is generally flat. Three parcels adjoin the proposed subdivision, with frontage along Corona Road; each consists of one house and associated outbuildings and each parcel is approximately a half -acre. The proposed annexation would include these parcels and the two parcels that comprise the subdivision area (10.1 acres); all five have been within the City's Urban Growth Boundary since 1987. The proposed detention basin sits northeast of Riesling Road on t4.6 acres of City -owned Urban Separator land. The proposed detention basin will be constructed between Corona Creek (to the north of Kenilworth Junior High) and the ball field of the Corona Creek Elementary School. Existing Uses: Subdivision Area: Vacant with one 1900 -era house Area Included in Annexation and Pre -Zoning: 3 single-family residential lots Detention Basin: Passive urban separator lands Proposed Uses: Subdivision Area: Maintain the 1900- era house and develop the site with 30 new single-family homes Area Included in Annexation and Pre -Zoning: 3 single-family residential lots (no change) Detention Basin: passive urban separator lands, graded to function as a seasonal detention basin with streetscape amenities along Riesling GP Land Use: Subdivision and Annexation Area: Sonoma County: Diverse Agricultural, 10 acres per residential unit (DA 10) City of Petaluma: Very Low Density Residential (VLD) and Low Density Residential (LDR) Detention Basin: Urban Separator Proposed GP Land Use: No change Current Zoning: Subdivision and Annexation Area (outside City limits): Sonoma County: Diverse Agriculture District, 10 acres per residential unit, Valley Oak Habitat Combining District (DA B6 10, VOH) Detention Basin (within City limits): Open Space and Park Proposed Zoning: Subdivision and Annexation Area: Pre -Zone R1 and R (in accordance with the City's General Plan designations) Detention Basin: Open Space and Park (no change) Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14 - Page 3 Subsequent Actions: Annexation of the subdivision and the 3 additional lots will require approval from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). House construction for the 31 -lot subdivision will require Site Plan and Architectural Review at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Final Subdivision Map and Public Improvement Plans for the subdivision and detention basin will require review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Division and final approval at the discretion of the City Council. As proposed, the filling of 0.87 acres of wetlands will require a Section 404 Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and filling the entire 0.94 acres of wetlands (the 0.87 acres under federal jurisdiction plus 0.07 acres of isolated wetlands) will require a Section 401 Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. North Bay Division. _. _.. The proposed detention basin tie-in to Corona Creek and any improvements to the Corona Creek channel bed, bank, or top of bank will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement and Section 1600 Consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The proposed capping of the existing private well and any well relocation will require review and approval by Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) Well and Septic Division. BACKGROUND In 1989 the City adopted the Corona Ely Specific Plan (CESP), allowing annexation into the City and development of 675 acres of principally agricultural lands to the northeast of town, including all of the project area. Later that same year the Corona Ely Annexation No 1 annexed nearly all of the 675 acres into the City. Development of most of the annexed lands occurred over the intervening 24 years. The Corona Road Subdivision land and 3 abutting % acre lots represents one of the few remaining undeveloped areas from that planning effort. Developers first proposed a 50 -unit, smaller -lot residential subdivision in the mid -2000s. That project did not comply with the planning documents in place. In 2011, the project was resubmitted as a 31 -lot subdivision, compliant with the two General Plan densities that divide the site. Subsequent time was then spent understanding the newly identified I00 -year floodplain and conceiving and designing the off-site detention basin to mitigate the floodplain impact to the project site and the surrounding area. SITE The 10.1 acre subdivision area consists of two parcels that each front Corona Road. The site has been within the City's Urban Growth Boundary since 1987, but has not been annexed into the City. Each parcel contained a single-family house and outbuildings of an agricultural nature, and each was used as a small chicken farm some decades ago. All structures except for the house at Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision [A— Page 4 498 Corona Road, which the applicant intends to retain, were legally removed by a demolition permit issued in November 2005. 470 Corona Road is the southwestern parcel, now vacant; the two palm trees and the existing driveway serve as markers of the former house location. 498 Corona Road is the northeastern parcel; containing the existing 1900 -era farmhouse to remain. There are 28 trees on the subdivision site. Nine are native oak trees. There are five wetland areas together totaling 0.94 acres. The draft Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) revisions are now being processed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with adoption anticipated in February of 2014. These FIRMS show most of the proposed annexation area within the 100 -year floodplain for nearby Corona Creels. (The 1989 and 2008 FIRMS show the site outside of the floodplain.) Three parcels adjoin the proposed subdivision along Corona Road (496, 520, and 522 Corona). Each is developed with one house and out buildings and each is approximately one half -acre in size. Like the subdivision area, these parcels have not been annexed into the City although they have been within the City's Urban Growth Boundary since 1987. To create a regular and logical annexation boundary that is consistent with requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), these three parcels are included in the annexation request. To address the anticipated adoption of the 2014 Flood Insurance Rate Map showing much of the annexation area and surrounding area within the 100 -year floodplain, the applicant proposes a detention basin abutting Corona Creek, upstream of the project site, northeast of Riesling Road on approximately t4.6 acres of Urban Separator lands; inside the City limits and at the UGB line. The area is currently an open field with a gradual slope down towards Riesling Road. While the 1993 approval of the four-phase, 160 -unit Graystone Creels subdivision included construction of the urban separator streetscape improvements at the detention basin site, as required by the Corona Ely Specific Plan, these improvements do not exist. These improvements would have been a multi -use paved path set within a 25 foot wide landscape strip with a low vehicle -barricade, as is typically seen along the other urban separator streetscape sections developed under the Corona Ely Specific Plan Area (die northeast quadrant of Petaluma). NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The area is generally flat; rising very gradually toward Sonoma Mountain to the east. To the south, west, and east of the proposed subdivision site, within the City, are the Liberty Farms and Corona Creek 1I single-family subdivisions. These properties were part of the large Corona Ely Annexation No.l in 1989. Liberty Farms subdivision was developed with a residential street (Monica Way) stubbed into the subject subdivision site for the purpose of providing access to 470 and 498 Corona Road when they should develop, as specified by the Liberty Fanns Reso. 94-210 NCS. Along the Corona frontage, on the project side of Corona Road, are two -acre residential properties to both the immediate west and east. These were annexed into the City as part of the Corona Ely Annexation No.l in 1989. Abutting the subdivision site to the northeast are the three half -acre properties (496, 520, and 522 Corona Road) that have not yet been annexed. The vision of the Corona Ely Specific Plan and the City's General Plan is that Corona Road remains a rural road, as discussed in more detail below. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14- Page S Across Corona Road from the subdivision site is County land designated for small acreage farming (Diverse Agriculture), outside of the City's urban growth boundary, and used for rural residential purposes and cattle grazing. Northwest of the proposed detention basin is the seasonal Corona Creek. Southeast of the basin site is the ball field of Corona Creek Elementary School (the CCE ball field is within the City's Urban Separator). Northeast of the basin are County lands designated as Diverse Agriculture and outside of the urban growth boundary. Across Riesling Road to the southwest and within City limits is the Graystone Creek single-family residential subdivision constructed in approximately 1997. The project is within the North East Planning Area of the General Plan and is part of the Corona Ely Specific Plan. The North East Planning Area consists of established suburban residential neighborhoods with low building densities and heights. Significant public uses include the Community Center, Lucchesi, Prince, and Leghorns Parks, numerous smaller neighborhood parks, - the Boys and Girls Club, Petaluma's Santa Rosa Junior College Campus, a public golf course, and numerous schools and churches. Neighborhood commercial is limited to a small shopping center on Sonoma Mountain Parkway (the G&G Market center). The subdivision site is one of the last parcels of land approved for annexation and development by the Corona Ely Specific Plan to be proposed for development. Most all of the Corona Ely Specific Plan lands were annexed into the City in 1989 with the Corona Ely Annexation No.]. derial Fieu, ofProject Areas Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision A— Page 6 Detention basin site Subdivision site DETAILED ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION To create a regular and logical annexation boundary as required by LAFCO, three separately owned properties along Corona Road are proposed as part of the annexation proposal and related pre -zoning. These are 496 Corona Road (Vallimont, APN 137-061-010)2 520 Corona Road (Oshea, APN 137-061-008), and 522 Corona Road (Smith, APN 137-061-007); each parcel is developed with one house and accessory out building(s) and each is approximately a half -acre. The subdivision portion of the project proposes and is conditioned to provide water and sewer stub outs to these three existing parcels included in the annexation area (TM -9). Conditions 47 and 49 require that water and sewer are provided to the houses. These 3 existing lots currently receive water from an existing well located on the proposed subdivision site (near proposed Lot 10), which will be capped and closed as part of the project. A replacement well at Lot 6 has been proposed by the applicant to serve the same 3 existing lots (the annexation parcels), however, with the water and sewer connection, a well is unnecessary. DETAILED PRE -ZONING DESCRIPTION The proposed pre -zoning implements the General Plan designation on the annexation area; with the 5.6 acres nearest Corona Road that are designated Very Low Density Residential to be pre- zoned R1 and the 4.5 acres nearest the existing subdivisions that are designated Low Density Residential to be pre -zoned R2, consistent with Table 2-1 in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO). DETAILED LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION A Cultural and Historic Evaluation Report was completed by Archaeological Resource Services, (June 2009). While the evaluation found that the existing 1900 -era farmhouse at 498 Corona Road (proposed Lot 6) does not appear eligible for listing to the California Register, it did identify the farmhouse as being historically significant at the local level for the following reasons. It retains an overall Victorian farmhouse appearance. It exhibits integrity of location, feeling, workmanship, and setting. It has not been moved and the setting along Corona Road has remained much the same. Although outbuildings associated with the farmhouse have been removed, their removal is not obvious from Corona Road and has not negatively impacted the context of the main house along Corona Road. The workmanship is basic, but it has not been compromised. While the modifications and additions have been made to the house, it retains some of the original integrity of design and materials. The addition at the northwest corner on the front of the house appears to be old enough to be considered an important part of the house and does not detract from the historic nature of the eastern side. The crucial elements of the front gable with the fish scale Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision — Page 7 shingles on the hipped roof combine to form the most important architectural component of the structure. The other original design elements include the small covered porch area with scroll brackets, the clapboard siding, and the window surrounds. As for materials, some have been severely compromised, but not beyond repair. In 2005, it was evident that the original wooden windows had been replaced with aluminum sashed or vinyl sashed elements; currently all windows and doors are covered with plywood to secure the house. Some of the 8 -inch horizontally wood clapboard siding has been removed from the east side of the house, and some of the scroll brackets are missing from the eastern post of the entry porch. The house does not have integrity of association, as the outbuildings have been removed and the property is not associated with any historic places, persons, or events. 498 Corona Road: 1900 -Era Farmhouse Additionally, the evaluation found the farmhouse historically significant at the local level based on local concern. The Corona Ely Specific Plan (page 44) cites the older country homes along Corona Road as one of the primary contributors to Corona Road's special character. As described in the Historic Report, Heritage Homes of Petaluma noted that the house "is a contributor to a cohesive collection of small historic farm complexes and buildings that make Corona Road an important link to Petaluma's agricultural past." In order to maintain Corona Road's general historic feeling, which the record shows is a local concern; the Historic Report concludes that the 1900 -era farmhouse has special value as a local landmark, pursuant to IZO section 15.040.1. In order to protect this local historic resource and preserve the cultural character of Corona Road, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 directs application for designation of 498 Corona Road as a local historical landmark. As the designation process requires recommendation by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission and action by the City Council, local landmark designation is now a part of this project. The project applicant is agreeable to malting the application. Furthermore, the subdivision design and improvements include features to support the historical designation, in that change to and along Corona Road is minimal and Conditions 5a and 5b ensure that fencing, driveway paving, and building construction maintain the rural feel typical of Corona Road. Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 direct that non -wood Corona Road facing windows be replaced with wood -sashed double -lung single -light windows in the original openings and that any rehabilitation retain and reuse original materials, that replacing missing or distressed materials are replaced with in-kind, matching materials, and that any work occur consistent with the Secretrny of Interior's Stan7dards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Condition 19 requires the replacement of missing or distress materials with matching, original materials, such as the 8 - Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision I �- Page 8 inch horizontal wood clapboard siding where it has been removed from the east side of the house and the scroll brackets where they are missing from the eastern post of the entry porch. Because this work shall be in-kind replacement of original material, these modifications would be reviewed via a building permit and not come back to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee for review, unless directed. Should modifications or additions to the structure be proposed in the future, these of course would be subject to historic site plan and architectural review. DETAILED SUBDIVISION DESCRIPTION The proposed 31 lot subdivision includes nine parcels in the 5.6 acre Very Low Residential area nearest Corona Road (1.9 dwelling units to the net acre) and 22 parcels in the 4.5 acre Low Density Residential area nearest the existing subdivisions (6.9 dwelling units to the net acre), in conformance with the applicable General Plan designations. The subdivision would allow for development of 30 new single family houses on the project site and retention of the existing 1900 - era house at 498 Corona Road would be preserved and proposed for designation as a Local Historic Landmark (see discussion above). As proposed, all lots within the Rl zoning district are greater than the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size and all lots within the R2 zoning district are greater than the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. Homes proposed within the RI zoning district will comply with the RI setback minimums of 30 feet from the front, street side, rear property lines, and 15 feet from the side interior property line. Homes within the R2 zoning district will comply with the R2 setback minimums of 15 feet from the front and rear property lines, a 10 -foot side setback at corners, a 3 -foot side interior setback, and a garage front setback of 20 feet. Homes proposed in either zoning district will be at or below the 25 foot maximum height limit applicable in both zoning districts. Development of these parcels will be subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review for compliance with all applicable standards and findings. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision R -- Page 9 Lots I through 9 are those closest to Corona Road and within the Very Low Residential designation and RI pre -zoning. These parcels are large, approximately Y -acre lots intended to maintain the rural character of Corona Road, preserve healthy roadside trees, and preclude the development of any new driveway along the Corona Road frontage. Lot 6 contains the existing house to be preserved and maintains the existing driveway off of Corona Road. An existing driveway access from Corona is also maintained to serve Lot 1 (470 Corona). Vehicular access to Lot 2 will be from public Street B. Lots 10 through 31 are those closest to Monica Way and within the Low Density Residential designation and R2 pre -zoning. These parcels are similar to or larger than those in the adjacent neighborhoods to the east and south of the subject subdivision site. At the subdivision edges, the lots are configured to have a similar lot width pattern as the lots they abut on Andover Way and Mama Pietro Drive. The 31 -lot subdivision will be served by public streets. Proposed vehicular access to 29 of the 31 proposed homes in the subdivision is from the extension of Monica Way into two cul-de-sacs, —public Street A and public Street B. Monica Way connects to Andover Way and onto Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Maria Drive, and Ely Road. A public path for pedestrians and bicycles will connect the western cul-de-sac (public Street B) out to Corona Road via lots 2 and 5. The Monica Way extension and new public streets are designed according to City of Petaluma Public Works Standards for new residential streets. There will be full curb and gutter, planter strip, and sidewalks within the subdivision. The street section accommodates on -street parking (except at corners) and three additional public parking spaces are proposed in landscaped parking "canoes" at each cul-de-sac. Corona Road is proposed to remain under the County's jurisdiction in conformance with the General Plan which depicts the Urban Growth Boundary running along the southeast side of the roadway. The existing roadway section and tree cover along Corona Road are proposed to be retained where those trees are not failing. One existing driveway from Corona will serve the existing house at 498 Corona and another existing driveway will serve a replacement house at 470 Corona Road. Public sanitary sewer, storm drain, and a public water main shall be provided to all lots; with the service coming from the stub outs at Monica Way. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is in keeping with the lot size, arrangement, and density of the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the east and south of the subdivision site. The thirty new single-family homes to be constructed on the subdivision site shall comply with the building envelope, setback requirements, and height parameters established by the R1 and R2 zoning districts, as applicable. The new homes shall be subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review, which requires findings of compatibility (IZO 24.010G.Lb, c, and e), further ensuring that the proposed subdivision is consistent with existing development in the project vicinity. DETAILED DETENTION BASIN DESCRIPTION A detention basin was incorporated into the project when the draft flood insurance rate map (FIRM) showed much of the annexation area and a number of surrounding existing homes newly within the 100 -year floodplain of Corona Creek. The detention basin was designed to mitigate the lost floodplain storage due to project development. The basin is sized and designed to maximize detention and thus benefits the greater community by also removing adjacent existing houses to the east and south from the 100 -year floodplain. It is proposed to abut Corona Creek upstream of the project site, northeast of Riesling Road on approximately f4.6 acres of Urban Separator lands; Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision — Page 10 between Corona Creek (northwest of Kenilworth Junior High) and the ball field of the Corona Creek Elementary School In Corona Creek, with development of the proposed detention basin, the 100 -year water surface elevation would be reduced by an average of about 0.6 feet. With construction of the basin and the subdivision, the model run on behalf of the City shows that any breakout flow from Corona Creek would be contained in the street, consistent with Sonoma County flood control policy, and would not need to be shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps; the annexation area and adjacent existing houses would be removed from the 100 -year floodplain. The detention basin has been designed with side slopes of two horizontal units to one vertical unit (2:1). The top of the detention basin will be at approximately the Riesling Road elevation, at 52.1 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD)r, with the bottom of the basin at elevation 45.1 NAVD. An overtopping adjustable weir is proposed at elevation 47.2 NAVD. The inlet pipe (36 -inch diameter) of the detention basin will connect to the flow line of Corona Creek. An 18 -inch culvert - - is included to drain the detention basin, with a flap gate to prevent flow from Corona Creek from backing up into the detention basin. The basin storage volume is 10.38 acre feet (452,115 cubic feet). In a 10 -year event flood, the basin is projected to have a maximum water depth of 2.21 feet (with 4.79 feet of freeboard). In a 100 -year event flood, the basin is projected to have a maximum water depth of 4.61 feet (with 2.39 feet of freeboard). See Section A -A at Plan Sheet DB -2 for cross section of basin. As part of the detention basin, the project proposes to construct the 25 -foot wide Urban Separator edge improvements along the frontage of Riesling Road, as specified by the Corona Ely Specific Plan, including a 6 foot landscape strip, an 8 foot multi -use concrete path, an 11 foot landscape strip, and a 3 foot high open -type vehicular -barrier at the top of the detention basin bank. Mitigation Measure LU -2 requires that a funding mechanism such as a Landscaping Assessment District be established and funded by the proposed subdivision to levy funds for the ongoing maintenance of the detention basin. This maintenance will be conducted by the City or the Citys contractor. The proposed detention basin will be constructed prior to building permit issuance for new homes or construction of improvements at the subdivision site, in order to ensure that the proposed subdivision and the greater neighborhood is fully protected from potential impacts associated with flooding. Construction of the detention basin is expected to be completed within 2 months and will require the export of up to 81,000 cubic yards of cut. Construction of the subdivision site work is expected to occur over the course of one year with the initial activities consisting of infrastructure development, extension of utilities, and the paving of the public Streets A and B. Individual house construction on the subdivision site is expected to occur over several years, depending on the market. STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designates the 5.6 gross (4.7 net) acres nearest Corona Road as Very Low Density Residential (0.6 to 2.5 housing units to the net acre) and the 4.5 gross (3.2 net) acres I NAVD is a standardized measuring method that is used to determine elevation. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision Page 11 farthest from Corona Road as Low Density Residential (2.6 to 8.0 housing units to the net acre). A density of 1.9 units per net acre is proposed in the area designated as Very Low Density Residential and a density of 6.9 units per net acre is proposed in the area designated as Low Density Residential. Therefore, the project is consistent with General Plan land use designation for the subdivision site. The three additional parcels proposed for annexation (496, 520, and 522 Corona Road) have a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential. Each of these lots is approximately 20,000 square feet with an existing single family home on each parcel. Therefore, these existing lots and the current land use of each lot is consistent with the Very Low Density Residential designation. The following policies, programs, and intentions of the 2025 General Plan are particularly relevant to the proposed project (Attachment G, pages 52 and 53 for others): 1-P-38: Require all development outside of City limits and within the UGB to annex to the city as a condition of extension of City services. Annexation requires the extension of both potable water and sewer services in compliance with adopted Master Plan, in conjunction with other public improvements as deemed appropriate by the City. The proposed project includes annexation of land that is currently outside of the 00, limits and within the UGB, and is therefore consistent with this policy. 2-P-104: Keep Corona Road as a rural two-lane road (east of Sonoma Mountain Parkway) with an improved cross-section to facilitate safer bicycle and pedestrian use utilizing innovate design standards that increase connectivity and safety while maintaining the rural context. No changes are proposed to Corona Road and therefore the project preserves the rural character of Corona Road. C01717ectivity for bicycles and pedestrians withn7 the proposed subdivision is provided via internal networks that interconnect with existing trails in the project vicinity. The intent of policy 2-P-104 is to preserve the rural character of Corona Road while providingfor enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access. Wideoiag of Corona Road to aeconnnodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities would interfere with the intent to preserve its rural character. Page 1-8 The Genera Plan note states that the Urban Separator includes open space lands with and directly adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary that are intended to serve as the outer boundary of urban development. They provide an edge that buffers agricultural fields from urban land, may serve as a recreational area, and act as a key component of the City's open space system. Location of a detention basin within the Urban Separator lands does not diminish the land's current ability to serve as a buffer, serve as passive recreation land, or act as open space. Location of the basin is consistent with the intent of the Urban Separator as stated by the General Plan and has occurred elsewhere in the Urban Separator. See discussion after CESP Policies 124 and 125 (pages 14-15) and Addition of Detention Basin discussion (page 17) for further details. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14— Page 12 CORONA ELY SPECIFIC PLAN The subject property is located within the Corona Ely Specific Plan (CESP). The CESP was adopted in 1989 to provide the development regulations for 675 acres of principally agricultural lands to the northeast of town. Most all of the CESP land has been developed; the Corona Road Subdivision land represents one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels from that planning effort. One of the key topics of the CESP related to the project is the focus on retaining Corona Road as a rural, scenic roadway. The CESP designates Corona Road as a Scenic Country Corridor (Figure 4-2) and describes Corona Road as locally valued for its picturesque, country qualities and as a narrow road lined with distinctive, overhanging rows of California live oaks and other specimen trees, behind which are scattered country homes and farmsteads. The principal goal for Corona Road in the CESP is to preserve the valued rural character of this important link between country and town. Preservation of the existing trees and the country homes and farmsteads will retain the overall rural feeling and character of Corona Road. The following policies are set forth in the CESP to guide development while retaining the rural character: Policy 30 The "country road" feeling of the route shall be preserved by maintaining the current two-lane rural design standard of the roadway (no curb and gutter, and no street lights except at intersections with designated arterials) and by retaining existing open drainage ditches along the roadside. Policy 31 The existing tree canopy of specimen California live oaks and other mature roadside trees on other side of the route shall be protected against future removal of disturbance. Policy 32 Aged or diseased trees shall be replaced as necessary and in kind to preserve and enhance the character of the route over the long term. Policy 33 To the degree feasible, typical rural features along Corona Road shall be retained, and future development along the route should repeat those features. For example, future fence construction along the route shall be confined to open designs. Policy 34 Paved driveways are not required in the city and shall also be discouraged along Corona Road. By incorporating the following design features, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval, the Corona Road Subdivision achieves consistency with the applicable policies in the CESP: • Restoration of the 1900 -era farmhouse at 498 Corona Road/Lot 6 (Mitigation Measure CUL -1); • Preservation of the two palms at Lot 1 and 2 (AES -1); • Preservation of existing healthy trees along the Corona Road right-of-way trees along Corona Road (BIO -10); • Replacement of undesirable trees with coast live oak and another canopy tree along Corona Road (AES -2); • Large, approximately %-acre lots proposed along Corona Road: • Enhanced Site Plan and Architectural Review findings required at Lots 1 and 2, relating to maintenance of the rural feel of Corona Road for the homes and for outbuildings within 80 feet of Corona Road (AES -3 and Condition 7b); Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision IA- Page 13 • Pursuant to CESP Policies 33 and 34, fencing within 30 feet of the Corona Road property line (lots 1, 2, and 6) shall be open, rural designs not more than 42 inches in height and any future driveway paving shall be limited in width for the first 70 feet from the Corona Road property line (condition 5a); and • The Cultural and Historic Evaluation Report found that the proposed subdivision does not pose a threat to the existing historic resource at 498 Corona Road, as new development would be located to the east of the existing historic house and would not hinder views from Corona Road to the farmhouse. The evaluation also found that, as the proposed subdivision preserves the existing 1900 -era farmhouse, retains large lots along Corona Road, and does not introduce new driveways, it would not interfere with the remaining Distinctive Country Homes and Farmsteads along Corona Road. In addition, the project retains the rural character of Corona Road by not widening Corona Road or introducing any additional roadway or driveway from Corona Road to the site. The Corona Ely Specific Plan includes other policies that speak to the design of new subdivisions: Policy 92 Local streets shall emphasize curvilinear alignments. short loop streets, and cul-de-sacs to create neighborhood unity and visual interest, reduce traffic speeds, and discourage through traffic. Policy 95 All Corona/Ely residential streets shall have 4 to 5 -foot planting strips within the right- -- - of -way on both sides of the street between the curb and sidewalk, rather than having the sidewalk adjacent to the street. Policy 96 The Street Landscape Plan shall specify planting, irrigation, pedestrian & street signage, street lighting, underground utility, and mailbox details. There should be an approved Street Landscape Plan for each subdivision. The proposed subdivision conforms to these policies. The street layout includes short streets and cul-de-sacs. No through traffic to Corona is possible with this layout. A sidewalk is proposed on both sides of the street and is separated from the street by a full 5 foot wide planter. A conceptual Street Landscape Plan has been provided (TM -12) and a detailed Street Landscape Plan is required by Mitigation Measure LU -1. The Corona Ely Specific Plan designates an urban separator of passive open space along the whole eastern boundary of the CESP area and specifies that it be 300 feet in depth. The purpose of this separator included preserving views to Sonoma Mountain and serving as a barrier between residential uses and those occurring on County lands (such as agricultural uses). The CESP includes policies that speak to the design of the urban separator: Policy 124 The separator edge landscaping should achieve an average overall width between curb and fence of 25 feet. The 25 foot width should vary in order to create a more interesting and natural appearing transition. The landscaping with the transitional strip should include low -growing, low -maintenance shrubs to enhance the edge and control access without obstructing views. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision I y-- Page 14 Policy 125Fencing shall be designed to prevent vehicular access to the separator. The fencing shall be less than 3 -feet high and shall feature an open or "transparent' design. In lieu of the post -and cable solution normally constructed for this purpose in Petaluma, the Specific Plan recommends using a more visually pleasing barrier such as timber post and rail, inter -locking timber, chamfered wood rails on low concrete pilasters, etc. With construction of a detention basin, the subject urban separator segment will continue to serve as passive open space. As in the current condition, particularly as conditioned with 5:1 slopes (see Condition 6), there is no barrier to residents accessing and enjoying the urban separator lands. The project will increase foot/bike travel within this segment of urban separator land by constructing the urban separator path and abutting landscaping. With the basin addition, the urban separator lands will continue to serve as a separator between residential uses and those occurring on County lands and existing views to Sonoma Mountain will remain, as the detention basin is an excavation rather than projection. Similar type basins have been created within the urban separator. On the other side of Kenilworth Junior High, the Heritage Subdivision constructed one in about 1999 (between Lansdowne Way and Westminster Lane) and in 1987 Shelter Hills Subdivision constructed three basins in the urban separator at St Augustine Circle. As described above and as shown on plan sheets DB -1 and DB- 2. the applicant has proposed a conceptual design for the separator edge landscaping (the first 25 feet from the Riesling curb), that is consistent with the above. A fully detailed plan is required by Mitigation Measure AES -4 at the Public Improvement Plan stage, subject to review by both staff and the City's Tree Advisory Committee. The project, as designed together with the Mitigation Measures and proposed Conditions, is consistent with the General Plan, the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and the Corona Ely Specific Plan. IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE Because the subdivision and annexation area have not yet been annexed into the City, they do not currently have a city zoning designation. Table 2-1 in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) states that the RI zoning district implements the General Plan's Very Low Density Residential land use classification and R2 implements the General Plan's Low Density Residential land use classification. The recormnended pre -zoning of the subdivision site would apply the RI and R2 zoning standards to the project and therefore these standards have been used to analyze the proposed subdivision. The minimum lot size in the R1 zoning district is 20,000 square feet; the project proposes RI lot sizes ranging from approximately 20,093 square feet up to 34,914 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R2 zoning district is 6,000 square feet; the project proposes R2 lot sizes ranging from approximately 6,000 square feet up to 8,954 square feet. Each proposed lot also complies with the minimum lot width and depth standard; that is each RI lot is at least 100 feet wide by 130 feet deep and each R2 lot is at least 50 feet wide by 70 feet deep. Each corner lot is a little wider as required; each RI lot is at least 110 feet wide and each R2 corner lot is at least 55 feet wide. Thus, the proposed pre -zoning designations (RI at VLDR and R2 at LDR) are consistent with the General Plan designations and the proposed subdivision parcel sizes are consistent with the applicable Zoning designation minimum lot size requirement. The parcels have been configured Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14—Page 15 to enable conformance with the other zoning requirements such as setbacks and parking, which will be reviewed for compliance during future Site Plan and Architectural Review (Attaclunent I -I). PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW The Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) reviewed the proposed 31 -lot subdivision on March 16, 2011 and provided final comments on March 21, 2011. The following outlines comments received from PBAC with staff response in italics. PBAC strongly recommends that the Applicant dedicate land for the inclusion of a neighborhood- - -- serving playground for the benefit of all lot owners. This space would provide on-site community recreational use and could include a community garden for use by owners of Lots 10-31. Parcels dedicated to recreation use/playgrounds and community gardens, should include bicycle parking for 3-6 bicycles, benches/picnic tables, and drinking fountains accessible to ADA persons and their pets/service animals. - The General Plan does not designate a park ori any portion of the subdivision area. Likewise, Corona Ely did not designate a park or playground at the subject parcel. The proposed subdivision lots are each at least 6,000 square feet; a 6,000 square foot single family lot is likely the most conation size in the Cit), not one that demands connmron area to provide basic outdoor opportunities. The project will also pay impact fees for opera space and parkland in order to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of the General Plan planned public facilities and service innprovennents. No condition has been added to implement this recommendation. Under Petaluma's Current Bicycle Facilities Plan, Class 11 bike facilities are proposed along the entire length of Corona Road. PBAC understands that the City will not be annexing any portion of Corona Road for this development, and recognizes that a Class 11 along Corona Road is not immediately feasible. Therefore, PBAC recommends construction of a Class I Shared Use Pathway across the frontages of all lots facing Corona Road. PBAC recommends either: (1) construction of a Class I bicycle pathway across the frontages of Lots 1, 2, & 6; (2) an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Land to create an easement upon Corona Road for a multi -use pathway in the future; or (3) current funds from this applicant for a Corona Road Class I easement to be held for 5 years to cause installation of the Class I in connection with future Corona Road development. The project has been conditioned consistent with existing policy to preserve the rural character of Corona Road. Construction of a Class 1 at Lots 1, 2, and 6 as a part of this project would require Gree removal along Corona, without providing the benefit of a connection to any path or sidewalk Thus, the project; as proposed and conditioned, will accommodate the long-term goal of Figure 5- 2 of One Petaluma General while maintaining rural character in the near tern, as directed by the CESP and the General Plan. PBAC recommends that applicant shall dedicate and install a public, multi -use shared pathway in an easement from Corona Road to the internal street for pedestrian/bike travel in perpetuity. The barricade shown on the development plans shall be constructed so as to permit 2 -way ADA compatible pedestrian, bicycle, and stroller traffic. The public path easement shall have curb cuts at each end for safe use by bicyclists. The path from Corona Road to the internal street sliall have non -exclusionary signage stating public access at each end. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision L{- Page 16 The project includes a public path within a 10 foot easement between public Street B and Corona Road (called puublic access area on sheet TM -IQ see also TA,16 & 7). Condition 29 in the draft resolution requires the installation of bollards. The plan shows the large driveway curb cut at public Street B. Condition 29 will also ensure that the Corona Road end of the path cogfornzs to grade. A condition has not been added for path signage, as the Cita Engineer would prefer not to highlight the connection because there are not fill pedestrian and bicycle amenities on Corona Road. PBAC recommends that the purchasers of Lots 1-5 have full -disclosure of public access and be required to use see-through fencing along the length of the public path to improve the safety, visibility and utility of the public path by bike, pedestrian and other users. The easement runs on Lots 2 and 5, ensuring disclose to those lots. Condition 5c in the draft resolution requires disclosure of the proximate public pada to abutting property owners at Lots 1, 3, and d. Regarding the reconmzendation for opera fencing, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow a ---solid fence higher than 3% feet within 20 feet of the path/shared drivewgja at Lots d and 5 which front onto the shoed driveway, so no special requirement is necessary at these lots. Lot 2 gains its access from Public Street B, so it will have at least partial openness to the path/shared drivermay at the rear. If the Planning Commission desires to restrict some or all sections of the fence along the path/drivewco) at Lots, 1, Z and 3, staff can add such language to Condition 5c. The Conznzission may wish to allow some fencing sections at these meas to be solid so to accommodate some backyard privacy, perhaps at the rear portions of Lots I and 3. Applicant shall install signage at Monica Drive and Andover way, to direct users to the SMART rail station and other local destinations, such as schools and emergency evacuation routes. In other subdivisions that have direct access to a creekside trails or an urban separator path, the City has conditioned installation of a pedestrian scale sign at the 'trail bead, " to provide a map showing how the path connects to other paths or amenities. However, placing a sign as described at the corner of public streets Monica and Andover is root consistent with cihnvide development patterns. This condition has not been included in the draft resolution. PBAC recommends City staff look at the intersection of Monica and Andover and consider whether any existing crosswalks facilities are appropriate and safe, or in need of upgrade. Public Works has reviewed this intersection and, as the intersection is outside of the project lou nda), finds no nexus to require the developer to install crossuvalkfacilities. Should the City Engineer deem an improvement at the intersection rnecessay, City crews will complete installation. PRIMARY ISSUES Addition of Detention Basin at Urban Separator As described above there is a precedent to locating a detention basin in urban separator lands. Additionally, the addition of the basin does not significantly change the use of the urban separator or prohibit residents from venturing out into the urban separator lands. Views to Sonoma Mountain will continue as the basin is designed as an excavation. The addition will not diminish the urban separators purpose of serving as a buffer between residential and county uses such as Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision �- Page 17 agricultural. Furthermore, staff has identified the following public benefits of allowing the detention basin to be constructed: The proposed detention basin will provide excess water storage capacity during the 100 - year storm event. This will reduce the downstream water surface elevation below existing elevations and reduce the overflow potential of Corona Creek; 2. The addition of the detention basin will benefit the larger neighborhood by removing existing homes shown to be located within the 100 year flood zone on the new FIRM maps from the flood zone boundaries. These homes will not be at risk and will not be required - to have flood insurance; I The 100 -year water surface elevation will be reduced in Corona Creels by an average of about 0.6 feet and will be reduced in the Petaluma River by an average of about 0.02 feet; 4. The project will construct the urban separator streetscape improvements which did not occur with build -out of the Graystone Creek subdivision. As required by the Corona Ely Specific Plan including Policies 124 and 125, the project will construct a 25 -foot wide, Urban Separator edge improvement, along the frontage of Riesling Road. Commencing at Riesling Road, the Urban Separator edge improvement will consist of a 6 foot landscape strip, an 8 foot multi -use concrete path, an 11 foot landscape strip, and a 3 foot high open - type vehicle -barricade at the top of the detention basin bank. Detention Basin Design The detention basin shown in the plan set is designed with side slopes of two horizontal units to one vertical unit (2:1). For the following two reasons, staff recommends that the detention basin be conditioned to have a gradually sloping bank. Firstly, a more gradual slope will best ensure that the subject segment of urban separator lands continues to be as accessible as it is currently; that is, that no impediment prevents the more adventurous from proceeding out into the urban separator lands, though most will utilize the urban separator by way of the newly constructed path. Secondly, a more gradual slope requires less excavation and fewer truck trips to haul the soil offsite. Reducing the truck trips will benefit the neighborhood and local air quality during the soil removal period. The project environmental review is based on the amount of earth that must be removed to construct a detention pond with a 2:1 slope; that is 81,010 cubic yards. The cut volume for a basin with 5:1 sides would be 66,000 cubic yards; requiring 75% of the truck trips required by a 2:1 slope basin. 0 0 @g E- Slope example �kofpond Length: Depth depicting a 4:1 slope. (ex. 4:1) Length (ex.4 feet) A basin with 5:1 slopes has been conceptually studied on behalf of the City by water engineers at WEST Consultants and found likely to provide the same floodplain protection to homes as does the 2:1 design, with no negative impact to Petaluma River. Condition 6 in the attached draft resolution directs the full study of 5:1 bank slopes to ensure its success. In the unexpected event Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision I A - Page 18 that 5:1 slopes not prove possible, the condition requires that other slope minimizing options be studied (such as a 4:1 or 3:1 alternatives, especially at the bank nearest Riesling Road). Annexation Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary was approved (Measure 1) by the voters. The approved UGB runs along the south (City) side of Corona Road, but does not include Corona Road itself. The graphic representation of the UGB in the General Plan (Figure 2-1) shows a thickly dashed line down Corona Road, making it difficult to identify the precise location of the approved UGB. However, Exhibits A.1 and A.2 from the voter pamphlet for Measure I (Attachment K) clearly shows the proposed UGB located along the southern side of Corona Road. The City has long-standing policies in place to keep Corona Road rural in nature with no City improvements. The City's continuous goal since at least 1989 (when the Urban Growth Boundary and the Corona Ely Specific Plan were adopted) has been that Corona Road remains a rural country road. All development over the last 25 years along this eastern stretch of Corona Road has been limited in size and intensity and had limited access to Corona Road. Only larger parcel sizes with larger setbacks have been allowed. Existing historic -era homes and bams and water tanks have been conditioned to remain. Urban -type street improvements have not been permitted. The vision for a rural -feeling country road has been consistently applied throughout these 2'/ decades, and the result is that this roadway is quite distinct from roadways within City limits. Twenty-five years later, the community still identifies Corona Road as a country road. Planning staff has received comments from the County Transportation and Public Works Department that they desire Corona Road, from Sonoma Mountain Parkway past Corona Creek School to the City limit line, to be annexed into the City along with 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road. The County recommends reconstruction of Corona Road to meet arterial/collector roadway design criteria for width, left turn charmelization, structural capacity, pedestrian and bicycle use, and roadway drainage be added as a condition of development. Consistent with the existing UGB, boundaries, General Plan policy, and CESP policy, Staff is recommending that the City support the proposed annexation with specific exclusion of Corona Road. This specific recommendation is based on consistency with the following policies: 1-P-29 It is the policy of the City to build within the agreed upon Urban Growth Boundary. No urban development shall be permitted beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. As identied in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 of Measure I (UGB ballot initiative) the UGB lies along the southern boundary of Corona Road and does not include the roadway itself. The city's support of the annexation is conditioned upon consistency with the voter approved UGB and therefore does not include annexation of Corona Road. 1-P-31 Except as set forth in Policy 1-P-32, the Urban Growth Boundary Policies 1-P-29, 1-P-30, 1-P-31, and I -P-32 shall be in effect until December 31, 2018. No exceptions apply to the proposed project that mould just fy support of a change to the UGB before December 31, 2018. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision I Page 19 1-P-32 The Urban Growth Boundary designated on the Petaluma General Plan Land Use Map may be amended only by a vote of the people or pursuant to the procedures set forth below: Exception I — Affordable Housing, Exception II — Takings; Exception III — Transit - Oriented or Industrial Development; and/or Exception IV — Agriculture, Agriculture Support or Related Development. None of the exceptions outlined in I -P-32 apply to the proposed project. 1-P-33 Every effort shall be made to keep the visual separation that now exists between communities, outside the Urban Growth Boundary. --- Corona Road is a ramal road that creates a clear visual separation between city limits to the south and county lands to the north Annexation consistent with the UGB on the south side of Corona Road will maintain this important separation between city and coranty. - 1-P-35 Growth shall be contained within the boundaries of the Urban Growth Boundary. The necessary infrastructure will be provided within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed Corona Road Subdivision has been designed to provide all access and utilities f om within the city boundaries. No new access is proposed from Corona Road. 1-P-36 For properties adjoining the Urban Growth Boundary, it is the intent of the City that projects developed in the City or requesting City services shall be of limited density, unless greater density is required to satisfy the requirements of state housing laws, and shall be designed to preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve the aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property proximate to the rural areas outside of the designated Urban Growth Boundary. The project has been designed to minhnLe visual change along the Corona Road corridor. Existing properties along Corona Road will remain as is, the existing historic farmhouse is proposed for preservation, and no new vehicular access is proposed. Two new parcels are being created along the Corona Road frontage, both of which have been designed to match the size and general configuration of other parcels along the frontage. Existing tree canopy along Corona Road is to remain. All of these items have been incorporated into the overall project design to preserve the visual openness and preseve the aesthetic and nataWal features along the Corona Road corridor. Following the City Council's consideration of the proposed annexation, the applicant, in collaboration with the City will submit an application to The Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Ultimate approval of the proposed annexation is at the discretion of LAFCO. Through initial dialogue with LAFCO staff, several adopted policies have been discussed that may be part of the consideration during the next step in the annexation process. The following outlines applicable LAFCO policy with staff response in italics: Include properties wholly within both the voter -approved Urban Growth Boundary and the Urban Service Boundary for the city in the Sonoma County General Plan. Include frontage roads. (Attachment L) Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision H- Page 20 Although Corona Road is within the Urban Service Bounda)� for Petaha7a in the Sonoma Counh, General Plan, it is not within the voter -approved Urban Growth Boundary. Additionally, although Corona Road lies along the frontage of the properties included in the proposed annexation, no additional or untensication of services from the road is proposed with the Corona Road subdivision Proposals shall be consistent with applicable city and county general and specific plans. The Commission discourages proposals that promote urban development in areas not designated for urban development by applicable plans. (Attachment L) A1717exation of Corona Road would be h7Co17Sistent with Petaluma's General Pla7 and the Corona Ely Specific Plan. Annexation of Corona Road would be in conflict with the voter approved Urban Growth Bounday and would necessitate modifications to Corona Road itself that would be in conflict frith rnrmerous policies to maintain rural Corona Road, maintain a visual separation at the UGB, and preserve the aesthetic character or frontage roads at the UGB. In the review and consideration of proposals, the Commission shall take into account the comments of affected district or affected local agencies. To the extent that such comments reflect the laws and policies of this Commission, the Commission shall give considerable weight to such comments. (Attachment L) As outlined above, there are numerous cit)r policies in addition to the voter approved UGB that do not support the annexation of Cor•oma_Road as part of this proposed annexation. Staff will continue to outline these items in staff reports, resolutions, ar7d applications for consideration by the City Council and subsequently by LAFCO to inform the C0717177iSSlor7 in their consideration of the annexation proposal. The associated Tentative Map has been conditioned (Condition 1) on approval by LAFCO of annexation boundary recommended by the City Council. Additionally, the proposed annexation resolution contains language conditioning the annexation on LAFCO approval of annexation boundaries as recommended by the City Council. Wetland: The Biological Assessment identified one sensitive plant community at the proposed subdivision site: seasonal wetlands. The onsite wetlands are man-made ditches and ruderal fields of limited value and fanction. They are isolated from suitable habitat, and thus have low potential to support sensitive plant species. The project biologist, WRA, has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to verify the extent of wetlands within the subdivision site. A total of 0.94 acres of seasonal wetlands are present onsite, including 0.87 acres of federal jurisdictional Section 404 "Waters of the U.S.," and 0.07 acres of isolated wetlands that are Non -Section 404 wetlands. All wetlands identified onsite are considered to be "waters of the state" and therefore are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In order to mitigate for potential impacts to these isolated and seasonal wetlands, Mitigation Measure BIO -4 is required, specifying the purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits at a preliminarily mitigation ratio of 1:1. A ratio of 1:1 is expected given the limited value and function of these particular wetlands. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision J4- Page 21 Trees: The Tree Report identified 28 trees onsite. Five are located within the right of way along Corona Road (41, and #23 - 426), one is the Monterey cypress (#34) growing on the western fence line, and three are oak trees (#5 - #7) growing along the eastern fence line. The other 19 are located within the subject subdivision parcel. Nine of the trees qualify as protected trees, pursuant to the IZO. These nine are Coast live oaks (trees #1 — 48 and #23), two of which are right-of-way trees (#1 and 923). Mitigation Measure BIO -9 requires their protection of during construction via the establishment of a Tree Protection Zone. Mitigation Measure BIO -10 ensures that future landowners preserve these protected trees. Three Lombardy poplars (924 — 926) also qualify as Protected pursuant to the IZO, because of their location within the right -of way. These poplars are in poor condition; all have extensive trunk decay and #25 and #26 have recently experienced stem failures. As described in the Tree Report all three poplars are expected to decline regardless of management, and there replacement is recommended by the arborist. Mitigation Measure BIO -12, in accordance with Zoning section 17.065A2 and A.3.c.3, requires a total of thirty 24 -inch box replacement trees. AES -2 stipulates that as many of these as practical are planted along Corona Road to enhance the tree canopy and that the planted trees be a mix of the native coast live oak which occurs on this stretch of Corona Road and a compatible canopy species, to enhance diversity. The site also contains sixteen non -protected trees. Five of these non -protected trees will be removed (walnut 413, small redwood 915, cherry 428, elm #31, and locust 433), because they are within an area to be graded for the development. Four of these five are in poor condition (#15, 428, #31, and 433) and expected to decline regardless of management. The proposed planting of the street trees (sheet TM -12) will compensate for the canopy loss of these trees, thus the project is compliant with the intent of IZO section 17.010. The proposed location of the detention basin currently contains no trees, though trees will be planted along Riesling as part of the project. Therefore, with mitigation measures BIO -9 through BIO -12, all healthy, protected trees will be preserved and the project will comply with the tree preservation ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENTS On November 14, 2013 a public notice was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of both the annexation area and the proposed detention basin. After continuation of the item at the December 17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, a courtesy notice was sent surrounding property owners and residents prior to the January 27. 2014 hearing. In response to the notice the City has received both written and verbal comments from neighbors. Verbal comments received from David O'Shea. custodian of the 520 Corona Road property proposed to be included in the annexation & pre -zoning expressed preference that city water and sewer be provided to 520 Corona instead of a new well. At the writing of the staff report several written comments have been received (Attachment M) and are summarized below. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision — Page 22 _Mark Tomlinson: 1. Concern about what the detention basin will look like; stating that plantings akin to those around Corona Creek and a rustic wood fence would be nice. While final details are not required until the improvement plan phase, the proposed concept depicts (see *) and CESP policies 124 and 125 requires improvement consistent with that desired by the neighbor. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure ASE -4, final details shall be subject to staff review, and the trees shall be subject to review by the Tree Advisory Committee. Should concern regarding detailing of the urban separator edge treatment prove great, the Planning Commission can add a condition recommending that the final edge treatment design return to the Planning Commission for site plan and architectural review. 2. Concern about who will maintain the detention basin. - Pursuant to Mitigation Measures HYDRO -1 and LU -1, on-going maintenance will be funded by the subdivision and conducted by the City. - - 3. Concern whether design of the detention basin Wright result in a drainage isszre for existing homes. After correspondence with staff about the basin design, the neighbor appears to feel the basin is deep enough and may well improve on area drainage. 4. Concern that the basin will be ivet year-round and that vermin and mosquitos could be a problem The basin will be dry outside of the rainy season. 5. Question as to the City benefit of detention basin construction in the urban separator lands. Staff discussed the public benefits of allowing the detention basin to be constructed on urban separator lands in the Addition of Detention Basin discussion on page 17. 6. Concern that detention basin soil hauling not run during school drop of and pick tip hours when streets are ab•eady clogged with parent pickups fron 2:40 - 3pn (1:40 - 2 pill on Wednesdgiys). Mitigation Measure AQ -2 limits haul truck hours to weekdays between the hours of 9am and Spm. Staff recommended that the neighborhood consider and propose a more precise restriction. As a placeholder, staff has addition Condition 11 that off-site hauling cease during the periods noted above, but be allowed the increment between 3:15 and 4 (2:15 to 4 Wednesdays) on days that school is in session and added language to encourage that such work occur during school breaks where possible. 7. Concern about existing vegetation in Co•ona Creek exacerbating. loodirag potential. Since receiving this comment, Public Works staff has looked into maintenance responsibilities of this segment of Corona Creek and found they lie with the City. This creek segment had not been previously shown on the City's creek maintenance map and as such maintenance has not Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision - Page 23 been occurring. This omission was rectified the first week of December 2013 and City crews have this reach of Corona Creek programed for maintenance and clearance in the first quarter of 2014 and for regular maintenance thereafter. 8. Desire that new homes be subject to Waugh School District Alello-Roos so that the Alello-Roos a7hhozo7t would drop per existing house. Staff contacted the Waugh School District regarding this concern. Superintendent Robert Cmelak wrote that the two district "schools need a little maintenance. Black tops need resurfacing and classrooms are starting to need new carpet. At this time, Waugh is asking not to annex the homes into Mello -Roos. Instead, our preference is to collect school impact developer fees to keep our schools well maintained." 9. SMART does not own the land of the north Petaluma SAL4RT station (corner ofMcDowell and Corona), so the Initial Study shouldnot refer to it or use it as mitigation. Because this is the planned location of the second Petaluma SMART station, it is appropriate to discuss the station. However, the project does not rely on a North Petaluma station for mitigation or in analysis of project impacts, including air quality. Mark Bisordi: Mr. Bisordi's comments were primary associated with the detention basin which were answered by Staff regarding proposed conditions related to the 5:1 slope design, assurance that once under construction the basin would be completed to plans, and examples of other drainage basins. Karen Colabianchi: Ms. Colabianchi expressed concern that when she built her house in 1999 that there was assurance given that any future development along Corona Road would not be less than two acres per parcel/home. Staffs response to Ms. Colabianchi summarized the General Plan designation of the project site area nearest Corona Road to be Very Low Density which allows a density range of 0.6 to 2.5 housing units per acre. The project proposes development in this area at approximately 2.3 housing units per net acre, consistent with the General Plan designation. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts was prepared by planning staff. Mitigation measures to avoid, substantially reduce, or compensate for the environmental impacts are identified in the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels and are incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that tine project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14 — Page 24 It is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by the City Council. The hnitial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are included as Attachments. The mitigation measures are summarized below (please see Attachment G for a full description of the measures). Environmental impacts considered to be "Less than significant with mitigation measures" were identified in eleven categories in the Initial Study. The following mitigation measures summarized below (for full text, please see Attachment A) will reduce all project impacts to a "less than significant level". AES -1 thru AES -6: Requires a deed restriction to ensure continued preservation of the two palm trees; requires enhancement of the tree canopy along Corona Road; requires site plan and architectural review approval of any a house or outbuilding within 80 feet of Corona Road at Lots 1 and 2 finding the structure consistent with Corona Road policies; requires full detailing of the detention basin landscape plan subject to Tree Advisory Committee review; and requires light shielding. AQ -1 thru AQ -3: Requires implementation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures such as watering exposes surfaces three times per day and covering haul trucks; requires a specific haul truck route from the detention basin site and limits hauling hours; and requires a plan demonstrating that off-road equipment and haul trucks used during construction would achieve a project -wide fleet -average that reduces NOx emissions by 40 percent and PM emissions by 15 percent. BIO -1 thru BIO -12: Requires measures to ensure protection of any bat species potentially present in the farmhouse, any western pond turtle potentially present along the stretch of Corona Creek adjacent to the detention basin site, and any covered migratory birds potentially present; requires purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits; requires replacement of any disturbed willow trees potentially lost along Corona Creels, requires jurisdictional determination for "Waters of the United States" and the top of bank or the outer edge of the riparian vegetation for Corona Creek at the inlet/outlet of the detention basin and purchase of mitigation credits should any impact be identified; requires minimization of impacts to riparian vegetation and stream bottom at detention basin outlet to Corona Creels and planting of the area around the outlet and upstream of the creels with riparian vegetation; requires no work in Corona Creek when water is flowing; requires appropriate tree fencing: requires continued preservation of the nine protected oak trees at Lot 6; and requires 60 -inches of replacement trunk diameter, half being native oak. CUL -1 thru CUL -3: Requires designation of the farmhouse at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark; requires its rehabilitation pursuant to the Secretory of Interior's Standards including wood window replacement: and requires appropriate measures should human remains be uncovered. GEO-I thru GEO-7: Requires submittal of an erosion control plan: requires moisture conditioning of expansive soils; requires updated site specific geotechnical reports of the final project plans; requires soil engineer review during construction of detention basin Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision jq — Page 25 embankment slope conditions; and requires conformance with applicable building codes and engineering standards. HYDRO -1 thru HYDRO -4: Requires preparation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; requires an off-site storm water detention system to limit post -construction storm water peal: flows; requires subdivision conditions, covenants and restrictions to establish and fund long term maintenance, inspection, and repair for the onsite storm water system and post construction storm water treatment measures; and requires a mechanism (such as a Landscaping Assessment District) to fund on-going maintenance, inspection, and as needed repair of the detention basin. LU -1 and LU -2: Requires the improvement plan show the proposed subdivision lighting, landscaping, and mailbox design, subject to staff review and approval and requires a mechanism such as a Landscaping Assessment District be established to fund the ongoing maintenance of the detention basin to be conducted by the City. NOI-1 and NOI-2: Establishes construction hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Requires a construction Noise Disturbance Coordinator be designated and his contact information posted. TRAF-1: Requires the developer repair any damaged street sections along Riesling and Fieldstone in order to minimize impacts associated with haul truck trips. UTIL-1: Requires an updated Sheet TM -9 that shows the appropriately sized storm drains with consideration of the proposed detention basin. The Tnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for a 30 -day public review period from November 17 through December 17, 2013. Mitigation Monitoring A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to identify the timing and person responsible for monitoring that the above mitigation measures are completed. The MMRR is included as Exhibit 1 of Attachment A. Staff recommends that the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee: a Recommend the Planning Commission approve a resolution recommending the City Council designate the existing farmhouse at 498 Corona Road as a local historic landmark. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision J�- Page 26 • Resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision project (Attachment A and Exhibit 1), • Resolution supporting the Annexation of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road into the City (Attachment B), • Resolution recommending approval of Pre -Zoning of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road to RI and R2 (Attachment C), • Resolution recommending designation of the farmhouse located at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark (Attachment D), Resolution recommending approval of a 31 -lot residential Tentative Subdivision Map of 10.1 acres located at 470 and 498 Corona Road (Attachment E), and • Resolution recommending construction of a Detention Basin on City Urban Separator Lands east of Riesling Road between Corona Creek School and Kenilworth School (Attachment F), ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Resolution Recommending Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment B: Draft Resolution Supporting Application to LAFCO for Annexation Attachment C: Draft Resolution Recommending Pre -Zoning to RI and R2 Attachment D: Draft Resolution Recommending Designation of the House at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark Attachment E: Draft Resolution Recommending a 31 -lot Tentative Subdivision Map Attachment F: Draft Resolution Recommending Authorization of Detention Basin Construction at Urban Separator Lands Attachment G: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (studies available on-line at hqp://cityofpetaluma.net/edd/ma i or -prof ects.htnil Attachment H: Implement Zoning Ordinance Excerpt: RI and R2 Attachment 1: Corona Ely Specific Plan Excerpt Attachment J: Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Comments March 2011 Attachment K: Measure I Voter Pamphlet with Exhibits A.1 and A.2 Attachment L: LAFCO policy excerpts Attachment M: Neighborhood Correspondence, emails from Marl, Tomlinson, Mark Bisordi, and Karen Colabianchi - 2013 Attachment N: Full and half -sized Plans dated December 12, 2013 Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 14— Page 27 ATTAC11MENT 15 DATE: July 22, 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tiffany Robbe, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: CORONA ROAD ANNEXATION & SUBDNISION Annexation, Pre -Zoning, Landmark Designation, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Authorization of Detention Basin on City Lands 470 and 498 Corona Road (with 496, 520, and 522 Corona Road included in the annexation and 0 Riesling being the basin site) File No. 09 -TSM -0344 This report is a supplement to the Staff Report packet prepared far the danuwy 28, 2014 HCPC/P1a7777i77g Connnission meeting. Commissioners should refer to their original packets (available at http://citvoofpetal7ona7ietlcclerklarchil,es. html), in addition to the updates in this report. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed modifications to the project, conduct the required public hearing, and adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration/hritial Study and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision project (Attachment A and Exhibit 1); and • Resolution recommending that the City Council support annexation of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road into the City (Attachment B); and • Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Pre -Zoning of 470, 496, 498, 520, and 522 Corona Road to RI and R2 (Attachment C); and • Resolution recommending that the City Council designate the farmhouse located at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark (Attachment D); and • Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a 31 -lot residential Tentative Subdivision Map of 10.1 acres located at 470 and 498 Corona Road (Attachment E); and • Resolution recommending that the City council approve construction of a Detention Basin on City Urban Separator Lands east of Riesling Road between Corona Creek School and Kenilworth School (Attachment F). �5-I BACKGROUND On January 28, 2014 the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommended designation of the existing 1900 -era house at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark. After review and discussion the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain and provided direction to the applicant for project modifications. Project Modifications On May 13'h the applicant submitted revised Tentative Subdivision Map and detention basin plans, technical updates, and a letter from LAFCO (Attachments H -K & N). The following outlines the most significant project modifications and clarifications proposed in response to Planning Commission direction given at the January 28h hearing (PC direction and staff response are outlined at page 3): Project Access/Lot Arrangement The Tentative Subdivision Map has been modified to provide vehicular access from Corona Road to the three subdivision lots with frontage on Corona Road (Lots 1, 2 and 6). As revised, Lots 1 and 2 share existing driveway access at Lot 1, with the connection to Lot 2 occurring outside the dripline of palm trees 29 and 30 (Attachment N, Sheet TM -7). The proposal continues to preserve the access, frontage, and addressing of the historic home on Corona Road. This map modification enables Lots 4 and 5 to be reoriented so that Lot 4 has direct frontage and access to public Street B and Lot 5 has direct frontage and access to public Street A. These modifications eliminate the need for the fire truck turn -around, which has been eliminated from the proposal. The proposed public pedestrian and bicycle path between Corona Road and public Street B has been retained. Detention Basi Since the Planning Commission hearing, the detention basin has been redesigned to reduce the slope of the sides from the 2:1 slope analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study to a gentler 5:1 slope ratio (Attachment N. Sheet TM -13 & 14). The modified 5:1 slope geometry has been studied by WEST Consultants and found to maintain the same level of flood protection as the earlier study illustrated for the 2:1 slope design (Attachment J). In part, the same level of flood protection is achievable with the 5:1 slope design because the final Flood Insurance Rate Maps (February 2014) found the 100 -year flood boundary to be slightly reduced in size from the 2013 preliminary FIRM maps utilized in the previous 2013 WEST study. Attachment K is a Flood History Exhibit prepared by the project engineer; Sheet 8 illustrates these findings. The more recent WEST model run on behalf of the City continues to demonstrate that any breakout flow from Corona Creek after construction of the basin at a 5:1 slope and development of the proposed subdivision, would be contained in the street, consistent with Sonoma County flood control policy, and would not need to be shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The annexation area and adjacent existing houses would be removed from the 100 -year floodplain. t5 - 2 The 5:1 slope geometry significantly reduces the off -haul of material from 81,010 cubic yards to 65,425 cubic yards, which in tum will reduce the number of truck trips impacting the area. The Geotechnical Engineering Consultant (Reese & Associates: Attachment I) further reviewed the detention basin looking at infiltration concerns and impacts to neighboring properties. Their March 31, 2014 report also responds to the requirements of Mitigation Measure GEO-6 and TSM Condition 37 regarding required construction level engineering reports. The construction level report found the basin site soils to be relatively permeable, and recommended that the basin be lined on the bottom and interior slopes to satisfactorily reduce the risk of infiltration and any impacts to neighboring properties. This recommendation has been incorporated into the proposed project. Annexation After lengthy discussion with Sonoma County LAFCO regarding the issue of Corona Road itself, a revised letter from LAFCO has been received acknowledging that no part of Corona Road between Sonoma Mountain roundabout and the City limits at Corona Creek School is within City boundaries and therefore annexation of Corona Road along the project frontage would create an illogical and disjointed boundary. As creating a regular and logical annexation boundary is a Ivey LAFCO requirement, LAFCO staff no longer requests annexation of Corona Road. The following discussion outlines the comments received at the January 28th Planning Commission meeting with staff response based on project revisions and clarifications. Traffis Encourage Lot 2 access to crone fi•oin Corona Road, lvith Lots 4 and S reoriented to have direct access to public Street or B, enabling elimination of the fire turn around. The revised plans have successfully modified lot layout and access to address this direction. City staff from the Department of Public Works and Utilities, Fire Department, and Planning Division have reviewed the modifications and are supportive of the revised tentative map. Conditions of approval have been updated in the draft resolution (Attachment E) to reflect the modifications. Concern ryas expressed about the level ofservice at Corona & Ely stop sign intersection. A full Traffic Study was prepared by Dowling Associates, Inc. and is analyzed in the Project Initial Study/MND. The Study determined that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts beyond what is projected under the no project condition: none of the intersections that were analyzed in the Traffic Study would experience a decrease in the level of service based on the project. At General Plan build -out, for example, the Study found that, without the project, the Level of Service at the Corona Road/Ely Road North all way stop intersection will degrade to unacceptable LOS F in both peak hours. The project's contribution specifically at the Corona Road/Ely Road North intersection would be at most five trips during peak hours, representing an increase of approximately 0.34% of the total trips at this intersection. IS- 3 and would not impact the Level of Service; the project impact was determined to be less than significant (Initial Study page 68, Attachment M). The Corona Road/Ely Road North intersection is an all way stop intersection located outside of both the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. In a March 3, 2011 correspondence referenced in the Initial Study, the County Department of Transportation and Public Works states that they have no plans to signalize this intersection and requests no mitigation. (In June of 2014, staff confirmed this statement with the County.) The project would not result in a significant impact beyond what is projected under the no project condition. Therefore, the project's cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Concern was expressed about additional hips along Mauro Pietro Drive. Mauro Pierto Drive has an existing 32 foot wide curb to curb street section. This width complies --with the minimum street width for a residential street with parking on both sides of the street. However, in situations where on -street parking is common on both sides of the street the 32 foot wide street can feel much narrower to through traffic. The Department of Public Works and Utilities generally recommends a slightly wider 36 foot wide street section for new residential streets with parking on both sides. However, Mauro Pierto Drive's existing 32 foot wide section complies with adopted standards. As a point of context, the existing section of Monica Lane is 28 feet curb to curb, with parking permitted only on the southwest side (Attachment E. Condition 28 requires red striping on opposite side) and proposed public Street A & B shall be 36 feet curb to curb with parking on both sides (Attachment N and Attachment E, Condition 24). At the request of the neighbors, approximately two years ago, the City made improvements to Mauro Pietro Drive. The City installed warning signs directing speeds of 15 mph and added centerline stripping through the curved sections which visually serve to reduce speeds and increase safety. A review of the City's collision reports has not demonstrated a safety issue on Mauro Pietro Drive. If residents on Mauro Pietro Drive feel that the existing condition of the street would benefit from modifications, they are encouraged to contact the City's Traffic Division to discuss additional options. For example, limiting on -street parking to only one side of the street would ensure a travel width that more easily accommodates two passing vehicles. Access to the subject property was clearly planned to come from Monica Way, as demonstrated by the Liberty Farm Subdivision Plan at right. This map illustrates Monica Lane as the future road stub out to the Chiosi and Matteli lands that now comprise the subject application. Access to the larger subdivision from Corona Road (beyond those three lots that abut Corona Road) would be inconsistent with the City's 37 (P i 12 ' IIMONIGA LANE f^i ?t'WV WAY ST EHENGI / q • m xau a � 5 � L3 e PO 75F0 CCROIVA ;G/L 6-4- General Plan, the Corona Ely Specific Plan, and the voter approved Urban Growth Boundary (see discussion at Staff Analysis below). Other routes are available to and from Monica Way. Mauro Pietro Drive is a circuitous route to the project site and results in a significantly longer drive for those intending to travel south on Sonoma Mountain Parkway or east on Corona Road; thus, it is anticipated that Mauro Pietro Drive will only be used for those intending to travel west through the Sonoma Mountain Parkway/Corona round -about. As noted in the MND/Initial Study, the anticipated trip increase on Mauro Pietro Drive as a result of the proposed project does not result in a change to the existing level of service (LOS B) at the Mauro Pietro Drive/Sonoma Mountain Parkway intersection. Detention Basin Identify additional safety measures at detention basin. Safety issues have been considered and included in the design and construction of the proposed - detention basin. The detention basin features a 25 foot setback from Riesling Road and improvements consistent with those identified in the Corona Ely Specific Plan are included in the project proposal (6 foot landscape strip along Riesling Road, an 8 foot multi -use concrete path, an 11 foot landscape strip with trees, and a 3 foot high open -type vehicular -barrier at the top of the detention basin bank). The combination of a 3 foot high open fence and planting of trees and vegetation will create a barrier between the public path and the basin, and discourage improper use. Side slopes have been reduced to 5:1 in the latest basin design, which will alleviate potential safety hazard associated with sudden drops or steep inclinations. Most of the year, the detention basin will be dry; during a 10 -year flood event the basin would have a maximum water depth of 2.21 feet and during a 100 -year flood event a 4.61 feet maximum water depth. The revised basin design has a shallow depth, reduced slope, and incorporates separation from Riesling Road to further enhance safety and prevent accident or injury. The detention basin will be drained by an I8 inch culvert. Typical safety considerations for culverts recommend a rack for culverts with a diameter of 24 inches or greater. However, culverts with a diameter of as little as 15 inches could pose a risk to small children. In an abundance of caution, staff recommends installation of a hinged rack on the proposed culvert in order to maintain water flows while promoting safety (Attachment E, Condition 37). In addition, optimal function of the detention basin further ensures that safety design features are effective. To ensure appropriate maintenance, the detention basin and immediate vicinity will be inspected by a California Licensed Civil Engineer on an annual basis. The inspection will evaluate the detention basin, weir, and culvert and all findings will be communicated to the City Engineer prior to October 150' of each year (Attachment E, Condition 44). Furthermore, to encourage proper use of the detention basin and associated open space, staff recommends posting an educational sign along the public path, between the basin and creels, explaining the basin function and potential hazards and safety features (Attachment E. Condition 7). It is expected that the combination of basin design, site-specific safety measures, appropriate 15-5 maintenance, and appropriate educational signage will ensure that potential risks and safety hazards are avoided. Provide »tore clarity regarding the slope of the proposed detention basin. Since the January hearing, the applicant has redesigned the basin from the original 2:1 slope design to a gentler 5:1 slope design (Attachment N, Sheet TM -3). The 5:1 slope geometry has now been studied by WEST Consultants, who found the 5:1 slopes maintain the same level of flood protection as found by the 2013 WEST study reviewing 2:1 slopes (Attachment J). The analysis continues to demonstrate that any breakout flow from Corona Creek would be contained in the street and that with development of the subdivision and detention basin all of the annexation area and adjacent existing houses would be removed from the 100 -year floodplain. The project engineer has also prepared a Flood History Exhibit (Attachment K) that pictorially demonstrates the recent flood maps and the flood protection provided by the proposed detention basin. Study poteurtlal for detentim7 basica infiltration to impact neighboring properties. As stated above, the Geotechnical Engineering further reviewed the detention basin, found the basin site soils to be relatively permeable, and recommended installation of a lining on the bottom and interior slopes of the basin to satisfactorily reduce the risk of infiltration (see Attachment 1). The review found that the lining can consist either of a commercially available synthetic lining or a compacted fill lining. In order to maintain a more natural appearance, staff recommends the compacted fill alternative and has specified this requirement in the draft resolution (Attachment E, Condition 37). Clam basin fzmctioa. The proposed detention basin takes peak flows from Corona Creek and temporarily stores this storm water in the detention basin for a 100 -year storm event, which reduces downstream and out of bank flows in Corona Creel: near the project site and in the areas of Andover Way, Mauro Pietro Drive, and Stonehenge Way. Once the storm passes through, the detention basin slowly meters out the stored storm water, at flow rates designed to stay within Corona Creek banks, back into Corona Creek. Construction of the proposed detention basin reduces the flood surface elevations in the Corona Road Subdivision area and within the surrounding existing residential area as shown on the attached exhibit from West Consultants dated May 7, 3014 entitled Corona Subdivision Existing & Proposed Condition Flood Boundary Comparison (Attachment K. pg 8). Coram Creek Clare responsibility mad regularity of creek maintenance. In response to comment received at the January 38th hearing, City staff has continued to coordinate with the Sonoma County Water Agency on the issue of creek maintenance. The County has agreed to maintain this stretch of the Corona Creek, and maintenance work on this section is scheduled for later this summer. Subsequent to this major maintenance work, the County will include Corona Creek in its annual site visits and consider it when preparing their 15- 6 annual list of maintenance job sites. Because the County maintains many other creek and river sections in the City they are well set up to do this work. Tentative Map Add condition for Irrevocable Offer of Dedication at Lot 6. Additional Condition 60 has been added to the draft TSM Resolution (Attachment E). Consider proposed lot size compared to abutting subdivisions. Proposed Lots 25 to 30 are 90 feet deep and vary between 57 and 79 feet wide; these lots back to Mauro Pietro Drive properties that are 100 feet deep and vary between 52 to 75 feet wide. Proposed Lots 10 to 17 are 90 to 96 feet deep and vary between 65 and 72 feet wide; these lots back to Andover Way properties that are 107 to 125 feet deep and vary between 55 to 89 feet wide. While the existing lots are on average perhaps 10 to 15 feet deeper, the width relationship between existing and proposed homes is roughly equivalent. Development of the proposed map and in particular those parcels that are adjacent to existing residential lots was based upon making the width relationship between the existing and proposed parcels feel symmetrical, as this tends to be the relationship that is apparent to residents. The Implementing Zoning Ordinance requires new parcels in the R-2 zoning district to have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, minimum 50 foot lot width, and minimum 70 foot lot depth. Proposed Lots 10 through 31 exceed these standards. Additionally, each house shall be at least 20 feet to the rear yard setback, as specified by the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. Annexation Continue to work with LAFCO As previously discussed, ongoing communication with LAFCO staff have resulted in their recommendation that, as the project proposes no intensification at Corona Road, annexation of Corona Road should not be a condition of annexation and should remain in the County (Attachment H). School Fees Continue effort to understand 1lraugh School District Mello Roos situation Staff conducted additional research into Mello Roos. The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 is a form of financing utilized by cities, counties and special districts (including school districts). The Act allows for the creation of a "Community Facilities District," allowing for the financing of public services and facilities that include schools and libraries. Any real or tangible property which will be owned or operated by a public entity and which has an estimated useful life of five years or more may be constructed, expanded, rehabilitated, or acquired under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act. Mello Roos funds typically replace impact fees paid by the developer; instead of the financial burden being placed on the initial homebuyer as happens with Impact Fees, with Mello Roos that burden is amortized over time until the bond is repaid. IS -7 Staff continued discussions with Waugh District Superintendent -Principal, Robert Cmelak. Mr. Cmelak stated that adding 30 homes to the existing 1,272 parcel Mello Roos District would have an almost negligible impact to the cost paid by the Waugh District constituents. He emphasized that the District schools need carpets, flooring, and painting immediately, and that Development Impact Fee collection at the time of home construction can pay for this improvement work and therefore more readily addresses current needs of the school district. Furthermore, Mr. Cmelak commented that the Waugh District's Mello Roos attorney is expensive and that the associated legal costs of adding 30 new parcels to the existing 1,272 parcel Mello Roos District would be significant in relationship to the funds that 30 new parcels would contribute. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant has worked to respond to items requested by the Planning Commission. Staff is particularly pleased that the LAFCO staffs recommendation is now consistent with City staffs recommendation that annexation of Corona Road is not appropriate. Annexation of Corona Road would: • be inconsistent with Petaluma's General Plan; • be inconsistent the Corona Ely Specific Plan; • be in conflict with the voter approved Urban Growth Boundary; and • necessitate modifications to Corona Road itself that would be in conflict with numerous policies to maintain rural Corona Road, maintain a visual separation at the UGB, and preserve the aesthetic character or frontage roads at the UGB. More detailed analysis is included in the draft resolution (Attachment B) and the previous staff report from the January 28`h Planning Commission meeting (Attachment L, pages 19-21). In their May 12, 2014 letter, LAFCO staff states that upon verifying that no part of Corona Road between Sonoma Mountain roundabout and the City limits at Corona Creek School (a distance of 2/3 of a mile, represented by blue line, see map at right) has been included within City boundaries, annexation of Corona Road along the project frontage is no longer requested because it would create an illogical and disjointed boundary (Attachment H). Staff believes the proposed project modifications and clarifications have responded to the issues brought up at the January 281h bearing and have resulted in refinement and improvement of the overall project. As outlined in greater detail in the January 281h staff report, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, Corona -Ely Specific Plan, and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. t5- 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for public review beginning on November 17, 2013 and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their January 28, 2014 hearing. The Planning Commission requested clarification on several project features, some of which involved CEQA issues, such as the proposed offsite detention basin and the Corona/Ely intersection. As reflected in the above staff discussion, the City requested additional study on a modified detention basin design with a 5:1 slope. In response to the resulting study from WEST Engineering, the applicant revised the proposed basin from a 2:1 slope to a 5:1 slope. As anticipated in the Initial Study/MND, the WEST study confirms that a 5:1 slope continues to provide the same floodplain protection as a 2:1 slope. Additionally, the more gently sloped basin design improves bank stability and reduces the off - haul of material from 81,010 cubic yards to 65,425 cubic yards, which in turn reduces the number of truck trips and related emissions. The Soil Engineering Consultation Report regarding the proposed detention basin (Attachment 1) also took the first step in complying with proposed mitigations GEO-5 and GEO-6 as well as proposed TSM Condition 37 which call for construction level geotechnical and hydrology reports. In accordance with the Mitigation Measures and the Soils Report, the project now incorporates measures to reduce infiltration. No new information was generated for the Corona/Ely intersection; this intersection was among the study intersections in the Initial Study/MND and was analyzed with and without the project under all three scenarios: existing conditions, baseline, and General Plan build out. As reflected in the discussion above, the project will not result in a significant impact on this intersection. None of the project modifications or additional study in response to the January 28th Planning Commission hearing have substantially changed the project description or changed potential impacts or mitigations. The modifications and additional study disclosed no new or more severe significant impacts, and in fact lessened impacts regarding the detention basin redesign utilizing 5:1 slopes. Although additional information and project modifications submitted in response to the Planning Commission direction clarify and amplify information and analysis in the MND the subject modifications do not require modification to the MND or recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. PUBLIC COMMENT The project was continued to a date uncertain. The project was re -noticed with a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing published in the Argus Courier on June 26 and July 10, 2014 and sent to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. As of July 15th, two new written communications have been received (Attachment G) and are summarized below. Liz Borg: Ms. Borg's comments are related to: Y Nmrrow»ess of existing Mauro Pietro Drive and Monica Lane For discussion on these streets, see pages 4 & 5 above. 15- 9 • Concern about the floodplain, particularly how the 2014 FIRM inap shows homes on Stonehenge as newly in the floodplain and requiring flood insurance As outlined in the final paragraph of page 2 above, and as shown on Sheet 8 of Attachment K, after development of the proposed subdivision and construction of the detention basin at a 5:1 slope, all homes along this reach of Corona Creek will be removed from the flood plain. Thus, with the project, flood insurance will not be required. Hui (Harry) Wang: Mr. Wangs comments are those expressed in his previous January 26`' email and are related to: • Existing condition of Mauro Pietro Drive For discussion on the streets, see pages 4 & 5 above. • Water consumption of the new subdivision The site has been within the City's Urban Growth Boundary since 1989 and development of the land and provision of City water has been anticipated by the City since that time. More particularly, as part of the Initial Study, staff compared actual citywide demand for potable water to an annual Sonoma County Water Agency supply limit for Petaluma and found that potable demand is well within available supply, both for this project and for cumulative demand through 2035 as set forth in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. For further detail, see the Initial Study page 75 (Attachment M). • Desire that the subject site be farmland and desire that beautiful farm lands and counh3, houses of Corona Road be preserved The site was once occupied by two small chicken ranches. These uses were abandoned by the 1970s. The land has been designated for residential development since the Corona Ely Specific Plan (CESP) was adopted in 1989. However, one of the key topics of the CESP is to preserve Corona Road as a rural, scenic roadway. The CESP describes Corona Road as locally valued for its picturesque, country qualities and as a narrow road lined with distinctive, overhanging rows of California live oaks and other specimen trees, behind which are scattered country homes and farmsteads. As further detailed on pages 13 and 14 of the January 28a' Staff Report (Attachment L), by incorporating the following design features, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval, the Corona Road Subdivision achieves consistency with applicable CESP policies: • Restoration of the 1900 -era farmhouse at 498 Corona Road/Lot 6 (Mitigation Measure CUL -1); • Preservation of the two palms at Lot 1 and 2 (AES -1); • Preservation of existing healthy trees along the Corona Road right-of-way (BIO -10); • Replacement of undesirable trees with coast live oak and another canopy tree along Corona Road (AES -2); • Large, approximately !/2 -acre lots proposed along Corona Road: • No new driveways or street along Corona Road; • Enhanced Site Plan and Architectural Review findings required at Lots 1 and 2, relating to maintenance of the rural feel of Corona Road for the homes and for outbuildings within 80 feet of Corona Road (AES -3 and Condition 5b); • Pursuant to CESP Policies 33 and 34, fencing within 30 feet of the Corona Road property line (lots 1, 2, and 6) shall be open, rural designs not more than 42 inches in height and 15-10 any future driveway paving shall be limited in width for the first 70 feet from the Corona Road property line (condition 5a); and The Cultural and Historic Evaluation Report found that the proposed subdivision does not pose a threat to the existing historic resource at 498 Corona Road, as new development would be located to the east of the existing historic house and would not hinder views from Corona Road to the farmhouse. The evaluation also found that, as the proposed subdivision preserves the existing 1900 -era farmhouse, retains large lots along Corona Road, and does not introduce new driveways; it would not interfere with the remaining Distinctive Country Homes and Farmsteads along Corona Road. ATTACHMENTS The January 28`h Planning Staff Report and all attachments are available under the Planning Commission/Flistoric and Cultural Preservation Committee heading at: http:Hcityofpetaluma.neUcclerk/archives.html Attachment A: Draft Resolution Recommending Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 1: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment B: Draft Resolution Supporting Application to LAFCO for Annexation Attachment C: Draft Resolution Recommending Pre -Zoning to RI and R2 Attachment D: Draft Resolution Recommending Designation of the House at 498 Corona Road as a Local Historic Landmark Attachment E: Draft Resolution Recommending a 31 -lot Tentative Subdivision Map Attaclunent F: Draft Resolution Recommending Authorization of Detention Basin Construction at Urban Separator Lands Attachment G: Neighborhood Correspondence, emails from Liz Borg and Hui (Harry) Wang - 2014 Attachment H: LAFCO letter, dated May 12, 2014 Attachment I: Soil Engineering Consultation Report regarding the proposed detention basin by Reese & Associates Geotechnical Engineers, dated March 31, 2014 Attachment J: WEST Consultants letter evaluating the hydraulic impact of a basin with 5 to 1 slopes, dated May 7, 2014 (Memo pages 1-8, for Exhibit 1 Map see Sheet 8 of Attachment K) Attachment K: Flood History Exhibit compiled by Steven J. Lafranchi Attachment L: January 28th Planning Coinnission Staff Report Attachment M: Initial Study Attachment N: Full and half -sized Plans dated June 30, 2014 MT "M M, IT I T16 Resolution No. quo N.C.S. of the, City of Petaluma, California 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE 8 LIBERTY FARMS PROJECT - A 45 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 SUBDIVISION ON A 13+ ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE CORONA ELY 10 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 137-060-079) 11 12 WHEREAS, Sonoma Parkway Company filed an application for a Tentative Subdivision 13 Map on April 19, 1994 for a subdivision known as Liberty Farms; and 14 15 - WHEREAS, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for 16 development of the project site have been satisfied through the preparation and 17 Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Corona Ely Specific Plan 18 (certified, approved and adopted by Resolution No. 89-122 N.C.S.) and pursuant to Section 19 15182 of the CEQA guidelines no further environmental review was required; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project on 22 June 28, 1994, at which time the Commission recommended that the City Council 23 conditionally approve the Tentative Subdivision Map; and 24 25 WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 1959 N.C.S. rezoning the 26 Liberty Farms site to Planned Unit District, and Resolution NO. 94-209 N.C.S. approving 27 the Liberty Farms Planned Unit Development Plan. 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Council hereby finds as follows: 30 31 Tentative Subdivision Map Findings: 32 33 1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in general conformity 34 with the provisions of the General Plan designation for the area. 35 36 2. SPARC review of the Planned Unit Development plan to insure compliance with 37 the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and the conditions listed will sufficiently address the 38 need for quality design on the site. 39 1 94-210 Ncs. 1 3. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned is in general conformity 2 with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 4 4. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned is in general conformity 5 with the Subdivision Ordinance. 6 7 5. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned complies with the policies 8 of the Corona/Ely Specific Plan and addresses the relevant mitigation measures 9 identified in the Environmental Impact Report. 10 11 6. The proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA pursuant to 12 Section 15182 of the Guidelines, through preparation and certification of the EIR 13 for the Corona/Ely Specific Plan on May 1st, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-123), which 14 addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of 15 the Liberty Farms parcel, and no further environmental analysis is necessary. 16 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the findings set forth above, that the proposed 18 Liberty Farms Tentative Subdivision Map submitted on June 3, 1994, (attached as Exhibit 19 A) is hereby conditionally approved subject to the conditions set forth and incorporated 20 herein as follows: 21 22 Tentative Subdivision Mau Conditions: 23 24 1. The applicants/developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or 25 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action 26 or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees 27 to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or 28 action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or 29 local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such 30 claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing 31 contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of 32 any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, 33 and the City defends the action in good faith. 34 35 36 Reso. 94-210 NCS 2 « s I Planning Department Conditions: 2 3 2. The following conditions of the Planning Department shall be conditions of 4 Tentative Map approval: 5 6 a. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CL)DMR) from the Federal 7 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall be obtained prior to the 8 issuance of any development permit by the City for any modifications made 9 to a creek channel which change the 100 year floodplain as designated on the 10 City of Petaluma's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Note: "As -Built" 11 improvement plans must be submitted to FEMA to obtain the completed 12 Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) which officially revises the Flood 13 Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 14 15 b. The project will be subject to the following development fees: Sewer and 16 Water Connection, Community Facilities, Storm Drain Impact, Park and 17 Recreation Land Improvement, School Facilities, In -Lieu for provision of 18 Low Income Housing and Traffic Mitigation fees. 19 20 C. The applicant shall submit a notice informing buyers of ongoing agricultural 21 uses on adjacent lots which may impact their property with the Final Map 22 application to be recorded with the Final Map for the project. 23 24 d. Street names shall be subject to review and approval by the street naming 25 committee prior to Final Map approval. 26 27 e. Rear yard elevations on Lots 17 - 24 and side yard elevations of Lots 1 and 25 28 shall be no more than 2' higher or lower than the adjacent development. 29 30 f. If the residential structure located on Lot 45 is within 64' of the right-of-way 31 for Sonoma Mountain Parkway an acoustical analysis showing that the 32 structure meets the City and State (Title 24) noise standard of 45 dBA for all 33 habitable rooms prior to issuance of a building permit. 34 35 g. The need, if any, for the construction of a portion of the privacy wall along 36 the properties Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage shall be determined prior 3 Reso. 94-210 NCS ��-4 1 to the approval of the Final Map. If it is determined that a portion of the 2 privacy wall is necessary, the developer shall be responsible for the 3 installation and cost of said wall. The wall shall be at least six feet high and 4 constructed to the specifications of the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Design 5 Guidelines. 6 7 Engineering Department Conditions: n. 9 3. The following conditions from the Director of Engineering shall be conditions of 10 Tentative Map approval: 11 12 a. The subject property does not presently have adequate access to improved 13 public roads. Therefore, the subdivider shall obtain necessary rights-of-way 14 for dedication to the City and shall construct fully improved public road 15 connections (pavement, curbs, gutters and utilities) to provide necessary 16 access to the site. Said dedication shall occur prior to the approval of the 17 Final Map and construction of improvements shall be completed prior to 18 occupancy of any homes within this subdivision. The following shall be the 19 minimum public access that shall be provided: 20 21 1. An extension of a public road with all appurtenant improvements 22 from Ely Road through the proposed Corona Creek Subdivision 23 (APN 137-060-095) and the construction of the bridge across Corona 24 Creek providing access to Maria Drive; or 25 26 2. An extension of a public road with all appurtenant improvements 27 from Sonoma Mountain Parkway through the proposed Corona Club 28 Subdivision (APN 137-060-077) and the construction of the bridge 29 across Corona Creek with a public road to Maria Drive; or 30 31 3. To allow occupancy of a limited number of new homes (not more than 32 30 homes): a public road with all appurtenant improvements shall be 33 extended from Sonoma Mountain Parkway to this project through the 34 proposed Corona Club Subdivision (APN 137-060-077). 35 4 Reso. 94-210 NCS ��--5 Should it become necessary for the City to become involved in the acquisition of the above rights-of-way, the subdivider shall be responsible for all costs and expenses resulting from this acquisition action. b. The public storm drain proposed on Lots 3 and 16 shall be within a 10 -foot public storm drain easement two feet from the side lot lines. The said easement shall have a turf block surface treatment and a front yard gate which shall provide 24-hour a day access for the City to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. A deed restriction shall be placed on Lots 3 and 16 to restrict any change in the turf blocks and landscaping within the easement. C. The existing 20 -foot utility and roadway easement to Corona Road shall be quit claimed to the respective property owner. d. A public street, including all utilities, shall be extended to provide access to Z� the Chiosi and Matelli properties. This street shall have a 40 -foot right of way, 28 -foot curb to curb width with a sidewalk on the southerly side and be located in the vicinity of Lots 38 and 39. The private storm drain proposed on Lots 38, 39 and 41 of the tentative map shall be installed beneath this public street. The storm drain inlet located at the rear of Lot 41 shall be directed to the north along the subdivision boundary to this public street within a temporary private storm drain easement in favor of the Matelli s property. The temporary storm drain easement shall be quit claimed at such time the Matelli's property develops and provides for the runoff to be directed to a public street. e. The grading and drainage at the rear of Lots 36-41 shall address the historical runoff from the adjacent Matelli and Chiosi properties. A retaining wall shall be constructed at the rear of all lots which do not have the right to overbuild (as shown on the Tentative Map 'Typical Overbuild Detail'). Back yard drains shall be provided to catch the historical run-off from the Chiosi property at the rear of Lots 36 - 39. s 1�-b Reso. 94-210 NCS £ The 8-incb sanitary sewer main, at southerly end of Stonehenge Way which runs through the open space (see Tentative Map) and connects to the existing 10 -inch sewer main along Corona Creek, shall be beneath a 10 -foot paved access path to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. g. A 12 -inch water main shall be installed beneath Stonehenge Way from the Corona Creek Subdivision boundary to the Corona Club Subdivision boundary on Monica Lane. h. The easterly side of Stonehenge Way shall be no parking and "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed. i. Monica Way shall have a stop sign installed at the intersection with Stonehenge/Andover and a "FUTURE STREET EXTENSION" sign shall also be installed at the end. A "FU'T'URE STREET EXTENSION" sign shall be installed at the end of the road to Chiosi and Matelli properties. j. Each phase of construction shall provide adequate infrastructure to serve the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. k. An up to date soils investigation report shall be prepared for this development per Article 7. Soils Report of the Subdivision Map Act. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soil investigation report. 1. Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed. All lots shall drain to the street or drainage shall be collected in a privately owned and maintained storm drain system. To minimize runoff over the sidewalk, utilize under sidewalk drains to catch on-site surface runoff then direct pipes to the street gutters thru curbs, to the City Engineering Department standards and staff review and approval. In. The City of Petaluma Engineering Department "minimum design criteria', "improvement plan preparation", and standard details and specifications shall be utilized to design this development and shall be incorporated into the improvement plans and final map preparation. Reso. 94-210 NCS 6 I -L-7 n. Street lights shall be installed within this development and shall have Corona/Ely standard metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. The street lighting plans shall include electrical line location and service points for this service. o. All grading and erosion control shall conform to the City of Petaluma Erosion Control Ordinance 15.76. P. Water pressure calculations shall be required for each phase of this development verifying the system's adequacy for fire flows and domestic service, said calculations shall be submitted as part of a complete improvement plan and final map review submittal. q. The final map shall show the approximate boundaries of areas subject to inundation in a 100 -year storm per Section 20.24.210 Petaluma Municipal Code. r. Signing and pavement marking plans shall be included with the improvement plans. Fire Department Conditions: 4. The following conditions from the Fire Department shall be conditions of Tentative Map and/or subsequent house development approval: a. In residential buildings less than 3,500 square feet in floor area, provide fire suppression system at normal sources of ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces, water beaters, fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and equipment. b. All roof covering material shall have a Class "B" rating or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. 7 (� o Reso. 94-210 NCS C. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of class 'B", treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32.7, as per Ordinance 1744 of the City of Petaluma. d. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters. e. Project needs secondary access/egress for emergency incidents. f. Required fire flow 2000 GPM at 20 PSI residual pressure. Building Division Conditions: 5. The following conditions from the Fire Department shall be conditions of Tentative Map and/or subsequent house development approval: a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans and will be required for occupancy. b. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). c. Responsible parry to sign plans. d. Submit soils report to verify foundation design. C. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC. Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code. f. Provide structural calculations for all non -conventional design items. g. Demolition permit required to remove any structure. h. Abandonment of water well or septic system must be done under permit from County of Sonoma Public Health Department. s Reso. 94-210 NCS 16-9 Mitigation Measures: 5. The following Mitigation Measure (not addressed by other conditions of PUD or Tentative Subdivision Map approval) adopted with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan shall be conditions of Tentative Map approval: In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. A note to this affect shall be included on the Improvement Plans for the project. libtytsm/hg12 Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the :Approved as to Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (hS$ib+r 3'rlj. 'pc 'I) meetinK on the _a.St._...__..... day of _ .......... .A119D&L.............. _............... 19..9.4.. by the following vote:........ .. ....... City At rney AYES: Read, Hamilton, Shea, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor I-lilligoss NOES: None ASSENT: p .rket'so r ATTEST: ........ ...... .....G',......._......._................... itv Clerk CA 1035 C. dt Q_. .... nn.s. ltV ATTACHMENT 17 w -t ra n s November 7, 2014 Whitlock &Weinberger Tmnspomtion, Inc. Mr. Doyle Heaton 490 Mendocino Avenue DRG Builders Suite 201 3496 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 104 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 voice 707.542.9500 fax 707.542.9590 Peer Review for the 470 and 498 Corona Road Subdivision Project web www..`" trans,conn Dear Mr. Heaton; As requested, we have completed a peer review of the Traffic Study for the Corona Road Residential Development prepared by Dowling Associates (now Kittelson & Associates) and dated February 25, 2011. Following are our comments relative to the traffic study. • The site is located in Traffic Assignment Zone (TAZ) 14. This zone was assumed to have a potential of 36 additional single family dwellings, so would account for the proposal project • The analysis was based on the fitted curve equations rather than average trip generation rates. For this use and number of units, this resulted in a conservative approach. • The analysis, which is based on data obtained from the City's model, appears to be reasonable. In fact, in some instances it is likely conservative as the capacity -adding right -turn overlaps were not included in the phasing on northbound Petaluma Boulevard North at Corona Road or the eastbound and westbound Corona Road approaches to North McDowell Boulevard. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about this information. Thank you for allowing us to provide these services. Sincerely, qq i / n 9 t"C Dalene J. WhiN ck, PE, PTOE Principal DJW/PETI94.LI.wpd Copy to: Mr. Steve Lafranchi (via email) 17-1 October 29, 2014 Petaluma City Council Members 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 Re: Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision —11/17/2014 Agenda Item ACCESS ISSUE: Request for Modification of Access to the proposed New Corona Road Subdivision SAFETY ISSUE: Request for an Emergency Vehicle Access to New Subdivision CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: Request for Alternate Route for Construction Sent via email: Dear Council Members, We would like to address the following issues for your review and consideration for the upcoming City Council meeting on November 17, 2014, that have been approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission earlier this year. ACCESS ISSUE: The new Corona Subdivision proposes ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT VIA A 28 -FOOT WIDE ROAD THROUGH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. This access should be moved, or additional access provided. The City is considering annexation of the proposed 10 -acre Corona Subdivision, adjacent to the southeast side of Corona Road and is currently planned for 31 new homes. The ONLY MEANS OF ACCESS PROPOSED is via Monica Lane, a 28 -foot wide road connecting to Andover Way and then via Kensington Way and York Way to Ely Road North, to the north, or via Mauro Pietro Drive to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. These subdivision roads are 28-32 feet wide, and are already very congested due to on street parking, which currently makes it impossible for opposing cars to pass one another. The addition of another 350 cars per day (Traffic Study) through the adjacent neighborhoods will only make this worse. SAFETY ISSUE: There is NO ALTERNATE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) for the New Subdivision in the event the narrow, congested Monica Lane access is blocked, despite the New Subdivision being immediately adjacent to Corona Road, a major road. While we understand that an alternate EVA is not necessarily required for the New Subdivision, the congestion narrowness and difficulty of the Monica Lane access (5 ninety -degree turns to access Ely Road North, and 5 ninety -degree turns to access Sonoma Mountain Parkway) strongly support establishment of primary or alternate access directly from Corona Road. The heavy equipment currently being used in site preparation work uses the Corona Road access CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: The current construction heavy equipment route: : UNNECCESARILY INTERFERES WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRAFFIC; * IMPEDES THE RESIDENTS ALONG HARTMAN LANE AND REISLING ROAD; AND * PRESENTS A DANGER TO STUDENTS who walk or bike to school. Allowing the current route (Riesling to Hartman) imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden on existing residents and presents an unnecessary danger to schoolchildren when a much less dangerous route is readily available. The following is a discussion of the issues as stated above. As proposed there is only one way in and one way out from a 28 -foot wide road (Monica Lane). The surrounding property owners do not support the proposed design for the following reasons: • The biggest concern is from the residents, including us, along Mauro Pietro Drive, which is already congested with parked vehicles making it impossible for two opposing vehicles to continue on their respective trajectory without one vehicle pulling over. e Mauro Pietro Drive is only 32 feet wide with two sweeping 90 -degree turns. • There are three sharp 90 -degree turns within a span of 200 feet from Monica Lane onto Andover Way leading to Mauro Pietro Drive. • This entire traffic situation will be made worse by adding 350 car trips a day. At the Planning Commission Meeting in January 2014, the proposal was rejected and the developer was asked to revise a number of items. The developer resubmitted a slightly revised proposal in July. During the July 2014 meeting, even with most of the requested changes made, all 6 of the commissioners at the meeting agreed that the Issue of only one point of entrance and exit was a "BAD IDEA" since the traffic on Mauro Pietro Drive is already a hazard. However, the item passed with a 4 to 2 vote (one commissioner was absent) and the item was approved to go to City Council. The two commissioners who voted against the development requested that the city staff and the developer go back and work out a solution for a second point of access along Corona Road. There are some issues to be resolved, however, there are solutions, such as; 1. The City can work with the county to get a variance to allow one of the existing driveways to be used as a street entrance/exit onto Corona Road. There are currently four driveways and per the current plan, one of the driveways will be used for the bike path (to a dangerously congested road with no connecting bike path or designated lane) this driveway could be used as ingress and egress onto Corona Road. NOTE; Per City Ordinance 1046 New Charter Series (NCS) Section 1 (part); 1972: prior code Section 22.7.501. "Whenever a subdivision fronts on a designated arterial, • it sholl be included in said tract and shall be plotted by the subdivider in the location indicated." 2. The City can work with the County on an agreement that the City will endeavor to change the Urban Growth Boundary in 2025 to include Corona Road. The City could annex Corona Road then. 18-L 3. The City can work with the County to maintain the "Rural Feel" of Corona Road and have the developer only make minimal improvements to the road to allow the additional ingress and egress on the road. 4. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. S. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way "Round - About" intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 6. The developer can charge the cost of the necessary road improvements to the new homeowners. 7. The City can continue working with the County staff to develop a joint plan to be submitted to LAFCO for the annexation of the 10 acres with an entrance/exit from the new subdivision onto Corona Road. Typically, LAFCO would require the City to annex Corona Road as part of the subdivision, but because of the Urban Growth Boundary, the City cannot annex the road until 2025. 8. Redesign the development to allow residents to enter the subdivision from NE bound Corona Road similar to the entrance off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the new Avila Ranch Subdivision and exit from Monica Lane or visa versa, substantially reducing traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. In recent months City Council has approved 4 new subdivisions (3 on the east side Yarberry Lane Subdivision, North McDowell Commons and Avila Ranch Subdivision and one on the west side of town, Riverfront Mixed Use Development). All four of these new developments have two points of access. These designs took into account the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods; they are reasonable well- planned developments for our city. Approving this plan as proposed goes against everything the council is purporting to do to improve the traffic in our city and sets a dangerous precedent for future residential developments. "The City of Petaluma continues to provide proactive traffic enforcement of collision causing vehicle code violations while at the same time working with traffic engineers to implement effective traffic engineering solutions. These efforts were balanced with a strong public awareness and education campaign with a clear mission to improve safety on the streets of Petaluma. The annual review assists police managers, enforcement officers, engineers, and City policy makers in identifying collision trends and locations so that enforcement, engineering, and education solutions and resources can be used to reduce traffic crashes and improve safety." 2012 Petaluma Traffic Safety Report - March 7, 2013 CONSTRUCTION: The construction route as proposed will have large trucks driving daily past the school, and although the hours have been limited to between 9 am and 2 pm, the route should be re-evaluated. During both Planning Commission meetings, numerous residents expressed their concerns about the safety of the children attending Corona Creek School during the construction of the detention basin. Attached for your review are two proposed routes that would avoid the front of the school. One route would require the developer to make arrangements with a private property owner to use their road. The other option would reroute the trucks through Fieldstone Lane on to Ely Road. The contractor would be able to work full days allowing them to decrease the number of days needed for construction of the basin; this should result in a significant savings to the developer. We are respectfully requesting that the City Council: 1. Require the developer to continue working with City staff and the county to reach an agreed upon plan for a second access point into and out of the new subdivision that will work for all parties; 2. Require the developer to include an EVA in the development; 3. Require the developer to re-evaluate the truck route during the construction of the detention basin. Sincerely/�C� -� e/l--Pe Helen and Ron Childs 1541 Mauro Pietro Dr. Petaluma, CA 94954 Ig -4 October 31, 2014 Petaluma City Council Members 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 Re: Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision 12/1/14 Agenda Item ACCESS ISSUE: Request for Modification of Access to the proposed New Corona Road Subdivision --- Sent via email: Dear Council Members, I am writing to you to express my deep concerns over the development of Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision. I reside on Mauro Pietro Drive and am firmly against this development in its current plan. During the July 2014 meeting, even with most of the requested changes made, all 6 of the commissioners at the meeting agreed that the issue of only one point of entrance and exit was a "BAD IDEA" since the traffic on Mauro Pietro Drive is already a hazard. However, the item passed with a 4 to 2 vote (one commissioner was absent) and the item was approved to go to City Council. I ask how on earth this was passed with everyone in agreement that this is a bad idea. Mauro Pietro is a narrow street with small children in many of the homes. We already have issues with speeding cars and property damage from speeding cars losing control as they come around the corner. The City is considering annexation of the proposed 10 -acre Corona Subdivision, adjacent to the southeast side of Corona Road and is currently planned for 31 new homes. The ONLY MEANS OF ACCESS PROPOSED is via Monica Lane a 28 -foot wide road connecting to Andover Way and then via Kensington Way and York Way to Ely Road North, to the north, or via Mauro Pietro Drive to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. These subdivision roads are 28-32 feet wide, and are already very congested due to on street parking, which currently makes it impossible for opposing cars to pass one another. The addition of another 350 cars per day (Traffic Study) through the adjacent neighborhoods will only make this worse. As proposed there is only one way in and one way out from a 28 -foot wide road (Monica Lane). The surrounding property owners do not support the proposed design forthe following reasons: • Mauro Pietro Drive, is already congested with parked vehicles making it impossible for two opposing vehicles to continue on their respective trajectory without one vehicle pulling over. • Mauro Pietro Drive is only 32 feet wide with two sweeping 90 -degree turns. • There are three sharp 90 -degree turns within a span of 200 feet from Monica Lane onto Andover Way leading to Mauro Pietro Drive. • This entire traffic situation will be made worse by adding 350 cartrips a day. At the Planning Commission Meeting in January 2014, the proposal was rejected and the developer was asked to revise a number of items. The developer resubmitted a slightly revised proposal in July. The two commissioners who voted against the development requested that the city staff and the developer go back and work out a solution for a second point of access along Corona Road. There are some issues to be resolved; however, there are solutions, such as; 1. The City can work with the county to get a variance to allow one of the existing driveways to be used as a street entrance/exit onto Corona Road. There are currently four driveways and per the current plan, one of the driveways will be used for the bike path (to a dangerously congested road with no connecting bike path or designated lane) this driveway could be used as ingress and egress onto Corona Road. NOTE: Per City Ordinance 1046 New Charter Series (NCS) Section 1 (part); 1972: prior code Section 22.7.501. "Whenever a subdivision fronts on a designated arterial; it shall be included in said tract and shall be platted by the subdivider in the location indicated." 2. The City can work with the County on an agreement that the City will endeavor to change the Urban Growth Boundary in 2025 to include Corona Road. The City could annex Corona Road then. 3. The City can work with the County to maintain the "Rural Feel" of Corona Road and have the developer only make minimal improvements to the road to allow the additional ingress and egress on the road. 4. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 5. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way "Round - About" intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 6. The developer can charge the cost of the necessary road improvements to the new homeowners. 7. The City can continue working with the County staff to develop a joint plan to be submitted to LAFCO for the annexation of the 10 acres with an entrance/exit from the new subdivision onto Corona Road. Typically, LAFCO would require the City to annex Corona Road as part of the subdivision, but because of the Urban Growth Boundary, the City cannot annex the road until 2025. 8. Redesign the development to allow residents to enter the subdivision from NE bound Corona Road similar to the entrance off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the new Avila Ranch Subdivision and exit from Monica Lane or visa versa, substantially reducing traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. Approving this plan as proposed goes against everything the council is purporting to do to improve the traffic in our city and sets a dangerous precedent for future residential developments. "The City of Petaluma continues to provide proactive traffic enforcement of collision causing vehicle code violations while at the same time working with traffic engineers to implement effective traffic engineering solutions. These efforts were balanced with a strong public awareness and education campaign with a clear mission to improve safety on the streets of Petaluma. The annual review assists police managers, enforcement officers, engineers, and City policy makers in identifying collision trends and locations so that enforcement, engineering, and education solutions and resources can be used to reduce traffic crashes and improve safety." 2012 Petaluma Traffic Safety Report - March 7, 2013 I respectfully request that the City Council require the developer to continue working with City staff and the county to reach an agreed upon plan for a second access point into and out of the new subdivision that will work for all parties. - - Sincerely, Diane Olson 1529 Mauro Pietro Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 ►b-1 November 17. 2014 Petaluma City Council Members 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 Re: Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision — December, 2014 Agenda Item ACCESS ISSUE: Request for Modification of Access to the proposed New Corona Road Subdivision SAFETY ISSUE: Request for an Emergency Vehicle Access to New Subdivision CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: Request for Alternate Route for Construction Dear Council Members, We would like to address the following issues for your review and consideration for the upcoming City Council meeting in December, 2014, that have been approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission earlier this year. ACCESS ISSUE: The new Corona Subdivision proposes ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT VIA A 28 -FOOT WIDE ROAD THROUGH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. This access should be moved, or additional access provided. The City is considering annexation of the proposed 10 -acre Corona Subdivision, adjacent to the southeast side of Corona Road and is currently planned for 31 new homes. The ONLY MEANS OF ACCESS PROPOSED is via Monica Lane a 28 -foot wide road connecting to Andover Way and then via Kensington Way and York Way to Ely Road North, to the north, or via Mauro Pietro Drive to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. These subdivision roads are 28-32 feet wide, and are already very congested due to on street parking, which currently makes it impossible for opposing cars to pass one another. The addition of another 350 cars per day (Traffic Study) through the adjacent neighborhoods will only make this worse. SAFETY ISSUE: There is NO ALTERNATE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) for the New Subdivision in the event the narrow, congested Monica Lane access is blocked, despite the New Subdivision being immediately adjacent to Corona Road, a major road. While we understand that an alternate EVA is not necessarily required for the New Subdivision, the congestion narrowness and difficulty of the Monica Lane access (5 ninety -degree turns to access Ely Road North, and 5 ninety -degree turns to access Sonoma Mountain Parkway) strongly support establishment of primary or alternate access directly from Corona Road. The heavy equipment currently being used in site preparation work uses the Corona Road access. lb -b The following is a discussion of the issues as stated above. As proposed there is only one way in and one way out from a 28 -foot wide road (Monica Lane). The surrounding property owners do not support the proposed design for the following reasons: • The biggest concern is from the residents along Mauro Pietro Drive, which is already congested with parked vehicles making it impossible for two opposing vehicles to continue on their respective trajectory without one vehicle pulling over. • Mauro Pietro Drive is only 32 feet wide with iwo sweeping 90 -degree turns. • There are three sharp 90 -degree turns within a span of 200 feet from Monica Lane onto Andover Way leading to Mauro Pietro Drive. • This entire traffic situation will be made worse by adding 350 car trips a day. At the Planning Commission Meeting in January 2014, the proposal was rejected and the developer was asked to revise a number of items. The developer resubmitted a slightly revised proposal in July. During the July 2014 meeting, even with most of the requested changes made, all 6 of the commissioners at the meeting agreed that the issue of only one point of entrance and exit was a "BAD IDEA" since the traffic on Mauro Pietro Drive is already a hazard. However, the item passed with a 4 to 2 vote (one commissioner was absent) and the item was approved to go to City Council. The two commissioners who voted against the development requested that the city staff and the developer go back and work out a solution for a second point of access along Corona Road. There are some issues to be resolved, however, there are solutions, such as; 1. The City can work with the county to get a variance to allow one of the existing driveways to be used as a street entrance/exit onto Corona Road. There are currently four driveways and per the current plan, one of the driveways will be used for the bike path (to a dangerously congested road with no connecting bike path or designated lane) this driveway could be used as ingress and egress onto Corona Road. NOTE: Per City Ordinance 1046 New Charter Series (NCS) Section 1 (part); 1972: prior code Section 22.7.501. "Whenever a subdivision fronts on a designated arterial; it shall be included in said tract and shall be platted by the sub divider in the location indicated." 2. The City can work with the County on an agreement that the City will endeavor to change. the Urban Growth Boundary in 2025 to include Corona Road. The City could annex Corona Road then. 3. The City can work with the County to maintain the "Rural Feel" of Corona Road and have the developer only make minimal improvements to the road to allow the additional ingress and egress on the road. 4. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 5. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way "Round - About" intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 6. The developer can charge the cost of the necessary road improvements to the new homeowners. I b -A 7. The City can continue working with the County staff to develop a joint plan to be submitted to LAFCO for the annexation of the 10 acres with an entrance/exit from the new subdivision onto Corona Road. Typically, LAFCO would require the City to annex Corona Road as part of the subdivision, but because of the Urban Growth Boundary, the City cannot annex the road until 2025. 8. Redesign the development to allow residents to enter the subdivision from NE bound Corona Road similar to the entrance off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the new Avila Ranch Subdivision and exit from Monica Lane or visa versa, substantially reducing traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. In recent months City Council has approved 4 new subdivisions (3 on the east side Yarberry Lane Subdivision, North McDowell Commons and Avila Ranch Subdivision and one on the west side of town, Riverfront Mixed Use Development). All four of these new developments have two points of access. These designs took into account the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods; they are reasonable well- planned developments for our city. Approving this plan as proposed goes against everything the council is purporting to do to improve the traffic in our city and sets a dangerous precedent for future residential developments. "The City of Petaluma continues to provide proactive traffic enforcement of collision causing vehicle code violations while at the same time working with traffic engineers to implement effective traffic engineering solutions. These efforts were balanced with a strong public awareness and education campaign with a clear mission to improve safety on the streets of Petaluma. The annual review assists police managers, enforcement officers, engineers, and City policy makers in identifying collision trends and locations so that enforcement, engineering, and education solutions and resources can be used to reduce traffic crashes and improve safety." 2012 Petaluma Traffic Safety Report - March 7, 2013 We are respectfully requesting that the City Council: 1. Require the developer to continue working with City staff and the county to reach an agreed upon plan for a second access point into and out of the new subdivision that will work for all parties; 2. Require the developer to include an EVA in the development; Sincerely, Robert and Carol Russell 1616 Andover Way Petaluma, CA 94954 F f ; A �� y (e-io November 20, 2014 Petaluma City Council Members 11 English Street Petaluma, California 94952 Re: Corona Road Annexation and Subdivision —12/15/2014 Agenda Item ACCESS ISSUE: Request for Modification of Access to the proposed New Corona Road Subdivision SAFETY ISSUE: Request for an Emergency Vehicle Access to New Subdivision CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: Request for Alternate Route for Construction Sent via email: Dear Council Members, We would like to address the following issues for your review and consideration for the upcoming City Council meeting on December 15, 2014, that have been approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission earlier this year. ACCESS ISSUE: The new Corona Subdivision proposes ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT VIA A 28 -FOOT WIDE ROAD THROUGH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. This access should be moved, or additional access provided. The City is considering annexation of the proposed 10 -acre Corona Subdivision, adjacent to the southeast side of Corona Road and is currently planned for 31 new homes. The ONLY MEANS OF ACCESS PROPOSED is via Monica Lane a 28 -foot wide road connecting to Andover Way and then via Kensington Way and York Way to Ely Road North, to the north, or via Mauro Pietro Drive to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. These subdivision roads are 28-32 feet wide, and are already very congested due to on street parking, which currently makes it impossible for opposing cars to pass one another. The addition of another 350 cars per day (Traffic Study) through the adjacent neighborhoods will only make this worse. SAFETY ISSUE: There is NO ALTERNATE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS (EVA) for the New Subdivision in the event the narrow, congested Monica Lane access is blocked, despite the New Subdivision being immediately adjacent to Corona Road, a major road. While we understand that an alternate EVA is not necessarily required for the New Subdivision, the congestion, narrowness and difficulty of the Monica Lane access (5 ninety -degree turns to access Ely Road North, and 5 ninety -degree turns to access Sonoma Mountain Parkway) strongly support establishment of primary or alternate access directly from Corona Road. The heavy equipment currently being used in site preparation work uses the Corona Road access. CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: The current construction heavy equipment route: * UNNECCESARILY INTERFERES WITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRAFFIC; * IMPEDES THE RESIDENTS ALONG HARTMAN LANE AND REISLING ROAD; AND 18-1 * PRESENTS A DANGER TO STUDENTS who walk or bike to school. Allowing the current route (Riesling to Hartman) imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden on existing residents and presents an unnecessary danger to schoolchildren when a much less dangerous route is readily available. The following is a discussion of the issues as stated above. As proposed there is only one way in and one way out from a 28 -foot wide road (Monica Lane). The surrounding property owners do not support the proposed design for the following reasons: • The biggest concern is from the residents along Mauro Pietro Drive, which is already congested with parked vehicles making it impossible for two opposing vehicles to continue on their respective trajectory without one vehicle pulling over. • Mauro Pietro Drive is only 32 feet wide with two sweeping 90 -degree turns. • There are three sharp 90 -degree turns within a span of 200 feet from Monica Lane onto Andover Way leading to Mauro Pietro Drive. • This entire traffic situation will be made worse by adding 350 car trips a day. At the Planning Commission Meeting in January 2014, the proposal was rejected and the developer was asked to revise a number of items. The developer resubmitted a slightly revised proposal in July. During the July 2014 meeting, even with most of the requested changes made, all 6 of the commissioners at the meeting agreed that the issue of only one point of entrance and exit was a 'BAD IDEA" since the traffic on Mauro Pietro Drive is already a hazard. However, the item passed with a 4 to 2 vote (one commissioner was absent) and the item was approved to go to City Council. The two commissioners who voted against the development requested that the city staff and the developer go back and work out a solution for a second point of access along Corona Road. There are some issues to be resolved, however, there are solutions, such as; 1. The City can work with the county to get a variance to allow one of the existing driveways to be used as a street entrance/exit onto Corona Road. There are currently four driveways and per the current plan, one of the driveways will be used for the bike path (to a dangerously congested road with no connecting bike path or designated lane) this driveway could be used as ingress and egress onto Corona Road. NOTE: Per City Ordinance 1046 New Charter Series (NCS) Section 1 (part); 1972: prior code Section 22.7.501. "Whenever a subdivision fronts on a designated arterial- it shall be included in said tract and shall be platted by the subdivider in the location indicated." 2. The City can work with the County on an agreement that the City will endeavor to change the Urban Growth Boundary in 2025 to include Corona Road. The City could annex Corona Road then. I b-1 I 3. The City can work with the County to maintain the "Rural Feel" of Corona Road and have the developer only make minimal improvements to the road to allow the additional ingress and egress on the road. 4. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 5. The City can work with the County and the developer to design and install a three-way "Round - About" intersection on Corona Road to allow the additional ingress and egress into and out of the new subdivision with one of the existing driveways already approved as the bike path. 6. The developer can charge the cost of the necessary road improvements to the new homeowners. 7. The City can continue working with the County staff to develop a joint plan to be submitted to LAFCO for the annexation of the 10 acres with an entrance/exit from the new subdivision onto Corona Road. Typically, LAFCO would require the City to annex Corona Road as part of the subdivision, but because of the Urban Growth Boundary, the City cannot annex the road until 2025. 8. Redesign the development to allow residents to enter the subdivision from NE bound Corona Road similar to the entrance off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the new Avila Ranch Subdivision and exit from Monica Lane or visa versa, substantially reducing traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. In recent months City Council has approved 4 new subdivisions (3 on the east side Yarberry Lane Subdivision, North McDowell Commons and Avila Ranch Subdivision and one on the west side of town, Riverfront Mixed Use Development). All four of these new developments have two points of access. These designs took into account the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods; they are reasonable well- planned developments for our city. Approving this plan as proposed goes against everything the council is purporting to do to improve the traffic in our city and sets a dangerous precedent for future residential developments. 'The City of Petaluma continues to provide proactive traffic enforcement of collision causing vehicle code violations while at the same time working with traffic engineers to implement effective traffic engineering solutions. These efforts were balanced with a strong public awareness and education campaign with a clear mission to improve safety on the streets of Petaluma. The annual review assists police managers, enforcement officers, engineers, and City policy makers in identifying collision trends and locations so that enforcement, engineering, and education solutions and resources can be used to reduce traffic crashes and improve safety." 2012 Petaluma Traffic Safety Report - March 7, 2013 l b- [1 CONSTRUCTION: The construction route as proposed will have large trucks driving daily past the school, and although the hours have been limited to between 9 am and 2 pm, the route should be re-evaluated. During both Planning Commission meetings, numerous residents expressed their concerns about the safety of the children attending Corona Creek School during the construction of the detention basin. Attached for your review are two proposed routes that would avoid the front of the school. One route would require the developer to make arrangements with a private property owner to use their road. The other option would reroute the trucks through Fieldstone Lane on to Ely Road. The contractor would be able to work full days allowing them to decrease the number of days needed for construction of the basin; this should result in a significant savings to the developer. We are respectfully requesting that the City Council: 1. Require the developer to continue working with City staff and the county to reach an agreed upon plan for a second access point into and out of the new subdivision that will work for all parties; 2. Require the developer to include an EVA in the development; 3. Require the developer to re-evaluate the truck route during the construction of the detention basin. Sincerely, Patrick and Marianne Bentivegna 1554 Mauro Pietro Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 1s-(4- Robbe, Tiffany From: Keith <cageyobusiness@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:09 AM To: Robbe, Tiffany Cc: Keith; councilman.albertson@gmail.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; mayordavidglass@gmail.com; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; councilmemberkearney@me.com; kathleencmilleroffice@gmail.com Subject: Corona Road Subdivision The traffic access to this project is bad joke. Who would approve funneling traffic for almost the entirety of this development through neighborhoods with marginally adequate access as it is? Have any of you driven down Mauro Pietro in the evening when the residents are home and all parked on the street? Two cars can not easily pass when meeting head on. Sometimes I wonder if planning folks are so mired in environmental baloney like how many trees you are going to cut down, and impressed with the builder's willingness to keep a useless ca. 1900 house that you lose sight of the cost to surrounding residents in damage to the quality of day-to-day life. If you care one hoot about protecting the quality of life of residents that are already here, you'll send DELCO (or whoever it is) back to the drawing board to re -plan this disaster. Keith Olenick 1636 Andover Way IEI-(5 From: Pat Ransel Finailto:piransel(a>gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:27 PM To: - City Clerk Subject: FW: Proposed Corona Creek Development From: Pat Ransel Finailto:piransel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:15 PM To: councilmemberkearney(o)me.com; councilmanalbertson(@gmail.com; mthealy(d)sbcglobal.net; kathleencmillerofficeCabgmail.com; citvclerkCaboetaluma.ca.us Subject: Proposed Corona Creek Development Dear Petaluma City Council Members, We moved from Pennsylvania and purchased a home in the Liberty Farms section of Petaluma two years ago. It was a major adjustment leaving seven acres and now having just a small yard. However we thought we found the perfect home (1605 Stonehenge Way) - a corner lot with green space across the road, only one street behind us and then flooded land that was in the county which would limit growth. Now, the developer who built Liberty Farm homes has asked Petaluma City Council to annex the property so he can construct 28 homes (instead of the 6 or 7 the county would have allowed). Because of the high water table and low elevation this field serves as a detention basin during the winter. Houses along Andover way have a horrible time with "water creep". One home owner removed all flooring, lives with a stained concrete floor and experiences "water gushers" that have to be plugged. One can only imagine the mold growing in the walls as the plate and wall studs continue to absorb the moisture. Currently this land is a "lake" during the winter and home to many ducks and geese. The developer plans to build a detention pond 2 mile away and use 5,700 cubic yards of that fill to cover the high water table in this field. 5,700 cubic yards of fill converts to 1,151,251.9 gallons of water. All of this water plus what was normally absorbed is expected to enter Corona Creek via a SINGLE 24 -inch - drain pipe. The planned detention basin Z mile away will not collect one drop of water from the proposed development. 1�,- IL 2 Corona Creek is currently so overgrown its capacity is probably only half of what it should be. We were told that in 2006 when the creek had much less sediment and vegetation that the water flooded the street and was in the yards of homes on Stonehenge Way. Imagine what will happen during a heavy rain when the water cannot enter the creek and backs up through the culverts. A neighbor, Steve Giraud, sent a letter covering the dangers of the traffic situation in the area. Our home is directly across from the stop sign at Mario Pietro so every car that stops has its head lights shining in my bedroom window at night. We are not looking forward to more traffic. We are not trying to stop this development. We would like to see a "Smart Development Plan" that includes the detention basin on the proposed development property. This would help alleviate flooding for the current residents as well as the new homes. We respectfully ask that you send this back to the planning commission recommending fewer houses, an on-site detention basin and play area for children. These changes would help alleviate the flooding and traffic issues and keep kids off the streets. Paul and Pat Ransel 707-658-2883 F7 lt-k1 ' .LP 2 9 2014 AVO Council Members Sept. 28, 2014 Our planning commission recommended annexation of the water pond in the county, bound on the north by our UGB, & Corona Road. This unused fallow land was the lowest part of the large original flood zone. 20 years ago that flood zone was filled to make building sites, for over 150 homes. The meandering Corona Creek was also reshaped into an effective drainage canal, sending its collected water to our river. Over the years, mother -nature has re -planted the creek with cattails and trees. Now it ce effective drainage canal is no more. It can no longer send all of its water to the river. Instea ra t cZ lates on our streets, and lawns heading for the doors. This hasn't escaped FEMA's notice. An area along the creek, extending past Telford, is a flood zone. The proposed building site, in a water pond, is about 3@ERv50f&1VjFEMA's flood zone, and the creek. This is an added threat to a 20 year old neighborhood. The Developer Delco, plans to use fill to elevatetjplmgm ft B d with a high water table. By doing this, it displaces the stored rain -water into FEMA's flood zone. orse ye , s new houses add a hardscape of roof, roads, driveways and patios, to send even more storm water the short distance, taking about 30 seconds before it would add to the flood waters. For our flood zone residents, this is disaster waiting to happen. During a localized downpour, Delco's claim that a detention pond 2000' away, will avoid this scenario, but is without merit. They have overlooked the 'time lag', a technical term. That means the new'volume' of water 'en -route' to the overloaded creek, needs the same 'volume' of water removed from creek, and also that 'volume' must arrive on time to accept the new'en-route' water. If it arrives too late, the flooding has made its mess. Clearly it takes less time for water to travel 300', than the 'volume' created', to travel 2000'. The difference is 'time lag'. This factor is easily overlooked, but it dogs many decisions. That's why Petaluma has a stated policy, calling for on-site detention in flood zones. For the past 20 years, Corona Creek has been re -naturalizing. It is now overgrown with cattails. That is why we now have flooding. The county water agency acknowledges this, and offers no near term solution. County says cutting cattails, is useless. They grow back even stronger next spring. They also say, the growing willow trees will in -time shade out the cattails. So for the next 5 - 10 years or so, there will be an on-going flood threat. It suggests a status quo. More building, especially by destroying a detention pond, and knowing about all the problems with the creek, exposes Petaluma to gross negligence and liability claims. One must never forget that a city dealing with litigation and its consequences, is waste of tax money. It is even worse, when citizens feel compelled to sue their own city. Please be very cautious with these hot button issues. Send this plan back Planning for a much more detailed review. Recommend they listen to earlier citizens comments, and dig into more details. Delco knows it can proceed always proceed with plans per County standards. When Planning re-examines the applicant's plans, they must not overlook the water migration problems that heavily impact at least 10 homes that back up to the pond. For the past 20 years, the problem has been impossible to fix. I believe it's the hydrostatic pressure, caused by the high water table that exists thru-out the entire former flood zone. One can extrapolate that unless a home is built on pylons, so floors have an air space under them, water migration will be their future, lust by visiting the existing homes that are afflicted, one sees the evidence in the backyards. If ever built, these 31 homes are landlocked, accessed only by a narrow 28' Monica Lane. It's like one of our trailer parks. To actually see how close cars must pass each other, I staged a 'photo op' using an 8' wide truck, legally parked, with other cars parked on one side, as planned. True, cars going in and out, can squeeze past on another, but on a regular basis it would get irksome, very quickly. Also think about the terror, if unhappily there were a house fire, with no other road out. Mauro Prieto has become a short cut link between Ely Rd. to the Traffic Circle for residents, and many driver living on the east side. Built 32' width, with 2 blind curves, and parking on both side, it is worse than just a tight squeeze. To many residents, it is unsafe especially in the blind curves. Many drivers often are forced to violate the center divider. Adding more cars, by adding more residents, only makes this bad situation more unsafe. Like Monica Lane, 1 staged a photo op showing an 8' wide truck, trying to get thru the blind curve section with cars parked on both sides. The photo shows what residents experience regularly. Its truly unsafe. qq��43 ng a =' Without exception, 150 homeowner are against this annexation. Hank Flum 1721 Stonehenge Way SEP 2 9 2014 : r �' CITY MA€!ACir_P G Robbe, Tiffany From: Mark Tomlinson <mark_a_tomlinson@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 21, 20141:21 PM To: Robbe, Tiffany Subject: Will not be present for next drainage basin PC mtg Hi Tiffany, I see it got shifted again and I won't be around. Anyway, if it comes up, I, and others remain interested in helping with the design of the detention basin. We're really thinking it could be a nice asset with minimal cost, if any, if planned up front. We're ready and willing. Thanks for the creek help. I spoke to the guys who wished they had more time. It probably needs ore work to clear the channel, but everything done so far is appreciated. Garbage remains an issue now the schools are in full swing and I can only pick up so much. Shame the JH doesn't feel even slightly responsible and could do a good deed by adopting it... Cheers, Mark [�-21 November 11, 2014 City of Petaluma, Planning Division 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: File #9 -TSM -0344, 470 and 498 Corona Road Dear City of Petaluma: We are writing to address the project and, in particular, your consideration of a mitigated negative declaration for the project. We believe this project presents no impacts to our neighborhood that require further analysis and that a negative declaration should be adopted. This is a long overdue infill project that will bring needed additional property taxes, as well as other revenue to the City of Petaluma. Please adopt the negative declaration and please expeditiously act to approve the project. cerely, 1 � David and Karen Corkill 804 Corona Road Petaluma, CA 94954 1 � -2Z